What You Don't Know About Your Food Supply: From Farm to Table

The debate surrounding traditional versus organic farming practices has gained significant momentum in recent years, particularly concerning the impact on nutritional quality and public health.  Conventional farming methods, which often rely on synthetic chemicals, fertilizers, and antibiotics, have been shown to deplete soil nutrients and leave harmful residues on food, contributing to various health issues.  Conversely, organic and biodiverse farming not only enhances the nutritional value of crops but also promotes environmental health.

Despite the evident advantages of organic practices, farmers face numerous challenges due to government policies that favor large-scale conventional agriculture, often influenced by corporate interests.  These factors negatively impact the economy by undermining the viability of small and medium-sized farms and pose serious risks to public health, as consumers may have limited access to fresh, wholesome food.

Compounding these issues is the breakdown of stringent U.S. anti-trust laws, which have allowed big food and agriculture companies to consolidate.  This concentration of power contributes to a supply chain that prioritizes profit over health and sustainability, often resulting in the prioritization of traditional farming methods that can be harmful.  Favorable trade agreements further exacerbate this situation by encouraging the import of cheaper, mass-produced foods, disadvantaging local farmers and reducing the availability of nutritious, locally grown options.

Traditional farming practices that heavily rely on chemicals, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals can significantly impact the nutritional quality of food and contribute to health declines and diseases.  Using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides can deplete essential soil nutrients, resulting in less nutrient-dense crops.  For example, overusing nitrogen-based fertilizers can lower the levels of vital minerals and vitamins in the soil, affecting the crops' nutritional value.  Pesticides and herbicides, such as glyphosate, can leave residues on food linked to various health issues, including cancer, endocrine disruption, and other chronic diseases.  These chemicals can also harm beneficial microorganisms in the soil, which play a crucial role in nutrient cycling and overall plant health.  Furthermore, the widespread use of antibiotics in livestock farming to promote growth and prevent disease has contributed to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, posing a significant public health risk.

In contrast, biodiverse and organic farming practices can enhance food's nutritional quality and promote environmental health.  Organic farming focuses on building and maintaining healthy soil through compost, cover crops, and crop rotation.  These practices can increase soil nutrient content and, consequently, the nutritional value of the crops.  Additionally, organic farming avoids synthetic chemicals, reducing the risk of chemical residues on food and promoting a more sustainable and resilient agricultural system.  Biodiverse farming practices, such as intercropping and polyculture, enhance soil health, increase resistance to pests and diseases, and foster a more balanced ecosystem.

Despite the benefits of organic and biodiverse farming, farmers who wish to grow food organically often face significant challenges and may be penalized by government policies.  These policies can make it difficult for organic farmers to compete with large-scale conventional farmers who benefit from subsidies, favorable trade agreements, and relaxed environmental regulations.  For instance, organic farmers often encounter higher certification costs and compliance burdens, which can be a financial strain.  Furthermore, government subsidies for conventional agriculture, such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, create an uneven playing field, hindering organic farmers' competitiveness.  Organic farmers may also face punitive measures, including fines and legal actions, for minor infractions or practices perceived as non-compliant with conventional standards.  For example, organic farmers could be penalized for trace amounts of synthetic chemicals in their soil or crops, even if these contaminants result from drift from neighboring conventional farms.  Such strict regulatory environments can discourage adopting organic practices, leading to biodiversity loss and a decline in food nutritional quality.

