The Connection Between What You Eat and How Long You Live

Written by Dr. Joseph Mercola on February 20, 2025. Posted in Current News

The relationship between our food systems and our healthcare systems is no coincidence. Food in the USA is being produced in ways that undermine our health and keep us dependent on pharmaceuticals

America is facing a health crisis. In the 1930s, just 7.5% of Americans suffered from chronic diseases.

Today, that figure has surged by over 700 percent, with 60 percent of Americans now living with one or more chronic conditions.

We are also fatter than ever — obesity rates have reached 40% and continue to climb.

Even more alarming, the U.S. is the only developed nation where both healthy life expectancy and total life expectancy are in decline — a trend that began before COVID-19.

In other words, we’re not living as long as our grandparents did, despite all of our technological advancements.

How did we get here? One answer lies in the disturbing parallels between Big Pharma and Big Ag — two industries that wield enormous power over our health. The relationship between our food systems and our healthcare systems is no coincidence.

Food is being produced in ways that undermine our health and keep us dependent on pharmaceuticals.

The business models of both the pharmaceutical and agriculture industries thrive on treating symptoms rather than addressing root causes, ensuring a continuous cycle of dependency.

• Pharmaceutical companies profit immensely by focusing on symptom management instead of curing underlying conditions. Chronic diseases like diabetes or hypertension, for example, have become lucrative markets, as patients often require lifelong medication rather than one-time treatments.
• Big Ag mirrors this approach. Farmers are locked into systems reliant on synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified (GM) crops — inputs they must repurchase every season. Rather than restoring soil health or embracing regenerative farming, these practices perpetuate chemical dependency. (And fail to provide truly nutritious, health-promoting food.)

Both industries promise solutions but often create new problems. In agriculture, pests develop resistance, leading to the need for even stronger chemicals. In healthcare, one medication’s side effects often require another drug to manage.

This cycle of dependency benefits corporations but leaves the rest of us sick, overmedicated, and struggling. The unfortunate reality is that the power over our health is concentrated in the hands of a few corporations.

Understanding this connection between Big Ag and Big Pharma is the first step toward change. By supporting alternative systems — whether regenerative agriculture or holistic health practices — we can begin to reclaim our well-being.

When exploring the overlap between Big Pharma and Big Ag, Bayer stands out as a stark example.

As of December 2023, Bayer comprised 340 consolidated companies operating in 80 countries. Its vast reach ensures its influence spans nearly every aspect of health and agriculture, blurring the lines between industries that should prioritize health over profit.

Before Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, the two companies operated in separate realms. Monsanto was a powerhouse in agriculture, dominating the seed and agrochemical markets, while Bayer focused primarily on pharmaceuticals and consumer health products.

The $63 billion merger merged these sectors, creating a global behemoth that exerts significant influence over both food production and healthcare.

This acquisition solidified Bayer’s dominance in agriculture. By 2018, Bayer controlled 18.2% of the global agrochemical market.

Between 2018 and 2020, Bayer and Corteva collectively accounted for more than half of U.S. retail seed sales for corn, soybeans and cotton. Globally, Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and Corteva dominate the agricultural market, controlling a substantial share.

This German multinational now operates across pharmaceuticals, consumer health and agriculture — a structure that raises serious concerns. Bayer’s pharmaceutical division spans several therapeutic areas:

• Cardiology — Medications like Xarelto (rivaroxaban) treat blood clots, hypertension and cardiovascular issues.
• Oncology — Cancer treatments such as Stivarga (regorafenib) and Nexavar (sorafenib) address colorectal, liver and kidney cancers.
• Women’s health — Products include hormonal contraceptives and treatments for menopause-related conditions.
• Ophthalmology — Drugs like Eylea (aflibercept) combat macular degeneration.

Bayer’s consumer health division includes household names, reinforcing Bayer’s influence in everyday health decisions:

• Allergy and cold remedies — Claritin and Alka-Seltzer.
• Digestive health — MiraLAX and Rennie.
• Skin and wound care — Bepanthen and Canesten.

Bayer’s agricultural division, bolstered by Monsanto’s expertise, focuses on “crop science” and food production. While this may seem to serve public health by addressing food security, the reality is more complicated.

