Leading U.S. food and beverage companies are significantly increasing their political spending in Washington to consolidate and maintain their policy influence and protect business operations involving billions of dollars in revenue.

Data provided to Food Dive by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that the 30 food and beverage companies with the highest lobbying expenditures in 2020 spent a combined $38.2 million, roughly in line with the average of the past six years. Coca-Cola has been the top annual spender on lobbying since 2015, and 2020 was no exception. The world's largest non-alcoholic beverage company spent $5.83 million on 24 lobbyists last year, a significant amount but still below its six-year average of $7.04 million.

AB InBev ranked second with expenditures of $5.61 million, employing a total of 53 lobbyists, higher than its recent average of $4.55 million. Although AB InBev's 2020 spending was lower than Coca-Cola's and it had the same number of lobbying issues, it addressed more specific topics across multiple categories such as taxation, the beverage industry, and trade—which may explain why its lobbyist count is more than double Coca-Cola's.

Snack and beverage manufacturer PepsiCo ranked third with $3.69 million, employing 24 lobbyists, slightly above its recent average of $3.52 million. The data shows that the 10 companies following closely behind have had average annual lobbying expenditures between $1 million and $3 million since 2015.

"Lobbying is a bit like insurance—you just do it. As the old saying goes: If you're not at the table, you're on the menu."

— Clare Brock, Assistant Professor of American Politics and Public Policy at Texas Woman's University

While average lobbying expenditures among leading companies remained roughly flat between 2015 and 2020, lobbying funds from the top 10 industry trade groups declined significantly over the same period. In 2015, these groups collectively spent $21.9 million, which had fallen to just over $15 million by 2019 and 2020.

This decline is largely related to a sharp reduction in spending by the Consumer Brands Association. The association represents CPG companies that produce a variety of consumer goods, including food and beverages, and spent $2.3 million in 2020, compared to $8.5 million in 2015 (when it was known as the Grocery Manufacturers Association, GMA). The trade group attributed the reduction to adopting a "pro-consumer agenda" and deciding to focus on issues that could unite the industry—rather than food-specific topics as during the GMA era—thereby using funds more efficiently under the leadership of CEO Geoff Freeman.

Issues Spread Across the Board

Lobbying activities in the food and beverage industry cover an extremely wide range of issues. An analysis of lobbying topics among leading companies shows that tax and trade issues consistently rank at the top. In 2020, these two issues ranked in the top two for 7 of the 10 largest companies, with the remaining 3 prioritizing at least one of them. Agriculture, transportation, environment, federal budget/appropriations, and labor/antitrust issues have also been priorities in recent years.

"They lobby on any issue that could affect their business, no matter how remote," said Marion Nestle, former professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University, who has studied soda industry lobbying. "I can't think of any area of food or nutrition policy that isn't subject to lobbying."

Most food and beverage companies contacted by Food Dive—including Mondelez International, Tyson Foods, PepsiCo, and AB InBev—either declined to discuss their lobbying activities or pointed to their industry trade groups. Coca-Cola directed inquiries to its website, which states that lobbying is a way for the company to ensure its views are heard or at least considered. "Given the size and scope of our business, our daily list of issues to focus on is almost endless," Coca-Cola said.

The world's largest non-alcoholic beverage manufacturer also noted that its discussions with policymakers often involve environmental policy, health and wellness, and taxation—the latter being the issue the company has lobbied on most since at least 2015. Coca-Cola is embroiled in a multi-year tax dispute with the U.S. government over how it reports income from some overseas markets, and could lose billions of dollars if it loses the case.

Minneapolis-based General Mills—which owns Cheerios cereal, Nature Valley bars, and Progresso soups—said the company has "a long history of public policy engagement" on "core business concerns" such as trade and taxation, as well as issues like sustainability, nutrition, and food safety. Lee Anderson, Vice President of Government Relations at General Mills, said in an email, "Engaging in the public policy process protects our ability to make food the world loves," adding, "Our role is to bring the company's expertise to officials to help them make informed decisions." A General Mills spokesperson also noted that the company supports the Food Safety Modernization Act and regenerative agriculture, and actively engages with lawmakers in both areas.

Lobbying Operations Behind the Scenes

Critics argue that lobbying unfairly benefits large corporations, whose substantial financial resources and connections provide special access to legislators, regulators, and other influential officials. These relationships create valuable connections that make it more likely for companies to successfully block unfavorable legislation. For example, they can argue that a proposal would lead to job losses in a congressional district, or that a tax increase could force a company to relocate.

"Anyone with opposing or different views does not have equal access," Nestle said. "There is ample evidence that companies have dozens or more lobbyists who visit every member of Congress each year, possibly more than once depending on what's being considered, and they are very good at their jobs."

Critics have long pointed out that lobbyists often play a key role in influencing major policy outcomes shaped by regulatory agencies or departments, or legislation considered by lawmakers in Congress—and often behind the scenes.

