Mapping corporate ties between ultra-processed food and petrochemical industries
This study utilizes network analysis to reveal that 92% of the world's leading ultra-processed food and petrochemical corporations are interconnected through ownership, governance, and political ties, suggesting these deep corporate relationships are hindering global efforts to address plastic pollution and transform food systems.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine the world of big business not as a collection of separate islands, but as a massive, bustling city. In this city, some companies build the food we eat, while others make the chemicals and plastics used to package it. For a long time, we've been told these two groups are neighbors who just happen to trade with each other. But what if they aren't just neighbors? What if they are actually living in the same house, sharing the same bank account, and even holding the same keys to the front door? This is the question researchers are asking in the field of "political economy," which is basically the study of how money, power, and rules mix together to shape our lives. To understand this story, you need to know about two main characters: Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs), which are the sugary snacks, sodas, and ready-made meals that have taken over our diets, and Petrochemicals, the oil-based industries that make the plastic wrappers, the fertilizer for the crops, and the chemicals inside the food. We care about this because these two industries are linked to some of the biggest problems on Earth today: from obesity and heart disease to the mountains of plastic choking our oceans. If these two giants are secretly holding hands behind the curtain, it changes everything about how we might fix these problems.
This paper, titled "Mapping corporate ties between ultra-processed food and petrochemical industries," acts like a detective's map, revealing just how deeply these two worlds are tangled together. The researchers, a team of scientists from universities and health organizations around the globe, decided to investigate the top 30 food companies that make ultra-processed foods and the top 50 petrochemical companies. They didn't just look at who buys from whom; they looked for three specific types of "secret handshakes" that bind companies together: Ownership (who owns a piece of the other?), Governance (do the same people sit on the board of directors for both?), and Political Ties (do they belong to the same clubs, lobby groups, or sustainability initiatives?).
The results of their investigation are staggering. Out of 1,500 possible pairings between these 80 companies, they found that 1,380 of them (that's 92%) are connected in at least one way. It's as if almost every food giant has a direct line to almost every chemical giant. The most common connection wasn't a shared boss or a shared factory, but a shared "club membership." About 79% of these pairs belong to the same interest groups, trade associations, or global initiatives. Think of it like two rival sports teams realizing they are both members of the same "Good Neighbors" club and the same "Future Planning" committee. They also found that 58.5% of the pairs share the same shareholders—meaning the same big investment firms own pieces of both the food company and the plastic company. While fewer companies shared the same board members (only 2.6% of pairs), the connections were still there, suggesting a web of influence that is far tighter than anyone suspected.
The researchers zoomed in on the "big five" food companies that are the worst offenders when it comes to plastic pollution: Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé, Danone, and Unilever. They found that these giants are deeply embedded in the network. For instance, Coca-Cola was connected to all 50 of the petrochemical companies they studied. Even the "least connected" food company in the top five, Danone, was linked to 47 of them. These connections happen through all three channels: they share investors, they sometimes share board members, and they almost always share the same interest groups. In fact, the study found that these five companies and the petrochemical giants are often members of the exact same 43 interest groups, including major global initiatives like the UN Global Compact and the World Economic Forum.
The paper argues that this deep interconnection is a major reason why it's so hard to solve the plastic crisis. For years, these food companies have tried to tell the public, "We are the good guys; we are trying to stop plastic pollution, and we are separate from the oil and chemical companies." They have even formed coalitions to push for global rules on plastic. However, this study suggests that this separation is an illusion. Because they share the same owners, the same board members, and the same political allies, the food companies and the petrochemical companies have a shared interest in keeping the status quo. The authors suggest that if governments try to tax sugary drinks or ban certain plastics, they might be fighting a much bigger enemy than they realize: a united front of both industries working together to protect their profits.
The researchers are careful to say that while they have mapped the connections, they haven't proved exactly how much influence one company has over the other in every single case. They note that some of these ties might be passive, like a bank just holding shares without trying to control the company. However, the sheer density of the network—where almost every company is linked to almost every other company through money, people, or clubs—suggests a level of coordination that makes it very difficult to tackle these issues separately. The paper concludes that we cannot fix the plastic problem without also addressing the food system, and vice versa, because these two industries are locked together in a complex web of shared interests that goes far beyond simple business transactions.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.