Bayer’s focus on GM seeds, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides promotes systems of dependency that harm soil health and perpetuate chemical use.

Bayer’s dual role in pharmaceuticals and agriculture exemplifies how intertwined these sectors have become. The consolidation of power across both industries raises pressing questions about the health of people and the planet.

Is it truly possible for one corporation to champion health while contributing to agricultural practices that undermine it?

Consolidation of power and CR4 — A rigged system

The centralization of power in both Big Ag and Big Pharma has created systems that prioritize corporate profits over the health of people, farmers and the environment.

By examining the CR4 — a metric that measures the market share of the four largest firms in an industry — we can see just how concentrated these industries have become.

The CR4 provides a clear picture of market competitiveness:

• When the CR4 is greater than 50 percent, the top four firms control more than half the market, suggesting significant concentration.
• A CR4 greater than 80 percent indicates a highly concentrated, oligopolistic market.
• A CR4 less than 40 percent reflects a relatively competitive industry.

High CR4 values signify reduced competition, giving dominant firms significant power over pricing, policies and market access, often at the expense of consumers and smaller players.

In the U.S. agricultural sector, CR4 values are alarmingly high, showcasing how a handful of corporations dominate key markets:

• Beef packing — From a CR4 of 25 percent in 1977, it soared to 85 percent by 2018.
• Pork packing — Rose from 33 percent in 1976 to 70 percent in 2018.
• Broiler (chicken) processing — Increased from 34 percent in 1986 to 54 percent in 2018.
• Seed market — By 2023, BASF, Bayer, Corteva and Syngenta controlled 95 percent of U.S. corn and 84 percent of soybean intellectual property.
• Nitrogen fertilizer (North America) — CR4 stands at 77 percent.
• Agricultural machinery — The CR4 is approximately 60.8 percent.

Farmers are forced into a system where they have little choice over inputs, crops, livestock or markets, and a system that encourages a “go big or go home” mindset to make the numbers work.

This industrialized and concentrated setup marginalizes small farmers and alienates consumers from the family farms that grow their food.

Meanwhile, biodiversity, rural communities and soil health suffer as corporations push monocultures and chemical dependency.

While the pharmaceutical industry is slightly more fragmented, certain sectors exhibit high CR4 values:

• Vaccines — Pfizer, GSK, Sanofi and Merck control nearly 80% of the global market.
• Diabetes drugs — Dominated by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Sanofi, with a CR4 of about 70 percent.
• Oncology — The top four companies (Roche, Merck, BMS and Novartis) control 45 to 50 percent of the market.

High CR4 values highlight a troubling reality: concentrated power creates a system ripe for market abuse. Whether it’s Big Ag controlling what farmers plant or Big Pharma deciding what treatments are available, these industries hold disproportionate power over our food and health systems.

The result? Consumers pay more, farmers earn less and the broader systems we depend on — our health and our environment — continue to erode.

Government funding — Reinforcing unsustainable systems

Both Big Ag and Big Pharma rely on government funding and policies that prioritize their profit-driven models. This institutional support not only perpetuates cycles of dependency but also manipulates public perception through lobbying and control of educational narratives.

Government subsidies unfortunately prioritize industrial farming practices, favoring monocultures that require chemical inputs to manage pests and maintain yields.

Monocultures, with their lack of biodiversity, create environments where pests thrive, driving farmers to use more synthetic pesticides.

The Federal Crop Insurance Program guarantees minimum profits for farmers. While this reduces risk for farmers, it also drives up input costs as suppliers exploit this guaranteed revenue stream.

With rising costs for fertilizers, pesticides and machinery, farmers’ slim profit margins make them increasingly dependent on subsidies.

Subsidized crop insurance also incentivizes conventional farming methods over sustainable alternatives. Farmers are often required to use high-yield practices, GM seeds and chemical inputs to qualify.

This system rewards high-yield chemical-intensive farming and does not provide any financial incentive to pursue regenerative practices like crop rotation, no-till and cover cropping.

Subsidies help sustain chemical dependency in agriculture, so Big Ag companies want to make sure the subsidies stick around.

