Cause & Cure: How Corporations Profit from Both Problems & Remedies 💰🔄
Imagine a corporation manufacturing a herbicide that allegedly contributes to serious health conditions—while simultaneously selling medications to treat those same conditions. Or a tobacco giant, long associated with causing respiratory illnesses, that invests in pharmaceuticals for COPD treatments. These scenarios exemplify a phenomenon often described as “creating the disease and selling the cure,” “profit from harm,” or “cause and cure.”
Such examples highlight an uncomfortable reality: corporations profiting not only from the harms caused by their products but also from the remedies designed to address those harms. This strategy reveals a deeply entrenched dynamic within industries where profits outweigh ethical considerations.
A System Without a Single Label
While there isn’t a universally agreed-upon term for this phenomenon, several concepts encapsulate its essence:
Conflict of Interest
When companies have vested financial interests in perpetuating the very problems they claim to solve, it creates a fundamental misalignment with public health and safety.
Corporate (or Vertical) Integration
By acquiring or merging across industries, corporations create a seamless pipeline of harm and remedy, ensuring profitability at every stage.
Disaster Capitalism
This term, popularized by Naomi Klein, describes the practice of exploiting large-scale crises—such as environmental disasters, economic downturns, or public health epidemics—to drive profits.
Negative Externalities
Economists use this term to describe costs (like pollution or health issues) that are offloaded onto society while the corporation monetizes both the product causing the harm and the mitigation of its effects.
The Hidden Costs of the Harm-Solution Cycle
This dynamic isn’t just about financial gain—it comes with broader societal implications:
Public Health Burden: Diseases caused by harmful products strain healthcare systems and disproportionately affect vulnerable communities.
Environmental Damage: Pollution and ecological degradation caused by corporate practices often require taxpayer-funded cleanup efforts.
Erosion of Trust: When companies profit from both harm and remedy, it undermines consumer confidence and trust in industries claiming to prioritize health and sustainability.
How It Works
Producing Harmful Products or Processes
Corporations often manufacture products or engage in industrial practices that are either proven or alleged to cause harm to human health, the environment, or both. Examples include:
Pesticides: Chemicals like glyphosate that are linked to health issues such as cancer or endocrine disruption.
Sugary or Processed Foods: Products loaded with sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats that contribute to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases.
Industrial Pollutants: Factories emitting PCBs, PFAS, or greenhouse gases that contaminate ecosystems and public health.
The harm often manifests as long-term health problems, environmental degradation, or economic burdens on communities.
Selling the ‘Solution’
Many of these corporations also invest in or own companies that produce remedies or mitigation strategies for the harm caused, including:
Healthcare Solutions: Developing and selling medications or medical devices to treat diseases linked to their harmful products, such as cancer, diabetes, or respiratory illnesses.
Environmental Remediation: Offering water filtration systems, soil remediation services, or renewable energy technologies to address pollution they contributed to.
Lifestyle Rebranding: Launching “healthier” product lines, such as low-sugar beverages or plant-based alternatives, while still producing the original harmful products.
Through mergers and acquisitions, conglomerates create a vertical integration that ensures revenue flows from both the cause and the cure.
Profiting on Both Sides
The financial incentives in this cycle are enormous. By owning both harmful and remedial product lines, corporations:
Create a steady demand for their solutions by perpetuating or enabling the problems.
Ensure diversified revenue streams, protecting profitability even as consumer preferences shift or regulations tighten.
Expand their market dominance by entering new sectors, such as pharmaceuticals or environmental technologies.
Conflict of Interest or Moral Hazard
This setup creates a moral hazard by reducing or eliminating the incentive to mitigate harm at its source. Instead of working to prevent damage:
Companies may downplay risks, lobby against stricter regulations, or fund studies that minimize the perceived dangers of their products.
Maintaining the problem becomes a profitable strategy, as it drives demand for their remedial products or services.
Resources that could be used to innovate safer alternatives or reduce harm are instead diverted toward lobbying, marketing, or expanding harmful product lines.
Perpetuating the Cycle
The harm-solution cycle is often self-reinforcing:
The more harm caused, the greater the demand for solutions.
Public pressure or lawsuits may lead companies to invest in their remedial divisions while continuing harmful practices.
Examples: Tobacco companies selling smoking cessation products, agrochemical firms marketing filtration systems for pesticide-contaminated water, or soft drink giants promoting “healthier” beverages.
Masking Accountability
Through layered ownership structures, subsidiaries, and strategic branding, these conglomerates often obscure their connections to harmful practices, making it difficult for consumers or regulators to trace responsibility.
By presenting themselves as leaders in health and sustainability, they shift public focus from the harm caused to their perceived contributions to solving societal issues.
This cyclical approach to profit maximization highlights the need for transparency, regulatory reform, and consumer awareness to break the pattern and prioritize public health and environmental integrity over corporate gain.
Case Studies
Bayer–Monsanto: Weed Killer and Pharmaceuticals
Monsanto: Founded in 1901, Monsanto became one of the most significant players in agricultural biotechnology. Its flagship product, Roundup, is a glyphosate-based herbicide and the most widely used weed killer globally. Roundup's popularity soared due to its effectiveness, affordability, and compatibility with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), such as Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops (engineered to resist glyphosate).
Bayer: A German multinational founded in 1863, Bayer is widely known for its pharmaceutical products, such as aspirin. The company is also a global leader in healthcare and agriculture, producing everything from cancer drugs to crop science innovations. Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion, becoming one of the world's largest agrochemical and pharmaceutical conglomerates.
Health Risks of Glyphosate
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, was labeled as "probably carcinogenic to humans" by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015. This classification was based on limited evidence linking glyphosate exposure to Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animal studies.
Additional concerns include potential long-term exposure risks, as glyphosate residues have been detected in soil, water, food, and even human urine.
The Legal Fallout
Thousands of lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto (and later Bayer) by individuals alleging that exposure to Roundup caused their Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. Many of these cases argue that Monsanto failed to adequately warn consumers about the risks associated with glyphosate use.
Landmark cases:
2018: A California jury awarded $289 million to a former school groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, who claimed Roundup caused his cancer. The amount was later reduced to $78 million.
2020: Bayer agreed to pay over $10 billion to settle tens of thousands of lawsuits in the U.S. related to Roundup, without admitting liability.
Bayer’s Dual Role
Oncology Division: Bayer’s pharmaceutical portfolio includes drugs like Nexavar and Stivarga, used in cancer treatment, including for liver, kidney, and colorectal cancers.
Critics have noted the ethical dilemma of a single corporation potentially profiting from both a product accused of causing cancer and the medications used to treat it.
Scientific Debate and Industry Responses
Industry Denials:
Monsanto (and later Bayer) strongly contested the IARC’s classification, citing regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which concluded glyphosate is "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans."
