Big Food's Big Tobacco moment: Arianna Huffington
We are entering Big Food's Big Tobacco moment. The fight to hold tobacco companies responsible for the deadly health effects and associated health-care costs of their products took decades, culminating in the 1998 $206 billion settlement with 46 states and reforms like a ban on marketing cigarettes to young people. In the '60s, when free sampler packs of cigarettes were given out to high schoolers, 42% of American adults smoked. Today that number is 12%.
Is that where Big Food is headed with ultra-processed foods, artificial dyes, and sugary beverages? We're actually further along in that process than many might think. Forces for change are converging across the political, legal, and cultural landscape—and we have the example of the fight against Big Tobacco to draw on.
In December, a landmark, first-of-its-kind lawsuit was filed in Philadelphia on behalf of a teenager alleging that consuming ultra-processed foods led to him developing fatty liver disease and Type 2 diabetes. Among the 11 companies named in the lawsuit are General Mills, Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and Kellogg's. Ultra-processed foods 'are alien to prior human experience,' the 148-page complaint reads. 'They are inventions of modern industrial technology and contain little to no whole food…The explosion and ensuing rise in UPFs in the 1980s was accompanied by an explosion in obesity, diabetes, and other life-changing chronic illnesses.'
The lawsuit goes on to make an explicit tie between Big Food and the rise of UPFs and Big Tobacco, arguing that food manufacturers are 'using the same master playbook.'
The connection is more than metaphorical. In the 1980s, tobacco companies Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds bought Kraft, General Foods, and Nabisco. In the early 2000s, the food companies were spun off, 'but not before leaving a lasting legacy on the foods that we eat,' as Anahad O'Connor put it in The Washington Post.
That's because, as the complaint notes, 'UPF formulation strategies were guided by the same tobacco company scientists and the same kind of brain research on sensory perceptions, physiological psychology, and chemical senses that were used to increase the addictiveness of cigarettes.'
This was confirmed by a 2023 study published in the journal Addiction, which found that the decades when Big Tobacco owned Big Food corresponded to the rise of 'hyper-palatable' foods, which are ultra-processed foods engineered to have a combination of fat, sugar, sodium, and carbohydrates that trigger the brain to encourage excessive eating. In the study, foods from tobacco-controlled brands were 80% more likely to contain powerful combinations of sodium and carbs that made them hyper-palatable and 29% more likely to have similar combinations of sodium and fat.
The study notes that by 2018, the differences between food from the tobacco-owned brands and foods from other companies had disappeared—not because any of the foods became less unhealthy, but because other companies saw that ultra-processed foods sold well and simply copied them.
'Every addictive substance is something that we take from nature and we alter it, process it, and refine it in a way that makes it more rewarding—and that is very clearly what happened with these hyper-palatable food substances,' said Ashley Gearhardt, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan who studies food addiction. 'We treat these foods like they come from nature. Instead, they're foods that come from Big Tobacco.'
In fact, Big Tobacco's use of the same master playbook for cigarettes as for food goes back decades earlier. In the '60s, R.J. Reynolds conducted market research on children for the development of sugary drinks. As Reynolds' manager of biochemical research put it in a 1962 internal memo, 'It is easy to characterise R.J. Reynolds merely as a tobacco company. In a broader and much less restricting sense, however, R.J. Reynolds is in the flavour business.' The manager also noted that 'many flavourants for tobacco would be useful in food, beverage and other products,' producing 'large financial returns.'
And it turns out, the negative consequences from the 'flavour business' were strikingly similar for ultra-processed foods and tobacco. Research being presented this month at the American College of Cardiology's annual scientific meeting found that consuming an additional 3.5 ounces a day of ultra-processed food was associated with a 14.5% increased risk for hypertension, a 5.9% increased risk for cardiovascular events, and a 19.5% increased risk for digestive diseases, as well as heightened risk for obesity, metabolic syndromes, diabetes, and depression or anxiety.
