Skip to content
Welcome
The large graphic
Companies
About
A handful of companies control the food industry
Hundreds of brands that we find on supermarket shelves give the impression that our money goes to as many different companies. But that's not the case: a large majority of these brands are owned by a handful of companies. The following chart provides an overview of where our money actually goes ( click here for a full resolution version):
Why this convergence is harmful?
This is a legitimate question: how the fact that these marks are controlled by so few companies is it a bad thing? Is it not just the functional outcome of our economic system?
In fact, we believe that this convergence is bad for various reasons at various levels which are all more or less interrelated. Here are five:
1 - These companies are so big that they have a dangerous political power
This reason is that, somehow, encompasses all the others. Profits from these companies are gargantuan: alone, Nestlé has generated more than $ 37 billion profit in 2010. But that money is rapidly converted into political power. Indeed, in our political system, pressure groups are constantly making efforts to pass or block legislation. In general, most lobbyists are well funded and organized, the more they can afford to have a great influence on the decisions taken at the end. The food industry conducts lobbying activities at all levels: international, national and local. In addition, large amounts are invested by these companies in the referendum campaigns of several political candidates from all parties. It would be naive to believe that these companies invest all that money (in 2010, Kraft has spent half a million dollars in contributions to U.S. political candidates; Nestlé, alone, donated nearly $ 300,000 to Schwarzenegger's campaign California) without expecting anything in return: they wish to have their say on legislation that will or will not be adopted. When asked for and against which projects they will pressure the only criterion that seems to apply in their choice is that of profit. This makes sense and seems reasonable, since these are companies which, after all, have the task of making a profit. However, political pressure for profit is often in conflict with the interests of the population, for which politicians should be able to work without countervailing pressures. It is bad for all the interest of companies comes before that of the population, especially when it comes to important areas such as public health.
The record of the labeling of products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a good example to date, it is impossible to know if GMOs have a dangerous effect on health or not. Despite this, a majority of products on supermarket shelves already contain GMOs. The U.S. state of Oregon attempted in 2002 to introduce legislation to require companies to disclose which of their products contain GMOs. We do not mean to ban GMOs, or even reduce their use, but only to inform consumers of their presence in the products purchased, and giving them a choice to buy or not. A huge lobby representing the food giants was then formed, with each company contributing to strokes tens of thousands of dollars (PepsiCo has invested $ 127,000, Procter & Gamble, $ 80,000). Finally, the bill is not passed .
Elected officials, who would normally protect the population, are fast becoming powerless, especially if their election depends on funds advanced by these same companies. This becomes an indirect form and legal corruption, and it is easy to believe that if it were possible, these multinationals would use more direct means. Unilever has admitted to the New York Times for giving bribes, kickbacks, or "easy payments" against members of governments in some developing countries. Unilever said he did not encourage such practices, but tolerate it when a "local custom". In other words: if politicians are corruptible in place and are already receiving bribes, kickbacks, as well enjoy it !
2 - Health Impacts
This makes sense: our health is largely by the food we eat, it is from them that eventually build up our body. To the extent that a vast majority of foods we buy are provided by a very small number of companies, each of them has a huge part to play on our health, which is partly in their hands. Contrary to what they can say well through various advertisements, our health is not part of their genuine concern, quite the contrary.
In 2005, almost all the multinational food companies have come together to put pressure on the French government, which was preparing to pass a law banning vending sodas and snacks like "junk food" in schools, and to alter the kind of publicity surrounding the food unhealthy. Much of the project had to be abandoned due to pressure from the food industry .
Worse, despite studies of the World Health Organization and UNICEF show that the use of a substitute for breast milk to feed babies contributes to the deaths of 1.5 million children annually in developing countries underdeveloped. Nestlé, the largest manufacturer of breast milk substitutes in the world, openly promotes the choice of using substitutes even if the mother is able to breastfeed . They even fund medical clinics in underdeveloped countries who agree to promote their subsituts breast milk. These practices are directly responsible for the death or poor health of millions of children, an international boycott of Nestlé elsewhere during the past 80 years because of this controversy.