These conflicting conclusions have sparked debates over regulatory transparency, the role of industry-funded studies, and the reliability of independent research.
Regulatory Gaps:
Monsanto faced scrutiny over allegations of “ghostwriting” scientific studies defending glyphosate’s safety. Internal company emails revealed during lawsuits showed evidence of influence on research and lobbying efforts to shape regulatory outcomes.
Environmental Impact:
Glyphosate’s widespread use has also been linked to environmental concerns, including soil degradation, biodiversity loss, and contamination of water supplies. These externalities further complicate the discussion of Roundup's long-term consequences.
Broader Implications
Monsanto’s Legacy:
Before the acquisition, Monsanto had a controversial history tied to products like Agent Orange (used during the Vietnam War) and PCBs, both linked to significant environmental and health issues. Critics argue this history reflects a pattern of prioritizing profits over safety.
Bayer’s Reputation:
The Monsanto acquisition proved costly for Bayer. While the merger positioned the company as a leader in agrochemical and pharmaceutical innovation, it also inherited Monsanto’s lawsuits and reputational damage. Bayer’s stock price plummeted following the legal challenges, sparking internal and shareholder debates about whether the acquisition was worth the risk.
Ethical Dilemmas of Vertical Integration:
Bayer exemplifies a vertical integration model where one arm of the business produces agrochemicals linked to harm, and another develops pharmaceuticals marketed as cures or treatments. This creates a potential conflict of interest, as reducing harm (e.g., glyphosate use) could undermine profitability across its product lines.
Future of Glyphosate:
Despite lawsuits and public backlash, glyphosate remains in widespread use. Bayer continues to defend Roundup’s safety while exploring alternatives, especially as some regions move to restrict or ban glyphosate-based products.
Notably, the European Union extended glyphosate’s approval through 2023, with ongoing reviews determining its long-term future.
Consumer Awareness:
Cases like Bayer-Monsanto underline the importance of transparency in corporate practices, regulatory oversight, and the need for independent research free from industry influence.
Advocacy and Accountability:
Public pressure, environmental advocacy, and consumer education play crucial roles in holding corporations accountable for both harm and potential solutions.
Tobacco Companies and Respiratory Treatments
Philip Morris International (PMI)
PMI is one of the world’s largest tobacco companies, producing iconic cigarette brands such as Marlboro. Recently, PMI has pivoted toward reduced-risk products, including IQOS, a heated tobacco device marketed as a less harmful alternative to traditional cigarettes.
British American Tobacco (BAT)
BAT manufactures a wide range of tobacco products, including Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, and Dunhill cigarettes. Like PMI, BAT has expanded into the e-cigarette and nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT) markets through products like Vuse (vapes) and Nicorette gum.
Altria Group (formerly Philip Morris USA)
Altria is the U.S.-based counterpart to PMI, responsible for marketing Marlboro and other brands domestically. The company has also invested in harm-reduction technologies and biotech ventures.
Other Players
Major conglomerates in the tobacco industry have partnered with or acquired stakes in pharmaceutical companies that produce treatments for smoking-related diseases, including COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), nicotine addiction, and cardiovascular conditions.
Health Risks of Smoking
Smoking is a leading preventable cause of death globally. According to the CDC, cigarette smoking is responsible for:
480,000 deaths annually in the U.S. alone (including secondhand smoke exposure).
90% of all lung cancer deaths and 80% of all COPD deaths.
Increased risks for heart disease, stroke, and other cancers (e.g., bladder, throat, esophageal).
The Ethical Dilemma: Dual Profiteering
Tobacco companies, which have historically denied or downplayed the health risks of smoking, now profit from both selling cigarettes and marketing treatments for smoking-related illnesses.
Examples include investments in:
Nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT): Products like gum, patches, lozenges, and sprays aimed at reducing nicotine dependence.
Inhalers and COPD medications: Medications and devices used to manage respiratory conditions linked to smoking.
Shifting Narratives
In recent years, tobacco companies have rebranded themselves as “harm-reduction advocates” while continuing to sell cigarettes. By positioning themselves as leaders in public health innovation, they attempt to reshape their image while maintaining profitability across both traditional tobacco products and health-focused alternatives.
How They Profit from Both Sides
Cigarette Sales
Despite declining smoking rates in many countries, tobacco companies remain highly profitable due to aggressive marketing in developing nations, where regulatory oversight is weaker.
Nicotine-Replacement and Smoking Alternatives
As smoking rates drop in developed nations, companies pivot to NRT and reduced-risk products, such as e-cigarettes, heated tobacco devices, and vapes.
PMI’s IQOS system and BAT’s Vuse are marketed as alternatives for smokers looking to reduce harm while maintaining their nicotine habits.
Biotech and Pharma Investments
Some tobacco giants have taken stakes in pharmaceutical companies or launched their own biotech ventures to develop treatments for respiratory diseases.
Example: BAT’s investment in a biotech startup developing COPD therapies.
Influence on Public Policy
Tobacco companies often lobby against regulations that might restrict cigarette sales while promoting policies that position them as part of the solution to smoking-related health crises.
Historical and Ethical Implications
A Legacy of Denial
For decades, tobacco companies denied the health risks of smoking and funded research designed to obscure links between smoking and disease. Landmark lawsuits in the late 1990s forced companies to pay billions in settlements and release internal documents revealing deceptive practices.
Example: The Master Settlement Agreement (1998) required major tobacco companies to pay states $206 billion over 25 years for healthcare costs related to smoking.
Corporate Pivot to Health Products
Today, tobacco companies seek to profit from the health consequences they once downplayed. By investing in smoking cessation products, COPD treatments, and reduced-risk technologies, they portray themselves as partners in public health, despite continuing to market harmful products.
Conflicts of Interest
Public health advocates argue that tobacco companies’ involvement in health-related industries creates a fundamental conflict of interest. The same corporations responsible for promoting and sustaining nicotine addiction profit from its treatment, undermining trust in their motives and sincerity.
Recent Developments and Market Trends
Growth of Reduced-Risk Products (RRPs)
Products like IQOS and Vuse have become a significant growth area for tobacco companies, with some executives predicting these products will eventually replace traditional cigarettes.
Criticism of “Harm Reduction” Messaging
Critics argue that RRPs are marketed in ways that encourage dual use (both smoking and vaping), rather than cessation. This prolongs nicotine addiction and the associated health risks.
Pharmaceutical Expansion
Tobacco companies’ investments in biotech ventures blur the lines between their historical role as purveyors of harm and their future as purveyors of solutions. For example, PMI has invested heavily in life sciences, focusing on respiratory and cardiovascular treatments.
Broader Implications for Public Health
Trust Issues
Can tobacco companies be trusted as public health advocates while they continue to sell cigarettes? Many argue that their profit motives inherently conflict with genuine harm-reduction goals.