Last year, in the world's largest review of its kind, a comprehensive study found that consumption of ultra-processed foods is linked to a higher risk of at least 32 different health problems, including heart disease, cancer, Type 2 diabetes, mental health disorders, and early death.
The term ultra-processed foods was coined by Carlos Monteiro of the University of São Paulo. He also developed the NOVA food classification system that categorizes foods based on their level of industrial processing. As Monteiro put it, 'no reason exists to believe that humans can fully adapt to these products.' Or at least adapt to them any better than the dinosaurs did to asteroids. And avoiding ultra-processed foods is actually harder now than avoiding cigarettes was even in the '60s. Nearly three-quarters of America's food supply is now made up of ultra-processed foods.
A huge part of the problem are sugary beverages, which are the single largest source of added sugars consumed by Americans. According to the American Heart Association, having one more sugary drink each day can increase a person's risk of hypertension by 8% and risk of heart disease by 17%. And a January study in Nature Medicine found that these drinks contribute to 2.2 million new cases of Type 2 diabetes, 1.2 million cases of cardiovascular disease, and 340,000 deaths globally each year. 'This is a public health crisis, requiring urgent action,' said study author Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University.
And the playbook by the two industries to stave off reform is the same. As more science comes in, so do the efforts to prevent that science from making its way into policy and regulation. Part of that involves lobbying. According to an analysis by the Financial Times, food and beverage companies spent $106 million on lobbying in 2023, nearly twice as much as tobacco and alcohol companies combined. And that was an increase of over 20% from the year before, largely due to 'lobbying relating to food processing as well as sugar.'
Next in the playbook? Discredit the science. 'The strategy I see the food industry using is deny, denounce, and delay,' says Barry Smith, professor at the University of London.
Right on cue, here was the response by Sarah Gallo, of the Consumer Brands Association, which represents the food industry, to the study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine finding an increased risk of dying early from consuming UPFs: 'Demonizing convenient, affordable and shelf ready food and beverage products could limit access to and cause avoidance of nutrient dense foods, resulting in decreased diet quality, increased risk of food-borne illness and exacerbated health disparities.'
And here is Gallo's response to the lawsuit filed in December: 'Attempting to classify foods as unhealthy simply because they are processed, or demonizing food by ignoring its full nutrient content, misleads consumers and exacerbates health disparities.'
The final step in the playbook, of course, is to fight back in court. The Financial Times notes that in Mexico, food companies, including Nestlé and Kellogg, have sued the government to stop front-of-package warning labels and other restrictions like forbidding the use of children's characters in marketing.
And all of that can work. Until it doesn't. The fight against Big Tobacco went the same way Hemingway described bankruptcy happening: 'Gradually, then suddenly.' What it shows is that, yes, the road is long, and there are many bumps and reversals and dead ends. And then, suddenly, the momentum changes, the zeitgeist changes, and what seemed impossible for decades swiftly becomes the obvious and consensus position.
As far back as 1950, two scientists, Ernst Wyndner and Evarts Graham, published a study that found that 96.5% of lung-cancer patients were moderate to heavy smokers. Two years later, the counter-science began, when the tobacco company Liggett promoted a study, by a 'competent medical specialist,' that found that smoking Chesterfields had no adverse effects. In 1954, the first lawsuit against tobacco was brought by Eva Cooper, whose husband had died of lung cancer. Cooper lost that suit, but in the next four decades, over 800 lawsuits were filed by smokers or their families. Until the '90s, only two of those were successful and both were overturned on appeal.
In the '90s, a third wave of lawsuits began. The breakthrough was that state attorneys general were seeking to recover health-care costs associated with tobacco. In 1994, the first of those suits was filed by Mississippi seeking $940 million in Medicaid costs the state spent treating smokers. As Mississippi's then-Attorney General Mike Moore put it, 'The lawsuit is premised on a simple notion: you caused the health crisis; you pay for it. The free ride is over.'