3 - Impacts on the Economy
Economically, the limited number of companies in the food market puts us in an oligopoly. Two major consequences follow from this:
First, a market controlled by a small number of companies provides "entry barriers", that is to say that any new company that tries to enter this market will life difficult if not impossible. For example, if a new producer is lucky enough that her local supermarket has agreed to sell its product, it is often on almost inaccessible shelves that its product will be placed, which encourages very few people buy it because of Indeed, in conspicuous places are reserved for multinationals, who pay dearly for the privilege. A small producer simply does not have the budget to compete with them. Moreover, people are used to mark the big companies, and have the reflex to immediately buy these brands (who also receive support massive advertising), which makes the competition much more difficult with them. And if a producer was able to finally break into the market with a product that interests people, it is highly likely to be quickly acquired by a multinational and its brand will become another of the hundreds that 'they already have. All this prevents healthy competition in the market.
Second, an oligopoly often leads to a cartel , ie a small group of companies fixed prices at a higher amount than the market, to increase their profits at the expense of consumers. This practice is generally illegal and falls under the collusion, but that does not prevent companies from entering prostitution. In April 2011, Procter & Gamble had to pay 211 million euro fine after being convicted of a cartel to fix prices in Europe with Unilever and Henkel. Henkel, the smallest company of the three (and one that took advantage of the least), was not penalized, for it is she who has denounced the cartel authorities.
4 - Environmental Impacts
Companies that control the food industry have, in general, not an environmental issue rosy. In 2001, Kraft decided to invest heavily in the business of lobbying the Bush administration to campaign against the Kyoto Protocol. In China, PepsiCo and Nestle were convicted for pollution of waterways . Unilever, meanwhile, 7.4 tons of illegally dumped waste contaminated with mercury at the entrance to the forest Pambar Shola in India, right next to a city with high population density. Unilever was forced to close this plant mercury for this reason. It's also no surprise that Procter & Gamble has lobbied to weaken the European environmental bills in the place of chemicals. Because of pressure from P & G, the final legislation passed in 2003 by the European Parliament protects only very few citizens and the environment of toxic substances in household products. This "militant" anti-environmentalist shown by these companies has one goal: to ensure that production is the cheapest possible in the short term. Damage in the longer term to the overall population of our planet, including that of animals, has no weight, but he look good.
But the most significant impact that these companies have on the environment may be connected to the massive use of palm oil in their food. Indeed, the devastating impacts (large-scale deforestation, relocation of local communities leading to violent situations , extinction of animal species, emission of greenhouse gases) industry of palm oil have been revealed in recent years , but palm oil is still used extensively in a variety of processed products, mainly because of its cheapness and the fact that it represents an alternative ( equally unhealthy ) to trans fats.
5 - Human Impacts
The reputation of several multinationals about the working conditions they impose abroad is well established. Over the years, companies operating in various fields have been in the spotlight, the center of several scandals. The fact that the food industry also behaves in this way will therefore probably not surprising. Despite this, the severity of the actions of some of these companies may surprise many.
In 2005, Nestlé has been pursued by the ILRF (International Labor Right Fund) for child trafficking . These children are brought into Ivory Coast from surrounding countries to work on cocoa plantations used by the company. Despite several warnings at the point of Nestlé to inform them of these practices, Nestlé has never really reacted on the issue before continuing. Another lawsuit was launched in the U.S., where Nestlé is accused of complicity in slavery, abduction and torture of children in several countries in West Africa. Not to mention the murder of a union leader in Colombia . He had publicly denounced a sneaky strategy that allowed Nestlé to change the labeling of imported milk powder to it seems to be a local product. The powder, often past due, was imported from neighboring countries at a discount. The complaint led to a police investigation which confirmed the facts and reflects Nestlé to court to have undermined public health. Several other murders have mysteriously struck workers who filed complaints against Nestle. But this kind of practice is not the monopoly of Nestlé: the case of Coca-Cola is not brighter .
How to react?
Hard not to feel helpless in the face of multinationals have budgets too immense, a great political influence and who can consistently afford the best lawyers to fight any further. But the exorbitant revenues of these companies, which maintain these practices, does not grow on trees ... they come from our pockets! It is we who give them when every week we buy hundreds of products that we offer at the supermarket. Food is a huge market: each of us must eat to stay alive, and at rehearsal! Our visits to the supermarket are regular and represent the sum, much of our budgets. It would be wrong to believe that the impact that each of us has on this industry is minimal. Do the exercise, and calculate how much money you spend on groceries per year. Better yet, try out at your next visit, what percentage of the products you buy are sold by a few multinationals: you can calculate approximately how much money you give them. The result may be surprisingly high. So even if we cut one of his contribution, the impact will be several thousand dollars!
