From Marlboro to “Healthy Snack”: How a Chronic Disease Is Manufactured
There are two ways to sell a product: as a “solution” or as a habit. The modern history of public health increasingly resembles the transfer of a successful business model, from cigarettes to the ultra-processed food industry
and then to the chronic pharmaceutical management of the consequences. The text does not need secret deals to stand. It describes a documented, functional sequence of incentives and outcomes: engineered consumption → metabolic dysfunction → chronic pharmaceutical management.When Cigarettes Stopped Being Socially Acceptable
From the moment smoking began to be treated publicly as harm (and not as a lifestyle), the tobacco industry found itself in a legitimacy crisis. The problem was not only health-related or legal; it was cultural: an addictive product that stops being “cool” loses the social license to exist everywhere. That is exactly where the most interesting observation emerges: when the product is threatened, the model is not necessarily abandoned.
It is often transferred elsewhere, into a space where the same logic (habit, repetition, mass consumption) can continue with lower social cost. The transition was not theoretical; it was a strategic business move that changed the landscape of the food industry.
The Strategic Turn Toward the Food Industry
The transition was not a theory; it is recorded as corporate reality. Philip Morris (the tobacco giant) acquired General Foods in 1985 for 5.6 billion dollars and Kraft in 1988 for 13.1 billion dollars, followed by the combination of food operations into Kraft General Foods in 1989. The key point here is not simply a group’s “diversification.” The key point is the transfer of know-how on three levels: (a) product design for repeat use, (b) shaping consumer behavior, (c) promotion that implies without explicitly promising.
Transferring behavioral-consumption know-how from tobacco to food is not a “secret plan”; it is business continuity. The same company that made Marlboro the most popular cigarette in the world took on managing some of the most iconic food brands in America.
Food as a Vehicle for Addiction
The “Bliss Point” and Engineered Overconsumption
The logic of ultra-processed food (i.e., foods that have gone through multiple industrial processing steps and contain additives, preservatives, flavors) is not “eat until you’re full and you’re done.” It is to eat easily, quickly, frequently and want to repeat it. In this context, the "bliss point" (point of bliss) also appears: the point at which combinations of flavors (e.g., sweet/salt/fat) become “just right” for maximum pleasure, without easy aversion.
This is the perfect ratio of sugar, salt, and fat that activates reward centers in the brain (dopamine is released, a neurotransmitter associated with pleasure), but does not fully satisfy us. The function resembles the idea of a “dose” in cigarettes: enough to activate the reward system, not enough to make you stop.
Characteristics that reinforce overconsumption in many ultra-processed products:
- Combination of sugar/starch, fat, and salt in “appealing” ratios that activate the brain’s reward system
- Texture that requires minimal chewing and is swallowed quickly, allowing faster consumption
- High energy density in a small volume, allowing many calories before strong satiety signals activate
- Consistency of taste/experience (each package “the same”), so the brain “learns” the reward signal
The Numbers of Addiction
A review of 281 studies in 36 countries found that 14% of adults and 12% of children are addicted to ultra-processed foods, a rate similar to addiction levels observed for alcohol (14%) and tobacco (18%). If your food makes you eat “a little now and a little later,” it is not a neutral feature; it is a design advantage of the product.
From Consumption to Metabolic Disease
Metabolic dysfunction (i.e., problems in how the body processes energy and nutrients) rarely looks like a “sudden event.” It looks like a gradual shift: weight, waist circumference, glucose (blood sugar), triglycerides (fats in the blood), pressure, fatty liver, all a little more “out of range” each year. A critical point is that today’s food environment favors repeated consumption throughout the day (snacks, caloric beverages, “something small” everywhere). Thus, overconsumption becomes the normal state, not the exception, and pathology can develop quietly—ideal for management rather than “instant cure.”
Broader reviews link higher exposure to ultra-processed foods with adverse health outcomes, including increased calorie intake and weight gain, even when diets are “matched” on key nutrients. The dietary transition toward ultra-processed foods is not simply a personal choice; it is an environmental change with metabolic consequences.
The Role of the Pharmaceutical Industry and the Health Model
The pharmaceutical industry does not need to “create” the metabolic epidemic to benefit from it. It is enough that there is a large, stable burden of chronic disease that requires continuous monitoring and adjustment of markers (glucose, LDL cholesterol, blood pressure). The dominant model often works like this: treating markers instead of removing the cause, because the cause is multifactorial, difficult, time-consuming, and requires lifestyle change.
The result may be practically effective in the short term, but structurally favors chronicity: the disease remains, treatment continues, the person enters a “management” cycle. Modern drugs (such as SGLT2 inhibitors that help the kidneys excrete sugar, GLP-1 agonists that control appetite and glucose, and statins that lower cholesterol) are the foundation of cardiometabolic disease management, offering improved markers but not reversal of the underlying condition.
Why No Conspiracy Is Needed
No secret agreements are required when incentives align. The food industry profits from frequent consumption, the pharmaceutical market profits from chronic disease, and the health system often reimburses procedures/management more than deep prevention. This produces a predictable ecosystem: over-availability of “easy calories” now and “management of consequences” later. The mechanism is systemic, not necessarily premeditated by a central control.
The story of Philip Morris, from tobacco to the food industry, is not a conspiracy. It is a documented corporate strategy that became public in 1988 and was widely analyzed by business schools. The model worked because incentives were aligned—and still are.
The Uncomfortable Conclusion
When metabolic health improves through meaningful dietary change (e.g., reducing ultra-processed foods and stabilizing consumption), the dominant narrative of “permanent management” weakens. Not because drugs are “useless,” but because part of the problem is largely environmental and therefore partly reversible when the environment changes.