And après Moore, the deluge. By the end of that year, three more states filed suits. By 1997, 39 states were suing. At the same time, there were major class-action suits being filed, including one, known as the Castano suit, by a group of 60 law firms across the country on behalf of 'all nicotine-dependent persons in the United States.' Another was brought on behalf of 60,000 flight attendants. A tipping point had been reached, and in 1998, the $206 billion 'Master Settlement Agreement'—the largest civil settlement in U.S. history—was agreed upon.
1998 wasn't that long ago, but the pre-Master Agreement world of tobacco acceptance now seems incomprehensible. And now we're down a similar road. In 2009, Kelly Brownell, a Yale nutrition expert, wrote a paper entitled 'The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar is Big Food?' In explaining why he wrote the paper, Brownell said, 'We simply didn't want the food industry to be able to get away with some of those same tactics.' The food industry, he said, is at a crossroads: 'They can behave as tobacco did, which is lie about the science, distort the truth, and buy up the scientists. Or they can come face-to-face with the reality that some of their products are helping people and some are hurting, and we need to shift the balance.'
That would mean food companies would stop marketing to children and overstating health claims. But most of all, said Brownell, 'they should reformulate their products and market the healthier versions as aggressively as possible.'
At the time, there weren't a lot of voices in that chorus. But in the years since, more have joined. In 2012, lawyers pitched state attorneys general in 16 states with the idea of suing companies to make them pay for the soaring costs of obesity and diet-related health-care costs. Politico called it a 'radical' idea and 'a move straight from the playbook of the Big Tobacco takedown of the 1990s.'
Paul McDonald, a lawyer who led the effort, said the aim wasn't to cast the food industry as villains, but 'to lighten the economic burden of obesity on states and taxpayers and to negotiate broader public health policy objectives.'
On the legal front, according to the law firm Perkins Coie, 256 class action lawsuits were filed against the food and beverage industry last year, a 58% increase from 2023. While many of those are about truth in label and health claims, an increasing number are about ultra-processed foods.
The food industry may win these lawsuits today. But for how long? The culture is changing, the science is becoming more and more clear, too many people are suffering, and too many lives are being lost.
In the last few years, there is evidence that Big Food has seen the writing on the menu, trying to get ahead of the reckoning by buying up smaller companies focused on healthier food to diversify their product lines. In 2023, Mars, Inc. bought Kevin's Natural Foods, which makes healthy prepared meals and sauces. In January of this year, PepsiCo acquired Siete Foods, known for better-for-you Mexican-American inspired foods. In March, PepsiCo bought the prebiotic soda brand Poppi. This was on the heels of Coca-Cola launching its own prebiotic soda Simply Pop. In April, Hershey bought the better-for-you snack brand LesserEvil.
In the meantime, the lawsuits continue. As the saying goes, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. That's what happened with tobacco: 'When we filed the tobacco lawsuits, our peers—good lawyers and great lawyers—laughed at us,' said Wayne Reaud, one of the lawyers representing Texas in its lawsuit against the tobacco companies in the '90s. 'They told us there was no way we were ever going to win.'