Regulatory Challenges
Governments face a difficult balancing act: Should they partner with tobacco companies on harm-reduction initiatives, or would doing so legitimize and enable their ongoing harmful practices?
The Need for Transparency
Greater oversight of tobacco companies’ investments in healthcare and biotech is needed to ensure their motives align with public health goals, not just profit maximization.
The case of tobacco companies profiting from both smoking and its treatment highlights a troubling pattern in modern corporate practices. By investing in nicotine-replacement therapies, reduced-risk products, and pharmaceutical ventures, these companies attempt to position themselves as part of the solution to a problem they perpetuated for decades.
For consumers, this underscores the importance of critical thinking, transparency, and holding corporations accountable. Public health efforts must prioritize truly independent solutions rather than relying on industries with a vested interest in sustaining harm.
Nestlé: Sugary Foods and Health Products
Nestlé, one of the largest multinational corporations, has a massive portfolio that spans across industries, including:
Sugary Confectionery and Processed Foods:
Iconic brands like KitKat, Nesquik, and Cheerios dominate the global market for snacks, chocolates, and breakfast cereals.
Many of these products are high in added sugars, fats, and sodium, making them staples in the processed food market.
Beverages and Bottled Water:
Brands such as Perrier, Poland Spring, and Nescafé cater to diverse beverage markets.
Nestlé Health Science (NHS):
A division focusing on medical nutrition, dietary supplements, and weight-management solutions, with products like BOOST, Optifast, and nutritional formulas for chronic disease management.
With its hands in both indulgent and health-focused products, Nestlé operates in a business model that blurs the lines between contributing to public health problems and profiting from solutions to those very problems.
Sugary Products and Public Health
Critics argue that Nestlé’s cereals, candies, and processed foods are contributors to global health crises, including:
Obesity: High-sugar diets are a leading cause of obesity, a risk factor for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers.
Diabetes: Overconsumption of sugary products is closely linked to the rise of type 2 diabetes.
Heart Disease: Diets high in sugar and processed fats contribute to hypertension, atherosclerosis, and related complications.
For example, Nesquik, marketed heavily to children, contains high sugar levels, making it emblematic of products criticized for fueling unhealthy eating habits.
Health Products Division
Nestlé Health Science develops and markets solutions for weight loss, diabetes management, and specialized nutrition, such as:
Optifast: A meal replacement program designed for medically supervised weight loss.
BOOST: Nutritional drinks for elderly or malnourished individuals.
Medical Nutrition Solutions: Products tailored for chronic diseases like diabetes and gastrointestinal conditions.
This juxtaposition creates a dual profit system, where the company earns revenue from indulgent products that may contribute to health issues, and from solutions addressing those very issues.
Ethical Concerns
The simultaneous promotion of sugary processed foods and health solutions raises ethical questions about the company’s true commitment to public health.
Critics view this model as prioritizing profit over genuine efforts to combat the health problems exacerbated by Nestlé’s indulgent product lines.
How Nestlé Profits from Both Ends
Marketing High-Sugar Products
Nestlé invests heavily in marketing sugary cereals, snacks, and beverages, often targeting children and families through appealing branding, advertising, and promotions.
Processed food products are often cheaper and more accessible than fresh, whole foods, making them staples in many households.
Selling Health Solutions
As obesity and diabetes rates climb worldwide, Nestlé Health Science markets products designed to address these issues. This includes weight-loss programs, dietary supplements, and disease-specific nutrition solutions.
By expanding into the healthcare sector, Nestlé ensures its continued relevance and profitability as public health concerns grow.
Global Influence and Lobbying
Nestlé has lobbied against public health initiatives like sugar taxes, stricter food labeling, and advertising restrictions for unhealthy products.
These lobbying efforts often conflict with its health division’s mission, revealing a contradiction in corporate priorities.
Historical and Ethical Implications
Marketing Practices Under Fire
Nestlé’s history includes controversial marketing of infant formula in developing countries, leading to malnutrition and infant deaths. This pattern of prioritizing profit over health reflects a long-standing issue with corporate responsibility.
Contributing to the Global Obesity Epidemic
The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that obesity rates have tripled globally since 1975. High-sugar diets, heavily promoted by companies like Nestlé, play a major role in this public health crisis.
Incremental Health Commitments
Nestlé has made promises to reformulate products and reduce sugar content. However, these efforts have been criticized as minimal compared to the scale of the problem and the company’s contribution to it.
Implications for Public Health
The Double Burden in Developing Nations
In many developing countries, Nestlé’s sugary products are affordable and widely marketed, contributing to rising obesity rates. At the same time, malnutrition persists, creating a paradoxical “double burden” of health crises.
The Trust Gap
Nestlé’s simultaneous promotion of indulgent and health-focused products undermines consumer trust, as the company appears to profit more from sustaining problems than solving them.
The Need for Accountability
Regulatory reforms, such as stricter advertising guidelines, sugar content reductions, and transparency requirements, are essential to address this systemic conflict of interest.
Looking Forward
Empowered Consumers
Consumers can play a key role by:
Advocating for greater transparency in product labeling.
Choosing whole, unprocessed foods over sugary, processed alternatives.
Supporting brands that prioritize public health over profit.
Stronger Regulations
Governments must enforce stricter measures to curb the marketing of unhealthy products and incentivize the production of genuinely nutritious foods.
Corporate Responsibility
Companies like Nestlé must align their practices with public health goals, moving beyond token commitments to sugar reduction or health promotion.
Nestlé’s extensive reach across the processed food and healthcare markets highlights a troubling business model: creating demand for indulgent products while simultaneously addressing the health consequences of their consumption. This “cause-and-cure” approach underscores the importance of transparency, ethical practices, and robust regulatory frameworks.
As consumers, we can push for greater accountability and advocate for policies that prioritize health and well-being over corporate profits. By recognizing the patterns behind corporate behavior, we empower ourselves to make informed choices and contribute to a healthier, more equitable food system.
Pharmaceutical Companies & Opioid Addiction
Purdue Pharma
Purdue Pharma, founded by the Sackler family, became infamous for its role in developing and marketing OxyContin, an extended-release opioid painkiller introduced in 1996.
OxyContin was aggressively marketed as a safe and effective solution for chronic pain, with a low risk of addiction—a claim that would later prove to be disastrously false.
Other Pharmaceutical Companies
Beyond Purdue, other pharmaceutical firms have also played significant roles in the opioid crisis, either by manufacturing addictive painkillers or by producing addiction treatment drugs such as buprenorphine and suboxone (used for opioid replacement therapy).
Aggressive Marketing of Opioids
Purdue Pharma downplayed the risks of addiction and heavily marketed OxyContin to doctors, using misleading claims to increase prescriptions.
The company targeted vulnerable populations, including individuals with chronic pain and medical professionals in economically depressed areas, contributing to an explosion in opioid prescriptions.