Healthcare policies mirror agriculture, prioritizing conventional methods while sidelining preventive care.

Health insurance coverage focuses on medications, surgeries and hospital visits but neglects preventive measures like nutrition, exercise or alternative therapies.

Isn’t it so frustrating that your gym membership or chiropractor visits aren’t covered by “health insurance?” Chronic diseases are often managed with pharmaceuticals, which treat symptoms but rarely address root causes.

This creates a cycle of dependency similar to agriculture, where conventional practices are perpetuated, leaving healthier alternatives underfunded and underutilized.

Manipulating and controlling the narrative

Both industries invest heavily in shaping public perception and regulatory outcomes through extensive lobbying.

• In 2024, U.S. agribusinesses spent $32.7 million on lobbying to influence policies and regulations.
• The pharmaceutical and health products sector spent a staggering $294 million on lobbying efforts.
• In 2024, Bayer spent $6.46 million on lobbying in the U.S. alone.
• In the European Union, Bayer reported lobbying expenditures between 7 million euros and 8 million euros in 2023, the highest of any company.

Both Big Ag and Big Pharma also influence educational curricula to align with their interests.

• Textbooks often emphasize conventional farming methods, including synthetic pesticides, fertilizers and GMOs, while giving less attention to sustainable alternatives.
• Large agribusinesses shape agricultural programs at universities, promoting practices that support their products.
• Pharmaceutical companies sponsor Continuing Medical Education programs for Doctors, promoting the latest drugs over non-pharmaceutical treatments.
• Many medical textbooks are influenced by pharmaceutical companies, sometimes including advertisements or content that favors their products.

Companies like Bayer also shape public health narratives through educational campaigns about diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular conditions and diabetes.

While these campaigns raise awareness, they often steer solutions toward pharmaceutical products rather than holistic or preventative measures. Both industries have created systems that:

• Reward conventional, unsustainable practices.
• Suppress alternatives through lobbying and narrative control.
• Drive dependency on synthetic inputs and pharmaceutical treatments.

The foundation of their massive profits lies in creating perpetual dependency by focusing on symptom management which ensures a consistent revenue stream.

Cures, on the other hand, like addressing food choices and lifestyle habits, or implementing regenerative farming practices, would reduce long-term dependency, undermining the continuous profit model.

It’s undeniably a clever business model — though one that comes at the expense of our health and well-being. Farmers and patients are not to blame! They are doing the best they can trying to navigate these difficult systems.

The structures themselves — bolstered by government funding and corporate influence — limit options for healthier, more sustainable alternatives.

Gut health and soil health parallels

The analogy between gut health and soil health highlights a deeper connection between the human health and agriculture industries.

Gut health is now scientifically linked to a wide range of chronic diseases (diabetes, autoimmune disorders, neurological disorders, digestive disorders and more), highlighting the critical role of the gut microbiome in maintaining overall health.

Just as a balanced, healthy microbiome is essential for human well-being, a thriving soil microbiome is crucial for producing nutrient-dense, sustainable food.

An imbalanced soil microbiome disrupts the essential ecosystem functions that sustain healthy soil, triggering widespread issues like pest invasions, nutrient deficiencies and disruptions in natural carbon and water cycles.

Over-tilled soil, deprived of organic matter and inundated with chemicals like pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, causes the microbiome to destabilize.

As a result, soil fertility and plant health decline, creating a greater reliance on harmful chemicals to maintain crop production.

Now imagine if you took an antibiotic every day. Over time, this could disrupt the delicate balance of beneficial bacteria in your gut, leading to digestive issues, weakened immunity and overall health problems, right?

Well, the same effect occurs in the soil when we rely heavily on agrochemicals. Many of these chemicals function like an “antibiotic” to the soil microbiome, killing or suppressing beneficial microorganisms that are essential for soil health and plant growth.

Without a thriving community of beneficial microbes, the soil becomes less resilient, more prone to pests and disease and less effective at absorbing water and nutrients.

This is taken from a long document. Read the rest here childrenshealthdefense

Header image: Oleksandra Naumenko

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.