Concerns arise regarding the role of organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in prioritizing large corporations' financial interests over the general population's health and well-being.  The WHO and the FDA receive significant funding from pharmaceutical companies, large agricultural corporations, and other industry stakeholders.  This funding can create conflicts of interest, influencing the organizations' policies and decisions.  Large corporations possess considerable lobbying power, allowing them to sway regulatory bodies to adopt standards and practices that favor their interests.  For example, the WHO has faced criticism for its close ties with the pharmaceutical industry, which can affect its drug approval recommendations and public health policies.  The "revolving door" phenomenon, where former industry executives move into regulatory positions and vice versa, can lead to regulatory capture, resulting in policies that favor industry interests over public health.  Industry stakeholders can influence the development of policies and guidelines, often through scientific research and expert testimony, skewing the regulatory environment in their favor.  The research and data used by the WHO and FDA can be influenced by industry-funded studies, which may not always be independent or unbiased, leading to recommendations that do not fully protect public health.  The FDA's standards for food and drug labeling and safety standards can be influenced by industry pressure, as seen in the handling of glyphosate and other chemical pesticides, which have been linked to health issues but are still widely used.

Specific examples highlight the influence of corporate interests on these organizations.  The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015, but the WHO's own Pesticide Residues in Food (PRIF) committee has been criticized for not aligning with the IARC's findings, raising concerns about industry influence.  The WHO has faced criticism for its close ties with the pesticide industry, which can affect its recommendations and policies.  Similarly, despite growing consumer demand for transparency, the FDA has been slow to require mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  This has been attributed to industry pressure and the influence of large agricultural corporations.  The FDA's safety assessments of GMOs have been criticized for relying heavily on industry-funded studies, which may not fully address long-term health effects.

Harmful Chemicals to Avoid and Alternative Options

Product	Reason to Avoid	Alternatives
Corn and Soy	High fructose corn syrup and soy lecithin from GMO crops	Certified organic corn and soy products
Milk and Dairy	rBGH in dairy products	Organic and rBGH-free dairy
Vegetable Oils	GMO corn, cottonseed, canola, and soybean oils	Organic and non-GMO oils
Sugar Beets	GMO sugar beets treated with Roundup	Organic beet sugar, cane sugar, honey
Processed Foods	Contain multiple GMO and glyphosate-contaminated ingredients	Whole, organic, and non-GMO verified foods

Over the years, significant changes in food, drug, and farming practices have been heavily influenced by lobbying from large agricultural corporations and food monopolies, leading to policies and practices that often favor these big industries at the expense of the overall population's health and well-being.  Large corporations, such as Monsanto (now Bayer), have used their lobbying power to advocate for policies that benefit large-scale producers, such as subsidies, tax breaks, and favorable trade agreements.  For example, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the European Union-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) have facilitated the import of agricultural products from regions like California, Canada, and Mexico, making it more cost-effective for grocery store chains to source from these areas.  These trade agreements often reduce tariffs and streamline customs processes, which can lower the costs for large corporations but may not always align with the best interests of local farmers and consumers.  Additionally, these corporations have influenced regulatory bodies to adopt standards and practices that favor large-scale operations, such as relaxed environmental regulations and favorable labeling laws.  Government subsidies, including direct payments, insurance programs, and research and development funding, have also disproportionately benefited large-scale agricultural operations, making it difficult for small farmers to compete.

Furthermore, the economic and logistical advantages of large-scale operations have contributed to the concentration of market power.  Large-scale producers in regions like California, Canada, and Mexico have well-established distribution networks, including cold storage facilities, transportation infrastructure, and logistics expertise.  This makes it easier and more efficient for grocery store chains to source and transport products, often at a lower cost.  However, this efficiency can come at the expense of local economies and the environment, as long-distance transportation increases carbon emissions and reduces the freshness and quality of produce.  In contrast, sourcing from local farmers can deliver fresher and more nutritionally superior options as listed below. 

• Locally sourced produce is harvested at peak ripeness and sold quickly, ensuring maximum nutritional value.  In contrast, long-distance transport often necessitates picking produce before it's fully ripe, compromising flavor and nutrients.  Research indicates that fruits and vegetables lose essential nutrients, especially during extended storage and transport.

• Local sourcing significantly reduces carbon emissions associated with transportation, making it a more sustainable choice.  Local farmers are also more likely to adopt sustainable and organic practices, minimizing their ecological impact.