The Resulting Epidemic
By the early 2000s, the widespread availability and misuse of prescription opioids led to a public health crisis in the U.S., with millions addicted to opioids and thousands dying from overdoses annually.
The epidemic has since evolved into a broader crisis involving heroin and synthetic opioids like fentanyl.
Profiting from Addiction Treatment
Many of the same companies (or their related entities) that fueled the opioid crisis through aggressive sales of painkillers later pivoted to selling medications and therapies for opioid addiction treatment, including:
Buprenorphine (Subutex, Suboxone): A medication that helps manage withdrawal symptoms and reduce opioid cravings.
Naloxone (Narcan): A life-saving drug used to reverse opioid overdoses.
Purdue and others have been accused of “double dipping”: profiting from both the sale of addictive opioids and the treatment medications for those addictions.
Legal Fallout
In 2020, Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty to criminal charges related to its role in the opioid crisis. The company agreed to pay billions in settlements to states, tribes, and individuals harmed by the epidemic. However, many argued that the Sackler family, which controlled Purdue, escaped personal accountability.
How Companies Profited from Both Sides
Pushing Opioids to Maximize Prescriptions
Purdue used high-pressure sales tactics, including lavish incentives for doctors, to encourage overprescription of OxyContin. They misrepresented its safety, claiming addiction risks were less than 1%, despite evidence to the contrary.
Addiction Treatments as a Secondary Market
As addiction rates soared, companies producing opioids began to invest in or manufacture drugs used in addiction recovery programs. For example:
Indivior (formerly part of Reckitt Benckiser) heavily marketed Suboxone, earning billions by positioning itself as a leader in addiction treatment.
Lobbying and Policy Influence
Pharmaceutical companies lobbied extensively to expand access to opioids in the 1990s and 2000s. Later, some of these same companies promoted addiction treatment policies and products, reaping profits from both ends of the crisis.
Ethical Concerns
Conflict of Interest
Critics argue that profiting from addiction treatment while simultaneously marketing opioids creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest. The companies driving the epidemic should not also control or profit from its resolution.
Lack of Accountability
While companies like Purdue faced financial penalties, many executives and owners, such as the Sackler family, retained their personal fortunes and avoided criminal charges. This lack of personal accountability has fueled public outrage.
Exploitation of Vulnerability
The opioid epidemic disproportionately affected economically disadvantaged and rural communities. Pharmaceutical companies targeted these populations for both opioid sales and addiction treatments, exacerbating cycles of poverty and dependency.
The Broader Public Health Impact
Widespread Addiction
From 1999 to 2019, nearly 500,000 people died from opioid overdoses in the U.S. alone. Prescription opioids were a significant driver of this epidemic, later compounded by illicit heroin and synthetic opioids like fentanyl.
Economic Burden
The opioid crisis has cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars annually in healthcare costs, lost productivity, and law enforcement expenses. Much of this burden falls on taxpayers, while pharmaceutical companies continue to profit.
Stigma and Barriers to Treatment
The stigma surrounding addiction has delayed efforts to address the crisis effectively, even as pharmaceutical companies market treatment solutions.
Implications for Public Health
Accountability and Justice
While companies like Purdue have faced legal penalties, many believe the penalties have been insufficient compared to the harm caused. Broader reforms are needed to hold corporations and executives personally accountable.
Regulatory Reforms
Strengthening oversight of pharmaceutical marketing and lobbying practices is crucial to prevent future public health crises. This includes stricter controls on opioid prescriptions and greater transparency in clinical trial data.
Public Health-Centered Approaches
Moving forward, public health solutions must prioritize prevention and treatment that is independent of corporate profit motives. Expanding access to addiction care and community-based interventions is essential.
Chemical Companies & Water Purification
Companies Involved
3M, DuPont, and other chemical manufacturers of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), PFOA, etc.
Controversy
PFAS pollution in water supplies is linked to cancer and other health risks.
Certain spin-offs or subsidiaries also sell water filtration systems and remediation services, profiting from cleaning up contamination their parent companies caused.
Johnson & Johnson: Talc Products and Cancer Drugs
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is a global leader in both consumer health products and pharmaceuticals, with a portfolio that spans:
Consumer Health Products:
Iconic brands like Johnson’s Baby Powder, Aveeno, Neutrogena, and Band-Aid. These products are marketed as safe and reliable staples in households worldwide.
Pharmaceuticals:
J&J’s pharmaceutical division produces high-priced oncology treatments, such as Zytiga (prostate cancer) and Darzalex (multiple myeloma), as well as other medications for autoimmune diseases, infectious diseases, and neurological disorders.
This dual role positions J&J as a trusted name in consumer goods and a key player in the fight against cancer. However, the controversy surrounding its talc-based products reveals troubling contradictions in its corporate practices.
Talc Products and Alleged Asbestos Contamination
Talc, a mineral used in baby powder and cosmetic products, can sometimes be contaminated with asbestos, a known carcinogen.
Lawsuits allege that J&J’s talc-based baby powder caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma (a rare cancer linked to asbestos exposure).
Evidence uncovered during litigation suggested that J&J was aware of potential asbestos contamination in its talc products as early as the 1970s but failed to adequately warn consumers or remove the products from the market.
The Legal Fallout
J&J has faced thousands of lawsuits from individuals claiming they developed cancer after long-term use of its talc-based products.
In 2018, a jury awarded $4.69 billion to 22 women who alleged that J&J’s baby powder caused their ovarian cancer. This verdict was one of many high-profile rulings against the company.
Pharmaceutical Profit from Cancer Treatments
J&J’s pharmaceutical arm produces oncology drugs that generate billions in revenue. For instance:
Darzalex: A treatment for multiple myeloma, earning over $7 billion in sales annually.
Imbruvica: A drug for blood cancers, co-developed with AbbVie.
Critics argue that the same company accused of contributing to cancer cases through its talc products profits from selling expensive cancer treatments, creating a perceived conflict of interest.
How J&J Profits from Both Sides
Consumer Health Products
J&J marketed its talc-based baby powder as a symbol of purity and care, targeting mothers and infants. This product became a trusted household name despite mounting evidence of potential health risks.
Pharmaceuticals and Oncology
J&J’s oncology division has grown significantly, with the company investing heavily in cancer research and treatments.
As cancer cases rise—some potentially linked to talc use—J&J’s pharmaceuticals division continues to profit from drugs designed to treat these diseases.
Legal and Ethical Concerns
Internal documents revealed during litigation showed that J&J executives were aware of the risks associated with talc contamination but chose not to disclose them. This has fueled public outrage and accusations of corporate irresponsibility.
Ethical Concerns
Conflict of Interest
The juxtaposition of selling a potentially harmful product and profiting from its treatment raises ethical questions about J&J’s priorities and corporate responsibility.
Consumer Trust Erosion
J&J has long marketed itself as a company committed to health and well-being. The talc lawsuits and evidence of asbestos contamination have significantly damaged its reputation.