Two obstacles arise, however:
- It is difficult to avoid products sold by the handful of companies. They are everywhere, and sometimes it may seem that no alternative is offered: if you do not buy the product from Nestle, then you buy one Kraft or Pepsico. But there are alternatives, just search for them. They sometimes require extra effort, especially the effort to do a little research on the origin of the products we choose to buy (and the company that manufactures them). This effort is seen at the individual level, however, rewarded by the consciousness of being a good choice, and collectively with money invested elsewhere in this oligopolistic system.
- The brands owned by these companies are part of our lives long, they are everywhere. We're used to, sometimes attached. Advertising encourages us to constantly buy them. Very often, it is very difficult to imagine the ban all of our lives, suddenly and completely change our habits in a jiffy, it just is not realistic.
But these obstacles should not stop us! First, it may be convenient to print out our great graphic and drag it to the store to make the diagnosis of our habits, but also to look at the products that belong not to these companies: one becomes aware possible alternatives. Then you can try the products available to us as an alternative, perhaps more than we will appeal, and our habits will be more easily changed. It can also be profitable to try to change our habits one by one: over time, our impact will grow more and more, and we will not also destabilized. This approach is at least more realistic than a sudden boycott and inflexible, even if it is ideally desirable.
Inform us!
Let us not be manipulated by advertising, for it is through ignorance that these companies manage to have such a great power. In fact, if all were aware of their actions, their profits are falling steadily: very few people willing to endorse their actions. A wealth of information and articles are available on the internet, just waiting to be searched. For those interested in this topic, we also recommend the excellent documentary Food Inc.. that paints a broad picture of the food industry in the United States (the American situation is very similar to ours).
Finally, do not hesitate to consult the pages we created on some of the companies, where we list summary (and incomplete) interesting facts about each. We have included ConAgra , which is not in the large chart because it is less a big company. The decision to devote a page of its newsletter is ethically outrageous: we invite you to visit his page to judge for yourselves.
76 Responses to A handful of companies control the food industry
Laro Nico says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Wonderful, I was not aware of everything that's really scary what power these multinationals have over us, manipulating us by advertising
Reply
Pascal says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
But when do we understand that it is the customer who has power?! She will have no power over us if we want!
Reply
Kevin Breault says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Pascal: The companies are beginning to understand that it is the customer who has the power *. They show the benefits of their products through advertising (increasingly varied these days). Their power stops there, it is decided what the consumer buys it.
If I can respond with as much confidence in your comment is that I am an employee of Procter & Gamble. Can I say that every comment is listened carefully and that employees give their 110% to exceed customer expectations.
Reply
Joki D. Gauthier says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
What political power through lobbying? Your vision of the advertisement also seems a bit utopian, advertising has the only objective to increase sales, so the most effective advertising to do so will be the one chosen, not necessarily those who merely boast profit. It is a commonplace that psychological studies of consumer response to different types of messages are used by marketing agencies, is an exercise in manipulation (although the consumer is in fact responsible for his choice).
Reply
Kevin Breault says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
I will under no circumstances lead the discussion to politics but in our current system, lobbying may indeed be very serious consequences. It is we, the citizens who vote and choose our leaders.
Companies choose their advertising strategies of their functions. Their goals may be varied to maximize profits, improve their corporate image, etc. ... This is indeed the consumer to make their own choices.
Heidi Stevenson says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
There's an English slang term for you: troll.
Reply
Gina says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
What are you referring to? The large multinationals or what?
Nathalie Roy says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
This reinforces my desire to encourage more small local producers. More traceability is unbeatable and the proceeds go into the pockets of artisans.
Reply
Kevin Breault says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Nathalie, automated production systems today can trace every product with a defect to the minute he came out of the machine.
Reply
Marie says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
oh really? So why one finds after glasses in baby food jars that have been purchased and are in the closet of the housewife? Between production, transportation and procurement center to the closet, no one has seen anything ..... except baby
Automation is good for financial gain, it is on, but much less for the quality of products!
Reply
Kevin Breault says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Marie, Reclaiming the glass in baby food is just horrible. It is the duty of companies that have understood or understand more, to produce a quality product, free from danger to anyone.
You may be surprised by the following fact:
In most North American plants, automated systems are often more efficicaces than human. Systems in place to ensure quality are running 100% of the time while a human is sometimes distracted ...