A 2015 New York Times article, using emails obtained through public records, showed how companies like Monsanto recruited academic researchers to help promote their positions. At the time, Senate lawmakers were preparing to consider industry-supported legislation that would prohibit states from adopting laws requiring disclosure of genetically engineered ingredients in food. The lobbying efforts of these large food and beverage manufacturers ultimately failed. A year later, President Barack Obama signed legislation requiring companies to inform consumers of detectable genetically engineered ingredients in products, which also overturned state laws on GMO labeling.

Another investigative report by the nonpartisan independent watchdog Project On Government Oversight (POGO) in 2018 reported that a former snack food and corn syrup lobbyist appointed by the Trump administration to shape USDA food policy maintained contact with her former employers on major and broad nutrition policies. Emails obtained by POGO through Freedom of Information Act requests also showed lobbyists proposing potential member lists for a federal sodium advisory committee, creating talking points for then-Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, and seeking intelligence on agency policy decisions.

Brock, who studies food politics, said lobbying has become even more important in today's polarized Congress, where leadership has greater control over any potential legislative path. The sheer number of issues lobbyists need to track, combined with these growing political challenges, increases the workload required to ensure their clients' interests are represented. "Lobbying is becoming more important, more expensive, and more difficult because the political process has become slower, more contentious, and gridlocked," Brock said.

Beyond the Dollar Figures

Today's lobbying often focuses on hot-button issues, but an equally important part involves continuously tracking developments in Congress or regulatory agencies while maintaining and building relationships for when they might be needed. "You try to stay ahead of regulations and be seen as a company that cares about an issue," Brock said. "There's a lot of money involved, and when regulations pass, they say: 'Actually, we were at the forefront of this legislation. We advocated for it. We wanted it.'"

Those who track the political influence of food companies point out that their influence extends beyond what Open Secrets data shows. They argue that while the information provided by this nonprofit is valuable, it is only a small part of a larger picture. Companies often donate to trade groups or nonprofits that represent their interests. Their CEOs and executives make phone calls or hold meetings, and sometimes it is questionable whether a particular gathering counts as lobbying. Meanwhile, lobbyists frequently move from Congress, the Federal Trade Commission, the FDA, or the USDA to corporations or trade groups—bringing their close connections and insights with them.

"The ways corporations influence politics go far beyond what can be captured by data like this," said Max Moran, research director of the Revolving Door Project at the Washington Center for Economic and Policy Research. "It's a good way to help illuminate certain things, but a large part of the system is also hidden."

Companies continue to invest huge sums each year because the net returns can be extremely substantial. Moran said lobbying not only helps companies kill or respond to legislation but can also save billions of dollars—for example, by securing potential acquisitions during antitrust reviews or preventing a company from being broken up. The center noted that lobbying was influential in the approvals of Bayer's acquisition of Monsanto and Amazon's acquisition of Whole Foods, as well as in overturning antitrust precedents in the 1980s to allow more meatpacking mergers.

"Companies of all types spend enormous amounts of money on lobbying—which is itself abnormal—but they spend because it works," Moran said. "They get remarkable returns on their investment."

Mike Gruber, Vice President of Regulatory and Government Affairs at the Consumer Brands Association, agreed that lobbying is expensive and time-consuming, with much of his team's time spent discussing policy with state and congressional officials. The trade group also spends considerable time communicating with subject matter experts from its more than 70 member companies, which may disagree on an issue or differ on priorities. "I do think (lobbying) is worth it. It's important. At the end of the day, do you want sound policy?" Gruber said. "It's not hard for a valuable idea to turn into bad policy."

Alex Davidson, Director of Media Relations at the Beer Institute, which represents large beer companies, said its lobbying efforts typically focus on highlighting the industry's impact on the U.S. economy to lawmakers, as well as issues like taxes and aluminum tariffs affecting its members. With 2 million Americans employed in beer-related jobs across multiple industries—from farmers growing ingredients to those brewing and transporting the finished product—he said the trade group has many ways to point out beer's impact on the U.S. economy. Davidson said congressional lobbying four years ago played a significant role in reducing the federal excise tax on beer, and the Beer Institute is now actively working to ensure the reduced rate is maintained.

Even when issues affecting the industry are not at the forefront of Congress's legislative agenda, the Beer Institute still spends time building and maintaining relationships and educating lawmakers and their staff—a task made easier by the public's love of the beverage and the fact that nearly every district has a brewery or related jobs. "When you meet someone for the first time, you shouldn't ask for anything. You need to build relationships and cultivate them," Davidson said. "Much of our work is ensuring people understand our industry's economic impact in the U.S."

Former NYU professor Nestle said lobbying has been deeply rooted in the U.S. structure since its founding, when Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay mentioned the practice in the Federalist Papers. Nearly 250 years later, Nestle said lobbying is "a normal way of doing business," works well for large multinational CPG companies, and is unlikely to diminish in the near term. "Food companies are not social service agencies or public health institutions. They are commercial enterprises like any other, and they operate exactly the same way as other businesses," Nestle said. "They do everything possible to maximize sales and profits because they need to please shareholders."