Delayed Accountability
J&J has taken steps to phase out talc-based baby powder in some markets (e.g., the U.S. and Canada), but it continues to sell the product in other regions. Critics argue this demonstrates a reluctance to prioritize public health globally.
Legal and Financial Impacts
Settlements and Bankruptcy Maneuvers
To manage the financial fallout from talc lawsuits, J&J employed controversial legal strategies, including the creation of a subsidiary that declared bankruptcy to shield the parent company from liabilities.
While this move is legally permissible, it has been widely criticized as an attempt to evade full accountability.
Rising Litigation Costs
As of 2023, J&J has faced over 38,000 lawsuits related to its talc products, with billions already paid in settlements and judgments.
The Broader Public Health Implications
Transparency in Consumer Goods
The talc controversy underscores the need for stricter regulations and transparency in the production and marketing of consumer goods.
Global Health Disparities
J&J’s decision to continue selling talc-based baby powder in developing markets highlights the uneven application of corporate responsibility, with vulnerable populations often bearing the brunt of health risks.
Regulatory Oversight
The controversy has prompted calls for stronger oversight of both consumer goods and pharmaceutical industries to prevent similar conflicts of interest in the future.
Looking Forward
Consumer Advocacy
Consumers can play a crucial role by demanding transparency, supporting independent testing of products, and advocating for stricter regulations on product safety.
Corporate Reform
Companies like J&J must prioritize public health and safety over profit, aligning their business practices with their stated values of health and well-being.
Policy Changes
Governments must enforce stricter regulations on product safety, including mandatory testing for contaminants like asbestos, and hold corporations accountable for harm caused by negligence.
Tobacco Giants Pivoting to Processed Foods
Philip Morris (Altria) & Kraft
Key Facts
Philip Morris, once primarily associated with tobacco products such as Marlboro, expanded aggressively into the food industry. By acquiring General Foods in 1985 and Kraft Foods in 1988, Philip Morris became one of the largest food manufacturers in the world.
In 2007, Philip Morris rebranded its tobacco operations as Altria Group and spun off Kraft Foods, which later merged with Heinz in 2015 to form Kraft Heinz. Despite the separation, the historical overlap highlights the conglomerate's role in shaping global consumption habits.
Processed Foods & Chronic Disease
Products like Oreos, Ritz crackers, and Velveeta processed cheese became household staples due to heavy marketing campaigns. However, these foods are high in sugar, sodium, and unhealthy fats, all of which are linked to:
Obesity: A global epidemic associated with increased risks of diabetes, heart disease, and certain cancers.
Diabetes: Processed foods with high glycemic indices contribute to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes.
Heart Disease: Excessive sodium and trans-fat consumption are major contributors to hypertension and cardiovascular complications.
Similar Marketing Tactics
Just as Philip Morris spent decades downplaying the health risks of smoking, similar tactics were deployed to market processed foods. These include:
Targeted Advertising: Campaigns aimed at children and families, often featuring cartoon mascots or emotional appeals tied to nostalgia and family moments.
Lobbying Against Regulation: Both the tobacco and processed food divisions have historically opposed measures like cigarette warning labels or sugar taxes, framing health risks as a matter of "personal responsibility."
Funding Research: Sponsoring studies that minimize the link between processed foods and chronic diseases, echoing the tobacco industry’s earlier strategies of denying the dangers of smoking.
Parallel Harms
Philip Morris profited from two leading contributors to preventable death and disease:
Tobacco: A major cause of lung cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses.
Junk Foods: Drivers of obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndromes.
The crossover of harm illustrates how a conglomerate leveraged similar marketing and lobbying tactics to protect profits across industries, regardless of the public health costs.
RJR Nabisco
Key Facts
In the 1980s, R.J. Reynolds (a tobacco giant known for Camel and Winston cigarettes) merged with Nabisco, a leading snack food company, creating RJR Nabisco.
This merger brought snack brands like Oreos, Chips Ahoy!, and Ritz under the same corporate umbrella as cigarette brands.
Synergistic Marketing
The merger enabled cross-industry marketing tactics, leveraging R.J. Reynolds' expertise in creating addictive products and using similar psychological triggers (e.g., pleasure, reward) to market both cigarettes and snack foods.
For example, sugary snacks were promoted as "indulgent" and "satisfying," echoing the hedonistic themes of tobacco advertising.
Public Health Fallout
The conglomerate profited from two significant public health crises:
Smoking-related illnesses such as lung cancer and COPD.
Diet-related diseases, including obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.
Political and Regulatory Influence
Like Philip Morris, RJR Nabisco lobbied against public health initiatives, including food labeling reforms and cigarette regulations. By framing health crises as issues of individual responsibility, the company deflected criticism and maintained profitability.
Double Dipping in Health Impacts
Nicotine to Pharma or Wellness
Key Facts
Tobacco companies have strategically diversified into the wellness and harm-reduction markets. By investing in nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT), e-cigarettes, and “reduced-risk” products, they position themselves as leaders in the fight against smoking-related health issues—while continuing to profit from nicotine addiction.
Implications
Nicotine-Reduction and Smoking Alternatives
Companies like Philip Morris International (PMI) and British American Tobacco (BAT) have invested heavily in e-cigarettes (e.g., PMI’s IQOS and BAT’s Vuse) and NRT products (e.g., gum, patches, and inhalers).
These products are marketed as safer alternatives to smoking, but they also serve to perpetuate nicotine dependency, ensuring continued profitability from a substance long associated with tobacco’s health risks.
Marketing Reduced-Risk Products
Tobacco companies have rebranded themselves as advocates for harm reduction, leveraging narratives that present products like e-cigarettes as a public health solution.
However, critics argue that this approach focuses on “switching” rather than quitting, encouraging dual use (e.g., smoking and vaping) and maintaining long-term customer dependency.
Ethical Dilemmas
Tobacco companies continue to sell traditional cigarettes, even as they market themselves as champions of harm reduction. This dual strategy allows them to profit from both ends of the spectrum—promoting addiction through cigarettes and offering alternatives that address the resulting health issues.
Medical Services and Insurance
Key Facts
In addition to NRT and reduced-risk products, some conglomerates have diversified into healthcare services, including health insurance, hospitals, and biotech ventures. This creates a potential feedback loop where companies profit from both causing harm and treating its consequences.
Investments in Healthcare
Tobacco companies or their parent organizations have invested in hospital systems, insurance companies, and biopharmaceutical firms, expanding their presence in the healthcare market.
For example, some companies have partnered with or funded startups focused on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other smoking-related illnesses.
Profiting from the Aftermath of Harm
By owning or investing in medical services, these conglomerates capture profits from patients suffering from diseases directly linked to their products, such as lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.
This creates an ethical conflict: the companies benefit financially from the long-term health consequences of their harmful products.