Reply
Yvan Plante says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
To break the monopoly of multinational and restore our environment, pourqoi not buy organic food, local and ethical. Join the community of Jardindesanges.com Ensemnle, we will change the world.
Reply
Kevin Breault says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Yvan: Some of these companies have strong environmental objectives. Often the fact that they produce in large quantities allows them to have minimal impact on the environment in terms of impact per item produced.
Example: 100 small companies that manufacture 100 boxes of juice per month will have an environmental impact production much bigger than a company that produces 10,000 boxes of juice per month. Their systems are optimized for: recycle the energy used, recycling of production losses, optimizing the supply chain.
I hope these details are useful to you.
Reply
Jonathan says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Kevin: in the food industry, what you say is true at a processing chain. But I think you underestimate the impact that these big companies have on the sustainability of agricultural production systems. To supply chains in a regular and cheap, they grow to an artificial agriculture (monoculture, dismemberment, use of selected varieties more suited to the industry and agro-ecosystems ...). These practices have resulted in an increase in the use of chemical inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, ...), mechanization, soil destruction (first carbon reserve in the world) ... When we take stock, our systems agri- food are highly polluting in terms of carbon (in particular).
Reply
Matthew says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
care must be organic. it is often multinationals who profit (again) the ... more
Reply
Patrice Bélanger says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
I do not eat anything from these companies for 4 years and my health is getting better and better.
Reply
Anne says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
And how do you manage to do that? Thank you to those who gave the link but I would jardindesanges.com other addresses, other means.
We are so conditioned to the local IGA ...
Reply
Marie-Pier says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
To view an eye, over 90% of these products are processed foods or hyper-processed. Own food or cooking is a good way to avoid much.
Reply
Alexis says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
We practice lepanierpaysan.com very good local solution
Reply
bob says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Excellent article. You'd be perfect to take over the cell "Information" Project Rabbit blancJe invites you to discover the project, your opinion is welcome, work very well acceuillie. Hope to read you.
Keep smiling!
Bob
Reply
January says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
cool sheet! thanks
Reply
Eric says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
A small problem in the fight against these companies ... several countries (including France and I think the U.S.) have laws against boycotts. It is not (and I believe criminal) in France to start a boycott movement if it is not supported by the Government.
Reply
Eric says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
And the importance of these companies, only a mass movement could affect them.
Reply
Marine says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Then disobey!
Reply
Stephane says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Thank you for this awareness. This is the same problem in my view that the effects of lq globqlisqtion bqncqires and monopoles. Besides this one can ask, they are not the same banks that are majority shareholders of these compqgnies poisoners?
For me there is an alternative:
As far as possible local produce BUY!
- best products: healthier for health
- disminution transport costs and therefore less pollution
- farmers earn a better life while reducing their costs for the consumer
- preservation of genetic local species grown or raised
and I think this list is not exhaustive.
Reply
Kevin Breault says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Stephane, I agree with some points that you mentioned but only the food side. It's just healthier to eat unprocessed foods. By cons, it is only very small proportions that local foods are cheaper. (Vs. products of Mexico, the equator, etc ...)
Reply
smith says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
It's good to controversy but this article also says the wrong things. Do not believe these big companies control everything. The food at a very specific nature: the vast majority of companies are SMEs agro, so no there is no barrier at the entrance!
Deplus controversy on infant date of 80 years, I think Nestle would have the respite 30 years later. Especially as in many developing countries voice drastic measures were in place, I am thinking of India which prohibits the marketing of powdered milk samples in the same hospital.
These companies have the advantage of have introduced traceability and food safety management that is not always made in some small producers!
Reply
Joki D. Gauthier says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Thank you for comment, but I would appreciate it if you are going to say that there is false information, you support these claims, and I'd be happy to rectify this in the article. Nothing in your comment shows me that there is some false information.
About barriers to entry, the oligopoly automatically leads to barriers to entry, at least that's what all courses teach basic economics, and logic favors when you think about it .
About Nestlé, the fact that the controversy dates back to the 80 makes, in my opinion, even more outrageous, because it lasts forever. If Nestlé had changed its practices, the situation would be different, but now, Nestlé continues, 30 years later as if nothing had happened, knowing full well the ethical problems it poses, and the number of people whose health is seriously affected by these decisions. I do not see why Nestlé deserves respite.
