Ten Mega Corporations Control Everything You Buy

A great graphic from Australia’s Herald Sun demonstrates why you really should try not to buy processed foods, Big Pharma drugs and cosmetics … or pretty much anything else! The companies to avoid: Coca Cola; Pepsico; Johnson & Johnson; P&G; Nestlé; Kraft; General Mills; Unilever; Mars; and Wrigley.

Source: NewsComAu

Source: NewsComAu

majestic

Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

12 Comments on "Ten Mega Corporations Control Everything You Buy"

  1. And only 6 control 90% of what people read, watch, or listen to:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

  2. emperorreagan | Nov 19, 2013 at 10:20 am |

    Kashi was the only one that actually surprised me when I found out about it and made me much more careful in looking at who actually owns the products I’m buying.

    Also, the first time I saw Magnum ice cream bars while walking through a grocery store I wondered why Trojan Condoms was cross branding its condom line with ice cream.

  3. We buy local, farm produced primarily, then Ontario Grown or produced, and live on a strictly sodium limited, cholesterol limited, wheat and corn limited diet of root crops and beans, fish and local fowl, but do enjoy a cup of tea or two daily. my “quad bypass” was warning enough for me to make drastic changes in diet and life habits. I am also diabetic on insulin so sugar free diet too.

    • duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude | Nov 20, 2013 at 4:51 am |

      Most people can’t afford this diet let alone have the patients to find access to it. I wish more people would do this but it isn’t totally practical.

  4. Graham Freeman | Nov 19, 2013 at 6:34 pm |

    “Ten Mega Corporations Control Everything You Buy”

    MIsleading headline is misleading.

  5. kowalityjesus | Nov 20, 2013 at 2:38 am |

    Nothing is stupider than bottled water. I work for a drug store chain and they carry their own brand of bottled water which retails at $2.99 for 24 bottles and quite literally costs $0.04 to make. There is no reason why they can’t charge $0.25 for 24 bottles. It would still be fabulously profitable.

    There must be some clandestine agreement among people who make bottled water that they have to charge fucking absurd rates (probably at the threat of some kind of extra-judicial corporate ostracism). I don’t think bottled water could sell at a 10,000% profit margin without SERIOUS behind-the-scenes corporate cooperation.

    • duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude | Nov 20, 2013 at 4:50 am |

      People pay it. Why wouldn’t they charge 2.99? This graphic makes me sick but you also have to use your head man.

    • Andy Bachand | Nov 20, 2013 at 10:14 am |

      Are you just taking the cost of the bottles and water? Because there’s the electricity cost at the bottling plant, maintenance on the machinery, wages of the workers, the various equipment needed to move pallets of product, the cost of the pallets themselves, and then you have fuel costs for the trucks transporting, the wages of the drivers, the wages of the warehouse workers who unload the pallets from the manufacturer and slot them in the warehouse and then pick them for transport to the retail location then there’s the fuels costs for the trucks to deliver to the retail location and then the wages of the employees to unload the trucks at the store…So while the raw materials(bottles and water) may be inexpensive the overhead for producing and delivering those bottles of water to the stores adds a lot to the “$.04”

      • kowalityjesus | Nov 20, 2013 at 12:03 pm |

        I agree, but why would water cost even remotely as much as soda or beer? Admittedly though soda is very cheap to produce, there is NO overhead to produce water. Often the going rate for municipal water is paid by companies like Pepsico (aquafina) and put directly into bottles. Why doesn’t somebody swoop in and start a bottled water company that still makes a great deal of profit, but very marginal profit compared to the 1,000s of percent of large companies? This would theoretically create much commerce. Where is the initiative? Isn’t this America? It seems like the only reason there is not a savvy competitor in the bottled water market is due to a clandestine “trust” between the suppliers and retailers that they will keep this racket going.

        • Fred Derf | Nov 25, 2013 at 2:01 pm |

          You need to study business a bit more and find out what “overhead” means. Yes, there would be overhead to procure and bottle water.

          • kowalityjesus | Nov 25, 2013 at 2:21 pm |

            I said “there would be no overhead to produce water.” Maybe drilling a well, but Aquafina quite literally takes the water from a municipal source. All they have to do is bottle and ship it. It is nauseatingly profitable.

Comments are closed.