But they did win. Which is to say, all of us won. Now we need another win. And the good news? We already know how.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Thanks to imported drugs, America has lost control of its medicine cabinet
America is facing a growing crisis in its medical system — not from a lack of talent or innovation, but from a breakdown in the control, safety and supply of essential medicines. Our growing reliance on imports is now driving serious drug shortages, destabilizing supply chains and increasingly making medications unsafe. At the root of it is a hard truth: We no longer have control of the medicines we depend on every day. In 2002, America manufactured 83.7 percent of the pharmaceuticals it consumed. By 2024, that number had dropped to just 37.1 percent. Meanwhile, the U.S. pharmaceutical trade deficit has soared, reaching a record $118.3 billion in 2024. We didn't just outsource manufacturing — we outsourced the sovereignty and safety of our health care system. This means that nearly two-thirds of America's pharmaceutical supplies are now imported. Most critical medications, such as generic drugs, now come from China and India. China controls 80 to 90 percent of the global supply of active pharmaceutical ingredients — the chemical building blocks of modern medicine. Even drugs labeled 'Made in the USA' often chemically originate in China. And India, which produces about half of America's finished generic drugs, relies on China for up to 80 percent of its active pharmaceutical not a supply chain — it's a ticking time something goes wrong, American patients suffer. In 2023, the Food and Drug Administration shut down a single Indian plant responsible for 50 percent of the U.S. supply of cisplatin, a critical chemotherapy drug, after uncovering a 'cascade of failure' in safety practices and shredded documents soaked in acid. With no domestic backup, patients nationwide had their treatments delayed. That wasn't a fluke. 40 percent of U.S. generic drugs have only one FDA-approved manufacturer. Because of that single chokepoint, when one factory fails, the whole system can crack. We are now seeing widespread drug shortages across the medical system. Hospital pharmacists report an average of 301 critical drug shortages at any given time. And 85 percent say these shortages are moderately or critically affecting care. Doctors often lack crucial medicines such as antibiotics, sedatives and cancer drugs. These aren't obscure drugs. They're foundational medicines. But America no longer makes them. Even when imported drugs do arrive, they're not always safe. A 2025 study found that Indian generics are 54 percent more likely to cause serious side effects than their U.S.-made counterparts. Indian factory violations have also been tied to at least eight U.S. patient deaths. China's record is equally disturbing. In 2008, dozens of Americans died after receiving contaminated heparin from Chinese suppliers. This isn't what the American people want. In a national survey, 85 percent of hospital pharmacists said they would pay more for safer generics. But under today's rules, price overshadows quality. Hospitals have little oversight of drug quality — and foreign producers face few consequences for cutting corners. Even the federal government is flying blind. A 2023 Department of Defense review found that 22 percent of essential military-use drugs had unknown ingredient sourcing. That's a national security April, the Trump administration took a necessary step by launching an investigation into generic pharmaceutical imports that correctly frames the issue as a national security threat. But that recognition alone isn't enough. To address this crisis, Washington should impose targeted tariffs on generic drugs from adversarial nations. It must also rebuild domestic pharmaceutical production through tax credits and long-term contracts. America urgently needs full transparency in drug labeling to disclose where drugs and their ingredients are made. The FDA must step up — with stronger enforcement abroad and a ban on imports from repeat safety violators. And to secure critical ingredients during market disruptions, Washington must pursue a long-term vision that includes a 'strategic pharmaceutical reserve.' This isn't just protectionism. It's a restoration of America's medical security. No nation can call itself sovereign if it can't produce its own medicines, and no patient is safe if their health care depends on quality control in a factory 8,000 miles decades, we were told that offshoring production would make things cheaper, smoother and more efficient. But America can no longer depend on unstable foreign suppliers. It's time to restore our pharmaceutical independence and take back control of our medicine cabinet. Andrew Rechenberg is an economist at the Coalition for a Prosperous America.
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
The Triple Threat Draining Workforce Productivity And Mental Health