As for traceability, do you speak of traceability for the consumer? Good luck to know exactly from which all the ingredients that make these processed products ...
Reply
Kevin Breault says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
The image resolution available on your site is really interesting. Thank you for sharing it. According to BBC the sale of 'Pringles' by Procter & Gamble to Kellogg's should be completed by the end of summer.
I should add some caveats to your article, for example ... The food companies are very transparent face the ingredients of their products. There qu'ay read the nutritional information on whether the product corresponds to your diet or not. I often see on the shelves of organic products that are less beneficial to the diet as the major brands.
Most of these big companies are key players in humanitarian assistance programs. A simple search on the major United Way donors would be a good start for building an objective opinion. A good example of a campaign is PUR , where Procter & Gamble demonstrates an incredible Social Responsibility.
In conclusion, we inform objectively, and not one-sided.
Note for transparency: I am currently employed by Procter & Gamble. I give to United Way.
Reply
Marc says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
hello,
some of these laws require food companies to display only certain ingredients, many are not displayed.
if you have the reasoning of their power, laws that require them to display some ingredients are "authorized" by these companies therefore the most harmful products are not displayed.
Transparency is therefore a challenge!
then there is no relation to the diet, we are talking about health!
an organic product is better for your health even if it is higher in calories!
For if it is really organic, it contains no pesticides and GMOs harmful substances recognized
and the fact that these companies help humanitarian programs hypocrisy is amazing!!
"I'm poison, but to make me see, I pay your hospital!"
do not forget to film it and to advertise on all our food, like, a purchase of the brand "Brand" has contributed humanitarian aid in countries such
is Ashamed!
Marc
Reply
Kevin Breault says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Mark
As the only personal knowledge I can say that in packaged goods for consumption (food supplements), all ingredients must be listed, and this, in descending order of their composition. Otherwise, it is simply illegal to sell in North America (US, Can, Mex).
Regarding the issue of bio, organic or not, fortunately for those looking for organic products (I'm a fan of organic products by the way ...), there are more difficult to obtain certifications that "prove" (within violation of the law repressible severe fine) that the product is organic. If a product does not "claim" to be organic, it probably is not. If a product claims to be organic, always check what the organization endorses.
Companies typically use humanitarian programs to improve their image while appportant support to groups or peoples in need. My opinion on the subject: Congratulations and thank you! It is a practice which demonstrates an effective corporate strategic management. In short, this demonstrates that individual opinions are large in this regard.
Thank you for this wonderful foster discussion,
Kevin
Reply
Joki D. Gauthier says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Indeed, thank you pointed out, Pringles was sold to Kellogg's, but the sale is not effective until June this year. I hesitated long before putting it under P & G and not Kellogg's. I finally made with a view at that precise moment, the advantage always goes to the Pringles P & G and the graph is to advise on the current structure. When the sale becomes effective, the graph may be modified.
The issue of donations to charitable organizations is complex.
- First, the philanthropic component of a company is primarily a marketing strategy, to gild the image of the company. All these companies get to have an immensely positive image among consumers, and donations are an easy and effortless to do this, simply pay a portion of marketing budget, no brainstorming, design, advertising, etc. .
- Second, we must wonder about the relationship created by donations. Charities depend on these donations for their livelihood and their proper functioning. So the companies can reach large amounts. The saying that "we do not bite the hand that feeds you" comes to mind ... how much a charity can he criticize the immoral actions of companies that fund them? It will be wiser for them to abstain. They lose a healthy independence.
- Third, how is it relevant that the companies, whose aim is to produce and sell products, give money to charities? People should not they choose who they want to give, via their personal budget? If companies cut donations to charity, they could reduce the price of the equivalent of the cup. This money comes back into consumers' wallets, which are then free to give the organization they like.
Nevertheless, I totally agree with your conclusion: objectively inform us, not one way!
Reply
Kevin Breault says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Joki,
Thank you for the clarification on the reasoning and congratulations for creating this image that I think should be included in all good teaching materials of all that relates to the broader business world. If you decide to do the expansion, I am committed to working in your research and to provide you the best of my knowledge few brands missing.
I agree with you that to make a gift is personally easy. However, to encourage giving by preparing campaigns are not easy things. I personally know several individuals who would be extremely offended by your words because they give much of their time in brainstorment, planning and implementing such campaigns. It is known that a campaign generates much more creative gifts. Thank you to people who donate their time and money to develop such campaigns.
