Big Pharma's Hidden Role in the Food Industry
Partnerships between major pharmaceutical and food corporations boost profits but may undermine public health.
In recent weeks, RFK Jr.'s high-profile critiques of “Big Pharma” and “Big Food” as part of his Make America Healthy Again movement have sparked renewed attention on the influence these industries wield over public health and government policy. These conversations often overlook a critical point, however: how these two industries work together to create a cycle that affects everything from antibiotic resistance to diet-related chronic diseases — as well as soaring healthcare and drug costs and environmental degradation. By understanding this partnership, we can better address the systemic challenges undermining public health in America.
The Role of Antibiotics in Agriculture
Since the 1950s, the pharmaceutical and agricultural industries have cultivated a mutually beneficial relationship. Antibiotics, originally developed for human health, became a cornerstone of industrial farming, where they are used to boost livestock growth and prevent disease in overcrowded or unsanitary conditions. Today, more than half of all medically important antibiotics sold in the United States are used in livestock farming — a major driver of antibiotic resistance.
Public health experts have long warned about this crisis. In 2014, leading medical organizations urged Congress to address antibiotic overuse in livestock, stating, “Misuse of important antibiotics in food animals must end to protect human health.” Unfortunately, the last decade has brought little progress. Antibiotic-resistant infections now claim nearly 5 million lives annually, with projections suggesting this number could soar to 39 million by 2050. The World Health Organization has called this looming crisis “an end to modern medicine as we know it.”
The food industry’s demand for antibiotics boosts drug companies’ bottom lines, creating a feedback loop that safeguards both sectors’ profits while jeopardizing human health.
The Economic Costs of Antibiotic Resistance
Antibiotic resistance is not only a public health issue but also an economic one. Drug-resistant infections lead to longer hospital stays, more complex treatments, and higher healthcare costs. According to some estimates, antibiotic resistance could cost global healthcare systems up to $159 billion annually by 2050. Low- and middle-income countries will bear most of this burden.
Other Impacts of Pharmaceuticals in Our Food System
Affecting Workers and Ecosystems
The impact of agricultural antibiotic overuse on workers and the environment is equally concerning. Studies show that resistant bacteria spread beyond their points of origin; they can travel home with workers — risking their health and that of their family members — and seep into the surrounding environment, contaminating surface and groundwaters.
Contaminating Our Food
It’s also clear that dangerous bacteria end up in our food supply. In an analysis of government sampling data, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that over half of chicken sampled was contaminated with at least one strain of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. “Between 2015 and 2020,” the Bureau found, “U.S. companies — including the poultry giants Perdue, Pilgrim’s Pride, Tyson, Foster Farms and Koch Foods — sold tens of thousands of meat products contaminated with campylobacter and salmonella.”
The presence of antimicrobials and other kinds of pharmaceuticals in meat, poultry, dairy, and egg products poses another significant human health risk. When consumed via these products, drugs in our food can cause not only antibiotic resistance but also allergic reactions and hormonal disruptions. This kind of contamination is especially pervasive in developing countries, where limits on the amount of acceptable drug residues in products of animal origin are poorly monitored and enforced — or simply nonexistent.
Numerous reports have found high levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat products sold to U.S. consumers.
How the United States Compares to Global Leaders
While some nations have made significant strides in addressing antibiotic use in agriculture, the United States lags behind. The European Union has banned the use of antibiotics for growth promotion and preventive purposes in livestock. Countries like Denmark have shown that reducing antibiotic use is not only possible but also effective. By improving animal welfare and farm management practices, Denmark curtailed antibiotic use per pig by over 50 percent between 1992 and 2008.
In the United States, however, the use of medically important antibiotics in livestock increased by 10 percent from 2017 to 2020. Here, we continue to face the challenge of reforming entrenched industry practices.