Productivity and mental health are taking a hit for three reasons. Numbers never lie: it's why CEOs obsess over revenue targets, operational metrics, quarterly growth, and more. Yet beneath the spreadsheets and data dashboards lies an invisible crisis quietly eroding organizational strength and productivity: the deteriorating mental health and emotional resilience of today's workforce. A comprehensive 2025 State of the Workforce Report by meQuilibrium, surveying 5,477 employees across various industries, identified a troublesome "triple threat" that undermines employee performance and well-being: uncertainty, pessimism, and psychological disconnection. These aren't mere HR concerns; they're operational risks with quantifiable financial impacts. The data paints a clear picture: These challenges are silently sabotaging productivity, further inflating turnover costs, and increasingly impacting employee well-being. The Real Cost Of The Triple Threat Uncertainty alone led to a 68% increase in productivity impairment. Employees facing high uncertainty stress experience twice the risk of generalized anxiety disorders and nearly double the rate of burnout, costing American companies between $4,000 and $21,000 per employee annually, according to a study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Pessimism compounds this impact significantly. Workers with negative job outlooks report a 64% decrease in productivity, alongside a staggering 128% higher risk of depression and 108% higher risk of anxiety compared to optimistic colleagues. The psychological disconnect further exacerbates productivity losses. Even employees displaying no signs of disconnect report an average productivity impairment of 29%, while severely disconnected employees experience impairment rates of up to 66%. This triple threat isn't fleeting; it's systemic and escalating, making employee mental health and emotional resilience one of your organization's significant, yet often overlooked, financial liabilities. Foundational Strategies To Improve Productivity And Mental Health A company thrives when its people thrive. Amid volatility and continuous disruptions, the greatest threat to any organization is a workforce characterized by stress, negativity, disengagement, and poor health. However, this crisis presents opportunities to cultivate resilience and strength. While each company is unique, these foundational actions can universally elevate employee well-being and productivity: Fitness offers more than aesthetics. It's a strategic investment. CEOs like Bob Iger strongly advocate for fitness because it improves their mood, focus, emotional regulation, executive presence, and resilience. To build a health-driven culture, leaders must actively model wellness practices. Sleep is equally critical. Improved sleep and recovery improve individuals' decision-making and emotional regulation and reduce team volatility. Prioritizing a health-first culture also serves as a strong talent attractor and retention tool. Ambiguity breeds stress, especially with technological disruptions like AI, which create concerns about job stability. Clear and consistent communication significantly mitigates uncertainty. Leaders must frequently reiterate their vision in a way that integrates each person seamlessly. Also key is establishing priorities and performance expectations along with transparency in explaining the rationale behind decisions. Vulnerability and candor strengthen trust, which further reduces speculation and disengagement among employees and investors alike. Soft skills matter significantly, even in the data-driven corporate world. As highlighted in the report, empathetic managers reduce uncertainty stress by 37% and disconnect by nearly 50%. CEOs and senior leaders can actively cultivate empathy through the following: Better Mental Well-Being Equals Improved Productivity Addressing the triple threat isn't merely beneficial—it's critical. The modern workforce faces numerous challenges that threaten employees' mental health and productivity. With ongoing volatility and persistent uncertainty, investing in mental health and resilience becomes not just advantageous but essential. As technology democratizes and ceases to offer unique competitive advantages, the companies that will lead tomorrow are those who invest significantly in their people's well-being today.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Pandemic preparedness ‘dramatically eroding' under Trump, experts say
Amid controversial dismissals for independent advisers and staff at health agencies, alongside lackluster responses to the bird flu and measles outbreaks, experts fear the US is now in worse shape to respond to a pandemic than before 2020. H5N1, which has received less attention under the Trump administration than from Biden's team, is not the only influenza virus or even the only variant of bird flu with the potential to spark a pandemic. But a subpar response to the ongoing US outbreak signals a larger issue: America is not ready for whatever pathogen will sweep through next. 'We have not even remotely maintained the level of pandemic preparedness – which needed a lot of work, as we saw from the Covid pandemic,' said Angela Rasmussen, an American virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. 'But now, we essentially have no pandemic preparedness.' Related: Bird flu reinfections at US poultry farms highlight need for vaccines, experts say 'I'm concerned on a number of fronts,' said Jennifer Nuzzo, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University School of Public Health. Those concerns include a lack of quality information from officials, weakened virus monitoring systems, and public health reductions at the federal, state and local levels. 'The thing that I am most concerned about is the veracity of information coming out of the health agencies,' Nuzzo said. In the ongoing outbreaks of measles, for example, Robert F Kennedy Jr, the secretary of health and human services, has downplayed the severity of the disease, spread misinformation about the highly effective vaccine to prevent measles, and pushed unproven treatments. 