• Directly purchasing from local farmers strengthens local economies by creating jobs and fostering community development.  This approach supports a resilient economy and encourages higher standards of quality and transparency.  In addition to these economic benefits, sourcing locally enhances the shopping experience with seasonal availability and diversity.  Consumers enjoy a wide range of fresh produce that is often more flavorful and nutritious, further illustrating the advantages of prioritizing local supply chains.

Moreover, local sourcing builds trust among consumers, who increasingly seek transparency about the origins of their food.  By prioritizing local farmers, grocery stores can provide reliable information that fosters loyalty among health-conscious customers.  However, it is crucial to recognize that focusing on cost efficiency and consistent supply in the broader agricultural sector has also led to adverse outcomes, such as the widespread use of chemical inputs and monoculture farming practices.

These practices can have significant environmental impacts, including soil degradation, water pollution, and biodiversity loss.  Furthermore, they have been linked to health issues, particularly concerning the use of pesticides and herbicides like glyphosate, which the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified as "probably carcinogenic." As we consider the consequences of industrial agriculture, we must also acknowledge the dominance of large corporations in the food system, which undermines food security, particularly in developing countries.

This reliance on major firms exacerbates economic inequality by concentrating market power, driving up costs, reducing consumer choice, and eroding transparency in the food industry.  A key factor contributing to this concentration is the decline of U.S. anti-trust laws over the past few decades.  Historically, anti-trust laws such as the Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Anti-trust Act of 1914 were designed to prevent monopolistic practices and ensure fair competition.  However, a shift in the 1970s and 1980s, influenced by the Chicago School of Economics, emphasized consumer welfare and efficiency, leading to a more lenient approach to anti-trust enforcement.

As a result, this shift increased mergers and acquisitions, particularly in the agricultural sector, where large corporations could consolidate their market power.  A prime example of this troubling trend is the 2018 merger between Bayer and Monsanto.  The combined entity now controls a significant portion of the global seed and pesticide markets, with an astonishing 29% of the seed market and 24% of the pesticide market.  Consequently, this concentration of market power has reduced competition, increased prices, and limited the choices available to farmers.  As a result, small farmers, who often cannot afford the high costs of patented seeds and the associated chemical inputs, have found themselves marginalized and facing increased financial stress.  This growing marginalization ultimately exacerbates social and economic disparities, particularly in rural communities.

As an example of significant industry dominance, Monsanto, now a subsidiary of Bayer, has a significant presence in the food and agricultural supply chain, including ownership and influence over several food suppliers and brands.  While Monsanto is primarily known for its agricultural products, such as seeds and pesticides, its acquisition by Bayer has expanded its influence into various food and agricultural sectors.  This influence is not limited to direct ownership but extends through the supply chains of major food companies and suppliers.  Given our interconnected global society and international travel, it is noteworthy that the monopoly of the large food industry is not confined to the United States but is indeed a global phenomenon.

Food Suppliers and Brands

• Roundup: While not a food supplier, Roundup is a widely used herbicide that has been a significant product of Monsanto.  Its use in agriculture has indirectly influenced the food supply chain.

• DeKalb: A brand of corn and soybean seeds.

• Deltapine: A brand of cotton seeds.

• Seminis: A brand of vegetable and fruit seeds.

Brands and Suppliers Influenced by Bayer

• Aventis CropScience: Before being acquired by Bayer, Aventis CropScience had a significant presence in the agricultural chemical market.

• Dow AgroSciences: Part of the DowDuPont merger, which was later split into separate entities, including Corteva Agriscience.  Bayer has partnered with Dow in various agricultural ventures.

• Syngenta: While Syngenta was acquired by ChemChina, it significantly overlaps with Bayer in the agricultural chemical and seed markets.

Food Brands and Suppliers Indirectly Affected

• General Mills: While not directly owned by Monsanto, General Mills has been a significant user of Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) crops, particularly in products like cereals and snacks.