To your second point, I do not see how charities could afford to "spit" on donations. Their mission is to raise funds. I do not understand any of your arguments here ... Companies do not have unlimited funds bénificient they can squander anyhow. When giving, exercise is targeted directly related to the mission or major strategies of these.
You say that the purpose of these companies is just to produce and sell products. You twist. Most companies have on your image goals much more significant. Take for instance Kraft ... I let you come to your own conclusions.
Are all, it is clear that having a good corporate image is strategic. This is why most well-established companies operate this way.
Thank you to you too beautiful to encourage this discussion,
Kevin
Reply
Anna-Diatta Gabrielle Dupuy says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Thank you for this information, which we all need! It is important to inform, so that each of us to realize that we are the actors of the enrichment of multinationals, and we waste our money, our health and often , instead of making the effort, every living being, to fill oneself, one's own well being, by making choices, knowledge of causes!
Reply
Jasper says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
PLEEEEASE write english version of this year! Or Even a German one? I would highly Appreciate both!
Reply
sven says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
good idea!
Reply
Niki says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
You Can use Google Translate:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.convergencealimentaire.info%2F
Reply
Joki D. Gauthier says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Thanks a lot for your interest in the text Jasper, I'm schedule to write year english version of the text very soon. The only problem is linked to the graphic That it is specifically made for Quebec consommateurs. The companies listed Have a Whole Lot more products That I did not list Because They Are only sold in Specific Countries, as Some of Their products are sold only in Quebec. I created it with the Market II have around me in mind. I invite non-Quebecers to search a bit around the internet, Even Wikipedia Can Be Useful, for a list of brand companies thesis Own. You Will Certainly find a lot more brands you know Which are not in the graphic. Nestlé alone owns 8,000 different brands.
Reply
sven says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
dear kevin,
thank you for your comments which are for the purpose of discussion fair and constructive so very welcome. thank you also for your links openly and non-agressiv tone. despite this, I'm sure you agree with me that does not bite the hand that feeds ...
I will not complain about all the efforts that multinationals are, although often it is a poor little green coat and / or office to give an appearance. a blessing is a blessing and never has it y one too ...
Is what you've seen the movie "taste the waste" or "food.inc"? It shows very clearly - although somewhat subjective, I admit - the perversion of the current food system. and it's really degeulasse (sorry). I will not go into details otherwise I would not finish tonight ... if not, you're always welcome to us for a discussion around a good bottle
What I blame you as it is to have (almost) no liability to the company. It goes around comes around one day. And the second thing is you remove the farmers their pride in the art by reducing them to mere collaborator at the bottom of the hierarchy with poor pay and destroying their health. All that the farmer does is produce food for us to live. The farmer allows us to live. So it should be treated with some respect, right?
It is the hand that feeds me, you ask yourself the question perhaps? It was my wife who has a good job in insurance and that allows me to be activated as Benevol for Slow Food. This is our way of taking responsibility for society, it qqchose return, even if or precisely because we derive our livelihood from this absurd system. We are not all good, but we strive to act consiencieusement.
Regards,
Sven
Reply
sven says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Where are the groups that Danone and Lactalis in your table?? You can find info here: http://www.projet22.com/histoire-29/les-multinationales/
Reply
Alia says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Thank you for that link.
On the site of Danone, a list of the group's brands:
Actimel
Activia
Aqua
Bledina
Danette
Danonino
Evian
Kefir
Ser
Stonyfield Farm
Volvic
Zywiec Zdroj
Reply
Joki D. Gauthier says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Thank you indeed for this link! I unfortunately had to leave out several companies that have a long list or a little less diverse, including Danone and Lactalis (but Smucker, Heinz ...).
Reply
Ted says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Very interesting, well done. I am missing Sara Lee in this picture though:
http://www.saralee.com/en/OurBrands/ByBrandName.aspx
Reply
Joki D. Gauthier says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
The Image Was Made With The Quebec market in mind, In Which Sara Lee products arent sold (to the best of my knowledge). Several big companies aim Were left out, like Smucker, Heinz and Dannon, Simply Because there 's Was not enough room for the "smaller" ones. Thanks for the link though, it is very useful information for U.S. viewers.
Reply
Daf says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
The pattern is unclear. There are no legends. $ What is the meaning? What does a spin-off in case?
I'm sorry but can not understand you.