The awkward point is economic and cultural: restoring health does not sell as easily as continuous consumption and continuous management. And that is why change is not only an individual matter, but also a matter of structures: production, promotion, access, information, health incentives.
Conclusion: From Cigarettes to Food, from Food to the Pill
Tobacco companies did not stop selling habit; to a large extent, they changed the vehicle. The food industry mass-produced “easy, repeatable consumption,” and the pharmaceutical/health system became extremely effective at managing the consequences as chronic conditions. The final outcome does not need to be called a conspiracy. It is a system—that is, a set of incentives that, when left to run on its own, produces predictable results.
The real challenge is not to “prove” that there is a conspiracy, but to recognize the incentives that shape the system and choose whether we want to change them. Because as long as health is less profitable than disease, the system will continue to produce exactly what is rewarded.
For more details on Philip Morris’s acquisition of Kraft and the historic shift of the tobacco industry toward food, read the original Los Angeles Times article: Kraft to Be Sold to Philip Morris for $13.1 Billion (1988).
From the Tobacco Industry to Sugar: The Transfer of Addiction Know-How
Major tobacco companies entered the food industry, especially after anti-smoking bans, and specifically into the most processed, sugary, and “appealing” foods. Not in the simplistic sense of “they lost cigarettes, everyone moved to sugar,” but through a strategic transfer of know-how.
What Happened: The Philip Morris Case
Philip Morris is the most characteristic case of this strategic transition:
- 1985: Buys General Foods
- 1988: Buys Kraft
The largest tobacco company suddenly found itself owning chocolates, cookies, cereals, ready meals, and kids’ snacks. It wasn’t random; it was a business pivot with a clear goal.
What They Transferred from Cigarettes to Food
Addiction Science
Tobacco companies had behavioral labs, psychologists, neuroscientists, and know-how in engineering dopamine. Internal documents later revealed in court show they studied the brain, not just taste. They knew how dopamine, habit, and craving formation work.
This knowledge was applied to the combination of sugar + fat + salt, to the famous “bliss point”—not too much, not too little, just enough to make you want more. Exactly as nicotine was neither “too much” nor “too little.”
Consumption Without Satiety
The ideal product doesn’t fill you up, doesn’t repel you, doesn’t tell you “enough.” That’s why you eat one cookie and want five, or eat a bowl of cereal and feel hungry an hour later. The logic of “consumption without satiety” was transferred wholesale from the tobacco industry.
Marketing to Children
Just as smoking often started in adolescence, mascots, bright colors, “fun” packaging, and words like “energy,” “fitness,” “whole grain” were applied. The “light” cigarette became a “healthy snack,” an absolute continuation of strategy.
The Linguistic Deception
Tobacco companies had already learned how not to lie, but not to tell the whole truth:
- Not “sugar” → energy
- Not “addictive” → irresistible
- Not “junk” → functional food
- Not “fattening” → low-fat (full of sugar)
Just as “carcinogenic” became “light.”
And Then? They Left, But They Left the DNA
Yes, later tobacco companies sold many food companies. But the methods remained, the formulas remained, the rules of the game were set. Today the entire ultra-processed food industry operates with this model.
Why This Explains the Modern Metabolic NightmareAnd here it fits perfectly with the metabolic crisis being experienced: insulin out of control, fatty liver, abdominal fat, constant hunger. It’s not a lack of discipline; it’s a designed environment.
Tobacco companies did not stop selling addiction. They simply changed form: from tobacco to “healthy” food.
How the Pharmaceutical Industry “Fits Into” This Whole System
The Food Industry Produces the Disease
Ultra-processed foods raise insulin, cause fatty liver, lead to obesity, and end up in type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular problems. These are not acute diseases; they are chronic, lifelong conditions.
The Pharmaceutical Industry Doesn’t Cure – It Manages
Here is the critical point: The system doesn’t tell you “Stop sugar, the processed stuff, the constant glycemic bombardment.” It tells you: take metformin, take a statin, take an antihypertensive, take GLP-1 agonists, and… we’ll see. The disease stays. The treatment continues for life. This is an ideal business model.
The System Rewards Chronic Dependence
Let’s put it bluntly: A healthy person is not a good customer. A steadily sick but functional person is the perfect customer. No collapse, no cure, maintenance.
Nutrition Disappears from Medical Practice
And here the circle closes: In medical schools there is minimal education in nutrition. At conferences, sponsors are pharmaceutical companies. In guidelines, drugs come first, then “general recommendations.” The root of the problem (food–insulin–metabolism) remains on the sidelines.
The Most Insidious Part: No Conspiracy Is Needed
This is the most important thing that must be said clearly: No secret agreement, smoky rooms, or dark plans are needed. Alignment of interests is enough.
| Sector | Profits When |
|---|---|
| Food Industry | You eat often and don’t get full |
| Pharmaceutical Industry | You are chronically ill |
| Healthcare System | It manages, it doesn’t prevent |
Conclusion
The transition from the tobacco industry to the food industry and from there to pharmaceutical management is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented business strategy with predictable outcomes. The system works not because someone designed it that way from the start, but because the incentives of all involved align in the same direction: chronic consumption, chronic disease, chronic management.
Πόροι Εμβάθυνσης από την Αναζήτηση Google
Εξερευνήστε περισσότερα σχετικά με τις βασικές έννοιες που αναφέρονται στην παρούσα ανάρτηση με επιμελημένες πληροφορίες απευθείας από την Google.
|
|
|
|
0 Σχόλια