'The communications on measles gives me deep worries about what would happen in a pandemic,' Nuzzo said. 'If a pandemic were to occur today, the only thing we would have to protect ourselves on day one would be information.' The H5N1 outbreak has been plagued by incomplete information, an issue that began in the Biden administration but has amplified under Trump. In Arizona, 6 million chickens were killed or culled at a Hickman's Family Farms location because of H5N1 in May. That's about 95% of the company's hen population in the state. Hundreds of workers, including inmate laborers, are now being dismissed as Arizona braces for egg shortages. We're not testing – it's not that there are no new cases Angela Rasmussen Yet even as H5N1 outbreaks continue to spread on farms and wreak havoc on the food supply, no new bird flu cases have been reported in people for months. 'I am concerned that we may not be finding new infections in humans,' Nuzzo said – and a lack of testing may be the culprit. 'We're not testing – it's not that there are no new cases,' Rassmussen said. The last bird flu case in a person was listed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on 23 February. At that point, at least 830 people in the US had been tested after contact with sick animals. This kind of testing – monitoring the health of people who regularly work with H5N1-infected animals – is how the vast majority of cases (64 out of 70) have been found in this outbreak. But then, several CDC officials overseeing the bird flu response were fired on 1 April. Since then, only about 50 people in the US have been tested after exposure to sick animals – and no positive cases have been announced. It's also been difficult to understand the extent of the outbreak and how the virus spreads among animals. 'We still just don't have a good picture of the scope and scale of this outbreak – we never really have. And until we have that, we're not going to be able to contain it,' Rasmussen said. 'It's extremely bad,' she continued. 'We don't have any information about what's happening right now. The next pandemic could be starting, and we just don't know where that's happening, and we don't have any ability to find out.' We're seeing health departments scrambling. That infrastructure is just dramatically eroding Jennifer Nuzzo Huge reductions in the public health workforce and resources has led to less monitoring of outbreaks, known as disease surveillance. 'Cutting back on that surveillance is leaving us more in the dark,' Nuzzo said. The CDC clawed back $11.4bn in Covid funding in March. This funding was used to monitor, test, vaccinate and otherwise respond to public health issues at the state, local, territorial and tribal level. 'We're seeing health departments scrambling,' Nuzzo said. 'That infrastructure is just dramatically eroding.' International monitoring programs to address outbreaks before they expand across borders have also been cancelled. 'We have taken for granted all of those protections, and I fear that we are poised to see the consequences,' Nuzzo said. Trump's crackdown on immigration also poses a major challenge in detecting cases and treating patients during outbreaks. 'A lot of the people who are most at risk are strongly disincentivized to report any cases, given that many of them are undocumented or are not US citizens,' Rasmussen said. 'Nobody wants to go get tested if they're going to end up in an Ice detention facility.' When cases are not detected, that means patients are not able to access care. Although it's rare for people to become sick with H5N1, for instance – the virus is still primarily an avian, not a human, influenza – this variant of bird flu has a 52% mortality rate globally among people with known infections. Allowing a deadly virus to spread and mutate under the radar has troubling implications for its ability to change into a human influenza without anyone knowing. And if such changes were detected, widening gaps in communication could be the next hurdle for preventing a pandemic, Nuzzo said. 'Communication is our most important public health intervention. People, in order to be able to know how to protect themselves, need to have access to facts, and they need to believe in the messengers. And the communication around the measles outbreaks are deeply eroding our standing with the American people.' Even stockpiled vaccines and other protective measures, like personal protective equipment, take time to distribute, Nuzzo added. 'And flu is a fast-moving disease that could cause a lot of damage in the months it would take to mount a vaccination campaign.' The US government's cancellation of its $766m contract with Moderna to research and develop an H5N1 vaccine also signals a concerning strategy from health officials, Nuzzo and Rasmussen said. Other restrictions on vaccine development, like a new plan to test all vaccines against saline placebos, is 'going to make it extremely difficult to approve any new vaccine' and would 'have a devastating impact on our ability to respond to a potential pandemic', Rasmussen said – especially in a rapidly moving pandemic where speed matters. 'You don't have time for that if this virus causes a human-to–human outbreak,' Rasmussen said. All of these policies mean the US is less prepared for a pandemic than it was in 2020, she said. And it also means there will be preventable suffering now, even before the next big one strikes. 'We are actively making people less safe, less healthy and more dead,' Rasmussen said.