I'm not pro but when large groups are provided such information is the minimum to explain, caption and remove ambiguities .
Reply
Joki D. Gauthier says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
The $ and the arrows represent the direction the money.
A spin-off is a company that decides to separate one of its subsidiary as a separate company. It normally invests in this "new" company initially to ensure proper operation, and the actions of the new company are divided among the shareholders of the old company. Thus, the money continues to enjoy more or less the same investors.
Reply
Antonio says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
How Can the A & W brand name owned by Be Both Pepsico and Kraft? Please explain.
Reply
Niki says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
"Outside Canada, the rights to the A & W brand are owned by Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Which in turn licenses the brand to the similarly named US-based restaurant chain, A & W products are: various Distributed via U.S. bottlers. A & W Food Services of Canada, Which is Independent of Both DPSG and the U.S. chain, is responsible for Both the restaurants and the marketing of root beer products'm his country, [5] with retail products Being bottled and Distributed by The Coca-Cola Company . "
That's from Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth.
Reply
Rashid says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Is the content available in English? If so, where would I get it? (I used Google translate to interpret this site, then translate my comment in French.)
Thank you!
Reply
Joki D. Gauthier says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
I am currently working one year english version of this page, thanks a lot for the interest!
Reply
Rashid says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
I Used the Following URL link to view this same page in English!
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.convergencealimentaire.info%2F
Reply
Chesnot Jerome says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
I do not see the Danone Group which is just as important as some on the map!
Reply
Loetan says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Note that Lipton is present at PepsiCo and Unilever. Indeed, by an alliance, PepsiCo distributes Lipton (IceTea), but the brand is actually part and parcel of the Unilever Group
Reply
Julia Fielding says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
I am researching food processing and supply at Clemson University. Do you have the original source for this picture please?
Reply
Joki D. Gauthier says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Hi Julia,
There is no source of "original" for the image, I made myself from information I gathered on the internet. Often the official sites of companies provide a list (sometimes non-exhaustive) of their products. Other sites and articles to help complete the list.
Reply
blas says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Or Danone??
Reply
Sat Says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Johnson and Johnson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmlX3fLQrEc
Reply
Stone says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Where is the multinational Koch Industries led by the Koch brothers who control between other paper lotus??
Reply
Alia says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Thank you for this diagram. It'll be nice to know who is behind this site convergence ... a food item "Who are we?" Or "about" would be welcome.
Reply
Joki D. Gauthier says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
I understand the relevance of this suggestion. It is easy to assume that as the author of this site, I may be personal interests against these companies (although it is not the case). I note the suggestion and I may add this item, thank you!
Reply
Marc says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
a button to share this information with facebook and other social network would be welcome and would urge to share this page!
Reply
Joki D. Gauthier says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Excellent suggestion, thank you!
Reply
silly American says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Please create year English version of this site! We silly Americans arent cultured enough to Understand Other languages!
Reply
Mr Graham says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
http://translate.google.com/ # en | en |
Hi Use google translate to go from the french to english. There are a FEW oddly put together sentences in the order hand icts very good.
Happy reading
Reply
Joki D. Gauthier says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Haha, I would not call you silly for not Knowing a foreign language I am currently working one year english version of this page, thanks for the interest!
Reply
Peggy Cartwright says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Ah, purpose ... we are very FEW unfortunate children in our country learn another language, Which is something I find very sad. Our Children Should get in early grades Other languages as They Do In The Netherlands, When kids just soak up another language so Easily, and wind up speaking Several. I Was lucky and had enough French in school That I Could figure out MOST of this article, Which is a very good one and Should Be seen by everyone. PS I dated a French sailor named Gauthier When I was very young (DURING WWII).
Reply
Litzor says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Gracias raw, genuine infográfico, saludos desde Colombia, porque también acá llegan esas marcas ...
Reply
IllellaEves says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
What heyday Is not today?
Reply
Melanie says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Hello,
another small bell. It often comes in large companies.
But if, for example, a small farmer who earns a miserable wage, discover a new vegetable, the markets, by his own company, is diversifying, made money.
Will we get into it it when it becomes a big company?
Reply
Joki D. Gauthier says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Hello,
You seem to assume that these companies are criticized just because they are large, but it is not the case. The real concern are the various harmful consequences of their actions. A large company that is acting ethically irreproachable does not necessarily lead to criticism, unless its size is somehow detrimental to the welfare of society.