Case Studies and Examples
Philip Morris International has heavily marketed itself as moving “Beyond Nicotine,” investing in wellness and biotech initiatives to reshape its image while retaining profitability.
BAT similarly promotes harm-reduction products while maintaining a strong presence in traditional tobacco markets.
The Feedback Loop: Harm, Remedy, and Profits
This pattern of “double dipping” in harm and remedy creates a self-reinforcing cycle:
Harm
Tobacco companies sell products (cigarettes, vapes) that contribute to serious health problems, including addiction, cancer, and respiratory diseases.
Remedy
These same companies pivot to marketing solutions, such as NRT products, wellness devices, or investments in healthcare, to address the health crises they helped create.
Sustained Profitability
By controlling both the “cause” (nicotine products) and the “cure” (treatments for addiction or disease), these companies maintain revenue streams while positioning themselves as part of the solution.
Ethical Concerns
Conflict of Interest
Diversification into wellness or healthcare industries raises questions about whether tobacco companies are genuinely committed to harm reduction or simply seeking to expand their market dominance.
Public Perception
Rebranding efforts may mislead consumers into believing these companies are prioritizing public health, even as they continue to sell harmful products.
Policy and Regulation
The overlapping roles of these companies highlight the need for stricter regulations to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that public health is not compromised by profit-driven motives.
Soft Drink Giants
Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, two of the largest beverage companies in the world, dominate the global market for sugary soft drinks while simultaneously investing in “better-for-you” product lines like sports drinks, vitamin waters, and plant-based beverages. Both companies use “healthy lifestyle” campaigns to promote their wellness initiatives, but their core revenue streams remain tied to sugary and calorie-laden beverages.
Sugary Beverages and Public Health
Sugary drinks are a leading contributor to global health crises such as:
Obesity: Excessive sugar consumption is directly linked to weight gain, with studies showing that sugary beverages are a significant driver of childhood and adult obesity.
Type 2 Diabetes: The high glycemic index of these drinks contributes to insulin resistance and chronic blood sugar spikes.
Heart Disease: Research connects sugar-sweetened beverages to higher risks of cardiovascular diseases due to weight gain, inflammation, and metabolic changes.
Marketing Healthier Alternatives
Both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have acquired and promoted brands marketed as healthier options, including:
Vitaminwater and Powerade (Coca-Cola).
Gatorade, Naked Juice, and LifeWTR (PepsiCo).
These products are often framed as part of a “healthy, active lifestyle”, even though some contain significant amounts of added sugar or artificial ingredients.
Massive Advertising Budgets
Coca-Cola and PepsiCo spend billions annually on advertising, promoting sugary drinks as refreshing, fun, and essential parts of social experiences. Simultaneously, their wellness campaigns emphasize hydration, energy, and performance, creating a dual narrative that targets health-conscious consumers without alienating their traditional customer base.
How They Profit from Both Ends
Sugary Drinks as a Core Revenue Stream
Despite efforts to diversify, sugar-sweetened beverages like Coca-Cola Classic, Pepsi, Sprite, and Mountain Dew remain the primary drivers of revenue for both companies.
These products are sold in massive volumes globally, particularly in developing markets, where regulatory oversight on sugar consumption is often weaker.
Healthy Lifestyle Campaigns
Coca-Cola and PepsiCo position themselves as champions of health and wellness by sponsoring fitness initiatives, marathons, and sports teams. These campaigns help deflect criticism of their sugary products while reinforcing their brands’ association with an active lifestyle.
Acquisition of “Better-for-You” Brands
Both companies have expanded into markets for health-oriented beverages, such as:
Sports Drinks: Powerade (Coca-Cola) and Gatorade (PepsiCo) dominate the market.
Vitamin-Enhanced Water: Vitaminwater (Coca-Cola) and LifeWTR (PepsiCo) cater to consumers seeking hydration with perceived health benefits.
Plant-Based Beverages: Coca-Cola’s Innocent Smoothies and PepsiCo’s Naked Juice target the growing demand for plant-based, nutrient-rich drinks.
Ethical Concerns
Health Claims and Misleading Narratives
Many “better-for-you” beverages marketed by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo contain hidden sugars or artificial additives, undermining their claims of being genuinely healthy. For example, Vitaminwater has been criticized for containing as much sugar as a soda while promoting itself as a fitness-friendly drink.
Dual Messaging
The companies’ simultaneous promotion of sugary drinks and health-focused products creates a contradictory narrative. By framing themselves as advocates for wellness, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo deflect criticism of their role in the global obesity epidemic.
Targeting Vulnerable Populations
Sugary drinks are disproportionately marketed to low-income communities and developing nations, where health literacy and access to nutritious alternatives may be limited. This marketing contributes to rising obesity and diabetes rates in these regions.
The Broader Public Health Implications
Global Obesity Crisis
The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies sugary drinks as a major contributor to the tripling of global obesity rates since 1975. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo’s dominance in the beverage market makes them key players in this public health challenge.
Shift to Developing Markets
As soda consumption declines in wealthier nations due to increased health awareness, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have aggressively targeted emerging markets in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, fueling concerns about diet-related diseases in these regions.
Lobbying Against Sugar Taxes
Both companies have spent millions lobbying against sugar taxes and other regulatory measures aimed at reducing sugary drink consumption. These efforts undermine public health initiatives and delay meaningful progress in combating obesity and related diseases.
Agri-Chem Conglomerates
Major agricultural chemical corporations, including Monsanto (acquired by Bayer), Syngenta (owned by ChemChina), DuPont (merged into Corteva Agriscience), and others, operate at the intersection of biotechnology, agrochemicals, and, in some cases, healthcare and water filtration. These conglomerates develop biotech seeds, pesticides, and technologies aimed at solving the problems their products sometimes exacerbate, creating a complex web of interdependencies.
Biotech Seeds and Pesticides
Many agri-chem companies produce genetically modified seeds (e.g., Roundup Ready crops by Monsanto) that are engineered to resist herbicides like glyphosate.
While these seeds improve crop yields and reduce certain pests, they also lead to increased pesticide use, environmental degradation, and the emergence of pesticide-resistant weeds and pests.
Environmental and Health Risks
Pesticides such as glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup) have been linked to health risks, including cancer (as classified by the WHO’s IARC) and endocrine disruption.
Persistent agrochemical runoff contaminates water supplies, damages ecosystems, and affects biodiversity, particularly pollinators like bees.
Diversification into Healthcare and Filtration
Some of the same conglomerates responsible for pesticide contamination have invested in:
Healthcare: Developing treatments for diseases potentially linked to chemical exposure.
Water Filtration and Purification: Offering solutions to remove agricultural pollutants like nitrates and pesticides from drinking water.
Perceived Conflict of Interest
Critics argue that these companies profit from both sides:
Selling products (pesticides and fertilizers) that contribute to environmental and health problems.