• Kellogg's: Similar to General Mills, Kellogg's uses GM crops in many of its products, including corn and soy.

• Coca-Cola Uses GM corn to produce high-fructose corn syrup, a common sweetener in many of its beverages.

• PepsiCo: Also uses GM corn and soy in many of its products, including snacks and beverages.

Specific Food Brands and Products

• Frito-Lay: A subsidiary of PepsiCo, Frito-Lay uses GM corn in many of its snack products.

• Nabisco: A subsidiary of Mondelez International, Nabisco uses GM soy in many of its baked goods and snacks.

• Kraft Heinz: While not directly owned by Monsanto, Kraft Heinz uses GM crops in many of its products, including corn and soy.

• ConAgra Foods: Uses GM crops in many frozen and packaged food products.

• Mars, Incorporated: Uses GM crops in pet food and confectionery products.

Indirect Influence Through Supply Chains

• Cargill: One of the world's largest agricultural and food companies, Cargill often sources GM crops from farmers who use Monsanto's seeds and chemicals.

• ADM (Archer Daniels Midland): Another major agricultural company that processes and distributes GM crops.

Fig. 1.1 Oxfam Food Brands Visual Wheel

Figure 2.2 Food web of Australia's top ten companies

Grocery store chains also play a significant role in the quality and safety of the produce they sell. To extend the shelf life of produce and enhance its appearance, grocery stores often use various chemicals and practices that can be harmful to human health. For example, produce is often picked before it is fully ripe to ensure it can withstand long-distance transportation without spoiling. During transport, chemicals such as ethylene gas may be used to artificially ripen fruits and vegetables, which can affect their flavor and nutritional content. Additionally, a gloss or sheen is often sprayed on produce to make it look more appealing and ripe. These sprays can include wax coatings and other chemicals that are not always labeled, making it difficult for consumers to know what they are consuming. These practices not only reduce the nutritional quality of the produce but can also pose health risks, as some of these chemicals have been linked to adverse health effects.

Furthermore, grocery stores often mist produce with what appears to be water but is actually a mixture of chemicals designed to extend the shelf life of the produce, enhance its appearance, and increase its weight. The specific chemicals used in these misting sprays can include:

1. Antimicrobial Agents: These are used to prevent the growth of bacteria and fungi, which can extend the shelf life of the produce. Common antimicrobial agents include chlorine, sodium hypochlorite, and various types of preservatives. These agents can be harmful if ingested in large quantities and can cause skin and respiratory issues.

2. Humectants: These are substances that help retain moisture, keeping the produce fresh and preventing it from drying out. Common humectants include glycerin and propylene glycol. Propylene glycol, while generally considered safe by the FDA, can cause allergic reactions in some individuals.

3. Surfactants: These are used to improve the spreadability of the misting solution, ensuring that it evenly coats the produce. Common surfactants include ethoxylated alcohols and fatty acid derivatives. Surfactants can cause skin irritation and are not always fully disclosed on product labels.

The use of these chemicals in misting sprays can pose significant health risks to consumers. Ingesting produce that has been treated with these chemicals can lead to a range of issues, from mild skin and respiratory irritation to more severe allergic reactions and long-term health effects. Additionally, the added weight from the misting solution can be deceptive, as it increases the cost of the produce without adding any nutritional value.

Deceptive Marketing Practices

Grocery store chains often engage in deceptive marketing practices to make their produce appear fresher and more appealing. These practices can include:

1. Artificial Ripening: Produce is often picked before it is fully ripe to ensure it can withstand long-distance transportation. During transport, chemicals such as ethylene gas are used to artificially ripen the produce. This can affect the flavor and nutritional content of the fruits and vegetables.

2. Gloss and Sheen Sprays: A gloss or sheen is often sprayed on produce to make it look more appealing and ripe. These sprays can include wax coatings and other chemicals that are not always labeled, making it difficult for consumers to know what they are consuming.