The Diet-Related Chronic Disease Epidemic
Beyond antibiotics, the intersection of the food and drug industries is apparent in America’s high rates of diet-related chronic diseases, also known as lifestyle-related diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Ultra-processed and calorie-dense foods contribute to these conditions, which are among the leading causes of death in the United States. These illnesses present a significant economic burden for families — and a boon for pharmaceutical companies. Diabetes medications alone are projected to generate over $132 billion annually by 2034. Yet studies show that type-2 diabetes — accounting for 90-95 percent of cases — is largely preventable with a healthier diet.
Preventive care, including nutrition support, is severely underutilized and underfunded in America, in large part because it is less profitable. In a 2019 analysis, CDC researchers identified financial considerations as the primary reason why the use of preventive services is so low. As one interviewee explained, “With no margin, there is no mission.”
Other structural barriers — such as the affordability and accessibility of nutritious foods — remain a challenge in addressing diet-related chronic diseases. The profitability of less nutritious options and the resulting demand for expensive pharmaceutical treatments create a cycle that benefits large corporations and only exacerbates the chronic disease epidemic.
The Role of Health Insurance Companies
It’s important to note that like drug companies, large health insurance providers play a role in perpetuating a cycle of chronic, diet-related disease. While insurers routinely cover costly surgeries like bypass operations or dialysis for advanced heart disease or diabetes, they often fail to provide robust coverage for dietitian consultations, medically tailored meals, or nutrition education that could address the root causes and prevent these diseases altogether.
Relatedly, insurance providers typically aim to minimize short-term costs, leading to underinvestment in long-term interventions. For instance, programs encouraging healthy eating or subsidizing healthier food options often face limited support because the benefits — fewer lifestyle diseases — may take years to materialize, potentially when the individual is no longer with the same insurer.
Finally, health and life insurance companies have historically invested substantial amounts in fast-food corporations, creating a conflict between their financial interests and the promotion of public health. While more recent research is needed, a landmark 2010 Harvard Medical School study exposed health and life insurance companies’ sizable investments in the five leading fast food companies.
Current medical and insurance systems incentivize short-term treatments, like pharmaceuticals and surgery, rather than preventive care, including nutrition, that could address root causes of disease.
The Influence of Industry on Policy and Reform
Efforts to address the chronic disease epidemic and the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture have faced significant hurdles. The pharmaceutical and agribusiness sectors are among the largest political spenders in the United States. This past election cycle, they collectively contributed $44 million to election campaigns. These investments have played a role in stalling legislation aimed at curbing preventative antibiotic use in livestock and increasing transparency in food production.
For example, Zoetis, a leading manufacturer of livestock antibiotics, reportedly spent over $1 million opposing reforms designed to limit the use of medically important antibiotics in agriculture. Similarly, meat industry lobbying groups contributed an additional $9 million to influence public policy in favor of their interests.
Conflicts of interest further complicate the policymaking process. A 2023 report revealed that nearly half the members of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee — responsible for shaping U.S. nutritional recommendations — had ties to the food, pharmaceutical, or weight-loss industries. This overlap underscores how deeply embedded these industries are in shaping policies that impact public health.
Opportunities for Change
Addressing these interconnected challenges requires systemic change and greater scrutiny of food and drug companies’ practices. Consumers deserve safe, healthy, nutritious food and an agricultural system that doesn’t jeopardize the efficacy of critical medicines. Foodborne illnesses, diet-related chronic disease, and antibiotic resistance are all growing problems for American families that could be addressed in large part with greater accountability within the food and pharmaceutical sectors.
A holistic review and reform of food and drug companies’ influence on federal policy — and of these industries’ interconnected political strategies — is an important first step. This includes reforms to nutrition policies like the dietary guidelines, stricter regulations on antibiotic use, greater transparency in food production and labeling, and increased support for sustainable agricultural practices. Subsidies that make unhealthy, unsafe food more accessible should be redirected, and greater investments should be made in preventive, lifestyle-based care to both improve public health and save taxpayer dollars in the long term.
Even with RFK Jr.’s nomination to the Department of Health and Human Services, it remains to be seen whether any of his promises to crack down on industry influence and address conflicts of interest will come to fruition. In the meantime, it’s critical that stakeholders interested in protecting public health continue to advocate for reform.