Marketing solutions (healthcare and filtration technologies) to address the resulting issues.
How Agri-Chem Companies Profit from Both Sides
Biotech and Agrochemicals
Genetically modified seeds are paired with proprietary pesticides and herbicides, ensuring farmers must purchase both the seed and the accompanying chemical treatment from the same company. This vertical integration locks farmers into a dependent relationship with the corporation.
Environmental Remediation
Companies like DuPont and Syngenta have invested in water filtration and soil remediation technologies to mitigate the environmental damage caused by agrochemicals. This allows them to sell solutions for the pollution they contribute to.
Healthcare Investments
Some agri-chem companies or their affiliates invest in pharmaceutical or biotech ventures, potentially benefiting from treatments for diseases linked to pesticide exposure.
Case Studies and Examples
Monsanto (Bayer)
Monsanto’s Roundup and Roundup Ready seeds became emblematic of the agrochemical industry’s cause-and-cure dynamic.
Critics allege that Monsanto’s products contributed to the rise of glyphosate-resistant weeds, requiring farmers to use more herbicides or switch to alternative chemicals.
Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto positioned the company to profit not only from herbicide sales but also from treatments for cancer, including lawsuits linking Roundup to Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.
DuPont and PFAS Contamination
DuPont, known for developing pesticides and industrial chemicals, has faced lawsuits over PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) contamination in water supplies.
The company has invested in water filtration systems to clean up PFAS pollution, profiting from the solutions to the contamination it helped create.
Syngenta
Syngenta, a major producer of pesticides and seeds, has also developed technologies to address pesticide runoff and pollution. Its investment in water management systems highlights how agri-chem companies position themselves as both contributors to and solvers of environmental crises.
Broader Implications
Environmental Impact
Agrochemical use has led to widespread soil degradation, water contamination, and biodiversity loss. For example, the decline in pollinator populations (essential for global food production) is partly attributed to pesticide use.
Farmer Dependency
The reliance on biotech seeds and agrochemicals creates a cycle of dependency, where farmers must continually purchase seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides to sustain yields.
Public Health Burden
The health consequences of pesticide exposure, from cancer to reproductive issues, disproportionately affect rural communities and agricultural workers.
The costs of addressing these health impacts often fall on public health systems rather than the corporations responsible.
Ethical Concerns
Conflict of Interest
Diversification into healthcare and environmental technologies raises questions about whether agri-chem companies are genuinely committed to sustainability or merely seeking to expand their profit streams.
Accountability
Critics argue that these companies should bear the financial responsibility for mitigating the harm caused by their products, rather than profiting from remediation efforts.
Transparency
The overlapping roles of these companies in agriculture, healthcare, and environmental solutions make it difficult for consumers and policymakers to fully understand the scope of their influence.
Energy/Industrial Conglomerates
General Electric (GE) and similar industrial conglomerates have historically played dual roles in environmental management. While contributing to pollution through industrial operations, many of these companies also operate divisions specializing in environmental cleanup, including water treatment, soil remediation, and waste management. This duality creates a cause-and-cure dynamic where the same corporation profits from addressing the problems it helped create.
PCB Pollution by General Electric
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are toxic industrial chemicals used in electrical equipment like transformers and capacitors, which GE manufactured extensively.
From the 1940s to the 1970s, GE discharged hundreds of thousands of pounds of PCBs into the Hudson River, creating one of the largest environmental contamination sites in U.S. history.
PCBs are linked to cancer, reproductive disorders, and other serious health issues. Despite being banned in 1979, PCBs persist in the environment for decades.
Environmental Cleanup Services
GE and similar companies often operate divisions or subsidiaries specializing in environmental cleanup and remediation technologies. For instance, GE developed solutions for water filtration, hazardous waste disposal, and contaminated site restoration.
Perceived Conflict of Interest
Critics argue that corporations like GE benefit from creating pollution (e.g., through industrial processes) and then profiting from the cleanup contracts awarded to address the damage. This creates a feedback loop where harm and remedy are both revenue streams.
How They Profit from Both Sides
Industrial Pollution
Companies like GE contributed to widespread contamination of water bodies, air, and soil through the production and disposal of hazardous substances, including PCBs, heavy metals, and chemical waste.
Environmental Cleanup Services
As environmental regulations tightened, many of these same companies developed or expanded divisions focused on remediation. Examples include:
Water Treatment: Technologies to remove industrial pollutants like PCBs, nitrates, and heavy metals from drinking water.
Site Remediation: Services to clean up contaminated soil and groundwater at industrial sites.
Legal Settlements and Cleanup Contracts
GE was ordered to clean up its PCB contamination in the Hudson River, spending billions on dredging and remediation. However, much of the financial burden was absorbed as part of the company’s operational costs, with some arguing that GE profited indirectly by positioning itself as a leader in environmental technologies.
Broader Examples
DuPont and PFAS
Similar to GE, DuPont produced PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), often referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment.
DuPont has since developed filtration systems to address PFAS contamination, creating a parallel example of profiting from both harm and remedy.
Energy Companies and Carbon Offsetting
Some energy conglomerates that contribute heavily to greenhouse gas emissions also invest in carbon offset programs, renewable energy, and carbon capture technologies. This allows them to profit from addressing climate change while continuing to produce fossil fuels.
Ethical Concerns
Conflict of Interest
The overlap between polluting industries and environmental services divisions raises concerns about whether these companies are incentivized to reduce harm. Critics argue that they may prioritize profits over meaningful environmental stewardship.
Accountability and Transparency
Many industrial conglomerates have faced lawsuits and regulatory actions, but fines and cleanup orders often fall short of addressing the full scope of the damage caused.
Public Costs
While companies like GE are often held partially accountable, the long-term costs of environmental and public health impacts are frequently borne by taxpayers and affected communities.
The Broader Public Impact
Environmental Degradation
Pollution from industrial conglomerates has led to widespread damage to ecosystems, biodiversity, and natural resources.
Health Consequences
Communities near industrial sites often face higher rates of cancer, respiratory issues, and other health problems linked to toxic exposure.
Delayed Action
Many corporations delayed acknowledging or addressing their environmental impacts, prolonging harm and complicating remediation efforts.
Why This Happens
Corporate Diversification and Mergers
How It Works
Conglomerates strategically diversify across industries, often through mergers and acquisitions, creating a network where one division's harmful product can directly or indirectly fuel another division's solutions. For example:
A company producing pesticides may also invest in pharmaceuticals to treat diseases linked to chemical exposure.
Tobacco companies pivot into food, wellness, or biotech, creating opportunities to profit from related health crises.
Implications
This structure enables corporations to capture revenue from both ends of the problem: selling harmful products and the remedies.
Diversification allows companies to hedge risks, ensuring profitability even as one product line faces criticism or regulation.
Examples
Bayer-Monsanto: Producing glyphosate-based herbicides while selling cancer treatments.