I can take your example. As mentioned in Section 3. text (economic impacts), the farmer, who commercialized a new product that has become relatively popular, will soon be approached to be bought by one of these companies, for astronomical amounts. If he refuses, he will put a spoke in the wheels, economically, legally (patents), etc.. In general, large companies end up having the upper hand in one way or another.
But do we pay to the game and assume that he refused all offers, managed to defend its product legally, and that has succeeded in creating a very big company with this single product, while remaining independent of the others. Maybe they buy other companies and became a real big player. Are we going to get into it because he is fat? No. But he will influence political decisions through lobbying that go against the interests and health of the population? He will manage his company with moral rules, or will he be willing to do everything to raise its profits (for example, make children work in difficult conditions in developing countries)? His company will she ravaging some ecosystems? His company is she ready to cheat the legal system in place in his home country? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, it's hard not to get into it. He started from almost nothing is not an excuse to act immorally and against the common good. There is nothing wrong with making lots of money, but there is, in my opinion, struggled to make money unfairly and immorally, there is nuance.
Reply
eva b. says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Melanie yes, it seems to me, it does not miss an elephant in a corridor is not it? it is more exposed ... so it is that the ant does not envisage the same way! ants and there has tonnnes market because only a few% of food sold is represented by the total volume produced by each of these multinationals (single) .. and yes it sounds unbelievable but it's reality
to illustrate my point: take the 20 largest multinationals (some of which are shown in this article), well they represent "only" about 10% of the world, so imagine the thousands of small and medium producers (including local)! ... .
the global food market is Huge, no wonder all fighting for a share of the pie!
so we should all probably moderate our words actually ....
very interesting article to read, which unfortunately is a little dated: http://www.fao.org/docrep/w5800f/w5800f12.htm
Reply
Emily says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Hello,
I do research for a Japanese newspaper, and when I showed this chart has one of my colleagues, she was very interested.
She is interested in writing an article on the graph and the relationships between all the small brands and large companies. Are you the originator of this graph? If not, or do you find?
I hope I have not made too many mistakes, it's been more than 10 years since I finished my studies in French, and I do not know how to put accents with this computer.
Thank you!
Reply
eva b. says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
wow, impressive article, but I've read enough about NESTLE for today :-)
Do not You Know That They Are using the "breast is best" how it all Their only Adverts and That Their detractors (ie competition) are still Trying Ways to find 'em to attack bb Regarding food products? Are you working for Their competition? LOL
Sami Applies for P & G by the way ..
bb food and pet food products are the ones That Are The Most Severely PROCESSED qualitatively and Processes Followed up! please inform yourself Before writing incorrect information, so That the readers not familiar with That Are the Way Those big companies are doing business, do not get wrong info
this article about raising interest Should Be and discussion on this subject and not Trying to crucify Some That Are Creating huge multinationals all over the world emploi for us to eat and pay our bills at the end aussi of the month
Other than that, your item Deserves our Attention and you 've put a lot of efforts into it
Reply
zee says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Hello,
It's awesome to see Relationships Represented thesis.
i went to business school in the early 2000s, and They Were a secret to nobody - Creating a visualization purpose of this position is so much more Powerful and explanatory for everyone.
One question: why is not DANONE in there?
Cheers,
Z
Reply
Kimberly Boston says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
Please forward this article translated in English. Thank-you
Reply
Peggy Cartwright says:
% A% B% e% q,% Y at% I:% M% p
If only the 99% HAD HAD HAD proper educations and Learned Other languages in the not so good schools of the U.S., Perhaps THEY Could Simply boycott, and Others persuaded to boycott all ten of These corporations. At Any rate, I wish THEY wide Would make posters from the really good illustration to this article and keep 'em at Every 99% site to remind people That Just Avoiding all of These products might help. I, for one, do not drink bottled or canned drinks, iced tea make order from fair trade tea and drink fair trade coffee ... That Seems To cut out about half the items on the chart. I shop at Farmers Markets, where 'one avoids packaged and canned foods. It's a lot Healthier too. With oatmeal for breakfast, who needs Those big boxes empty-calorie? My Mother Taught me how to make soap when i was a kid ... maybe I'll go back to That now, also. Goodbye packaging, do not get caught in the machinery.
Reply
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Name *
Email *
Website
How
You may use thesis HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Archives
Meta
Log in
Food convergence
Proudly powered by WordPress.
No comments:
Post a Comment