3. Misting Sprays: As mentioned, misting sprays are used to keep produce looking fresh and to increase its weight. This can be particularly deceptive, as consumers may not be aware that the added weight is due to the misting solution and not the natural weight of the produce.

These practices not only reduce the nutritional quality of the produce but can also pose health risks to consumers. The lack of transparency in labeling and the use of chemicals can lead to consumer mistrust and a demand for more honest and health-focused practices in the food industry.

To address these issues, it is crucial for citizens to advocate for policies that support organic and sustainable agriculture. This includes demanding more transparent and health-focused regulations, supporting local farmers through farmers' markets and community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs, and educating the public about the benefits of organic and biodiverse farming practices. Citizens can also push for government policies that provide incentives for organic farming, such as subsidies for organic certification and research and development funding for sustainable agricultural practices. By taking these steps, we can work towards a food system that prioritizes health, sustainability, and the well-being of all.

Sources:

Fig. 1.1 Oxfam Food Brands Visual Wheel, https://consumerproductsexperts.com/blogbites/food-brands-and-the-illusion-of-limitless-choices. Accessed May 11, 2025.

Fig. 2.2 Food web of Australia's top ten companies. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1753-6405.12828. Accessed May 11, 2025.

https://www.beuc.eu/sites/default/files/publications/BEUC-X-2023-080_The_illusion_of_choice_report.pdf. Accessed on May 11, 2025.

https://sentientmedia.org/big-food/. Accessed May 11, 2025.

https://chirowithpt.com/2024/09/17/tobacco-and-processed-food/. Accessed on May 11. 2025

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/do-shoppers-have-too-many-choices. Accessed on May 11, 2025.

https://www.brandinglosangeles.com/10-companies-dominate-worlds-food-brands/. Accessed on May 11, 2025.

https://brewminate.com/the-illusion-of-choice-these-11-companies-control-nearly-everything-you-buy/. Accessed May 11, 2025.

https://www.ecowatch.com/how-big-food-creates-an-illusion-of-choice-at-the-supermarket-1881837075.html. Accessed on May 11, 2025.

https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/food-power-addressing-monopolization-americas-food-system. Accessed on May 11, 2025.

https://www.promarket.org/2024/02/02/the-political-economy-of-the-decline-of-antitrust-enforcement-in-the-us/. Accessed May 11, 2025.

https://som.yale.edu/centers/thurman-arnold-project-at-yale/modern-antitrust-enforcement. Accessed on May 11, 2025.

https://www.iatp.org/blog/202202/who-really-won-us-versus-canada-dairy-trade-dispute. Accessed on May 11, 2025.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg26495/html/CHRG-115hhrg26495.htm. Accessed on May 11, 2025.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2024/october/growth-in-mexico-s-horticultural-exports-to-the-united-states-continued-even-as-new-u-s-food-safety-laws-took-effect. Accessed on May 11, 2025.

https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_sept01agbp/. Accessed on May 11, 2025.

https://civileats.com/2019/03/07/how-farm-policy-and-big-ag-impact-farmers-in-the-u-s-and-abroad/. Accessed on May 11, 2025.

https://usrtk.org/the-fda-does-not-test-whether-gmos-are-safe/. Accessed on May 11, 2025.

https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/311/ge-foods/ge-food-and-your-health. Accessed on May 11, 2025.

https://icatrinova.com/how-to-extend-the-shelf-life-of-fresh-produce/. Accessed on May 11, 2025.

https://www.allrecipes.com/article/why-you-might-want-to-reconsider-buying-misted-produce/. Accessed on May 11, 2025.

https://www.psu.edu/news/agricultural-sciences/story/getting-misty-not-good-all-types-produce. Accessed on May 11, 2025.

https://ethicalfoods.com/sprayed-produce-harvest/. Accessed on May 11, 2025.