Philip Morris (Altria): Transitioning from tobacco to processed foods and wellness products.
Lobbying and Influence
How It Works
Corporations leverage substantial financial resources to shape public policy, regulations, and consumer perception. Key tactics include:
Lobbying Against Regulation: Opposing stricter product safety laws, such as sugar taxes, pesticide bans, or tobacco restrictions.
Shifting Blame: Promoting narratives of “personal responsibility” to deflect attention from corporate practices (e.g., “smoke responsibly,” “eat in moderation”).
Sponsoring Research: Funding studies that downplay the risks of harmful products or promote the benefits of their solutions.
Implications
Lobbying efforts often delay meaningful regulatory action, allowing harmful products to remain on the market longer.
The narrative of personal responsibility shifts the burden onto consumers, obscuring the systemic role of corporations in public health crises.
Examples
Coca-Cola and PepsiCo: Funding fitness campaigns to deflect attention from sugary drinks' role in obesity.
Tobacco Industry: Historically funding research to deny the link between smoking and cancer.
Regulatory Gaps
How It Works
In most countries, regulations focus on specific industries or products rather than the relationships between industries. This allows companies to operate on both sides of a harmful situation without explicit legal barriers.
Lack of Oversight: Few laws prevent a company from owning businesses that contribute to harm (e.g., agrochemicals) while profiting from solutions (e.g., water filtration, cancer treatments).
Limited Corporate Transparency: Complex subsidiary structures make it difficult to trace ownership and assess conflicts of interest.
Implications
Regulatory gaps enable corporations to diversify into harm and solution sectors with little scrutiny.
Consumers are often unaware of the interconnectedness of these industries, reducing public pressure for change.
Examples
GE: Polluting rivers with PCBs while operating environmental cleanup divisions.
Syngenta: Selling pesticides that contaminate water and offering technologies to remediate the contamination.
Complex Global Supply Chains
How It Works
Multinational corporations often operate through layered subsidiary structures and global supply chains, which obscure ownership and accountability.
Subsidiaries may operate under different names, making it difficult for consumers or regulators to connect them to the parent company.
Supply chain complexities create opportunities to shift blame to third parties, such as suppliers or contractors.
Implications
The opacity of supply chains makes it challenging to identify and hold corporations accountable for their roles in harm-solution cycles.
Consumers may unknowingly support harmful practices by purchasing products linked to these supply chains.
Examples
Nestlé: Operating both sugary food brands and health-focused divisions under separate entities.
DuPont: Producing harmful chemicals through subsidiaries while offering cleanup solutions under other brand names.
Public Health Burden
How It Works
For many corporations, maintaining the harm-solution cycle is more profitable than addressing the root causes of harm.
Efforts to reduce harm (e.g., reformulating products, phasing out toxic chemicals) often require significant investments that may reduce short-term profits.
By sustaining harm and marketing solutions, companies create long-term revenue streams at the expense of public health.
Implications
The burden of harm disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, such as low-income communities, who often lack access to solutions.
Public health systems bear the cost of treating diseases and mitigating environmental damage, while corporations retain profits.
Examples
Opioid Crisis: Pharmaceutical companies profiting from both addictive painkillers and addiction treatments.
Processed Foods: Companies promoting high-sugar products while selling weight-loss and diabetes management solutions.
Patterns and Staying Informed
Understanding the strategies corporations use to maintain the harm-solution cycle is essential for making informed choices and advocating for change. Here are key patterns to recognize and steps to stay vigilant:
Follow the Ownership Trail
What to Watch For
Many well-known brands are owned by parent companies that span multiple industries. A food product you trust, for example, might be owned by a conglomerate with stakes in tobacco, chemicals, or pharmaceuticals.
Ownership webs often include subsidiaries with names designed to obscure their connection to the parent company.
How to Stay Informed
Research Parent Companies: Look up who owns the brands you purchase. Tools like OpenSecrets and Corporate Watch can provide insights into corporate structures.
Check for Cross-Industry Linkages: For example, companies that produce harmful chemicals may also own or invest in healthcare firms offering treatments for the resulting health issues.
Watch for Strategic Diversifications
What to Watch For
Mergers and Acquisitions: Large conglomerates often acquire companies in industries seemingly unrelated to their core business, creating a pipeline where one arm profits from harm and another from solutions.
Example: A chemical company acquiring a pharmaceutical division or a tobacco giant buying into food brands.
How to Stay Informed
Follow Industry News: Track high-profile mergers, acquisitions, and partnerships in sectors like agrochemicals, food, and healthcare.
Pay Attention to PR Narratives: When a company announces a new focus on “health and wellness” after years of selling harmful products, it’s often a sign of strategic diversification.
Consider Lobbying Efforts
What to Watch For
Messaging Themes: Corporations often frame public health crises as issues of “personal responsibility” to deflect blame from systemic issues.
Lobbying Against Regulation: Companies frequently oppose legislation like sugar taxes, stricter pesticide controls, or tobacco restrictions to protect their profits.
How to Stay Informed
Investigate Lobbying Records: Organizations like OpenSecrets and Center for Responsive Politics track corporate lobbying expenditures and efforts.
Look for Patterns: Common lobbying themes include claims that “our product is safe when used responsibly” or that regulations unfairly target consumer choice.
Read Independent Research
What to Watch For
Corporate-funded studies often downplay risks or emphasize benefits while ignoring potential harm. Look for peer-reviewed research from independent sources to get a clearer picture.
How to Stay Informed
Trusted Sources: Refer to reputable journals, investigative journalism outlets, and NGOs focused on public health and environmental issues.
Examples: Corporate Watch, Environmental Working Group (EWG), Global Witness.
Avoid Bias: Be wary of studies funded directly by industries with a vested interest in the outcomes.
Advocate for Transparency and Regulation
What to Watch For
Loopholes in labeling laws, environmental protections, and conflict-of-interest regulations allow corporations to obscure harmful practices.
Weak or inconsistent enforcement often benefits companies at the expense of public health and safety.
How to Stay Informed
Support Advocacy Groups: Join or support organizations pushing for stricter regulations, clearer labeling, and corporate accountability.
Engage in Policy Discussions: Advocate for laws that prevent companies from profiting off harm-solution cycles, such as restrictions on cross-industry ownership or stricter environmental oversight.
Further Reading
Naomi Klein, “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”
Discusses profiting from large-scale disasters or crises, illustrating a similar ethos of monetizing harm.Marion Nestle, “Food Politics”
Explores how Big Food and Big Tobacco have parallel strategies influencing nutrition science and policy.Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, “Merchants of Doubt”
Examines how corporations sow doubt about negative health/environmental impacts to protect profits.Investigative Articles on “Corporate Diabetes”
Revealing how food conglomerates and Big Pharma benefit from diets leading to type 2 diabetes—and from the medications used to manage it.
