You might think of GLP-1 drugs as miracles of modern medicine, but the food industry views them as a threat.

Why?  Eating less is bad for business.

The Threat

• Data: Alarming new research reveals threat GLP-1s pose to food and drink sector: New research has revealed that as many as 8% of Britons now use weight loss drugs, with a further 14% considering their use in the future…. Read more
• GLP-1 in real life: Smaller shops, fewer ultra-processed foods: Enough with the predictions. How are GLP-1 drugs actually impacting purchasing behaviour?… Read more
• FoodDive: How GLP-1s are shaking up snacking: GLP1-s are reshaping how Americans eat, pushing more consumers toward smaller portions and nutrient-dense options packed with ingredients like protein or fiber. As sales for traditional packaged snacks decline, food companies are now rushing to tap into this fast-growing market.
• What is the ‘GLP-1 halo effect’?  The GLP-1 craze could end up changing more diets than expected – even those of non-GLP-1 users…. Read more
• GLP-1s: Is the industry asking the wrong question?  New data and clinical insight suggest the real impact of GLP-1 drugs isn’t less eating – it’s a rethink of how, when and why people eat… Read more

How food companies are responding

• How GLP-1s are reshaping product innovation:  For product developers, designing GLP-1 friendly foods will require new sensory approaches, emotional metrics and new nutritional architectures… Read more
• The Ozempic effect reaches the bread aisle: Bimbo redesigns bakery for GLP-1 users: The world’s biggest baker says GLP-1 weight-loss drugs are already reshaping how people eat, so it’s redesigning bread and snacks to keep up… Read more
• GLP‑1 drinks take off as brands race for $3.5bn functional growth: From protein shakes to collagen coolers, brands are reinventing beverages for the GLP‑1 era and the race for dominance in this fast‑growing $3.5bn category is just beginning… Read more

When customers go off the drugs

• After GLP-1: Weight regain, food fear and the industry’s next reckoning: With a growing number of people ditching GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, producers are being drawn into a far more complex conversation about nutrition, psychology and long-term eating behavior… Read more
• What happens after GLP-1s and why food will matter more than ever: Former GLP-1 users looking to keep the weight off are a potentially underserved consumer base looking for foods and beverages that will help the feel full longer, manage portions and meet their health goals… Read more

The marketing opportunities

• GLP-1 food boom: Market growth, big brands, and key challenges: GLP-1 fuels rapid food and beverage sector growth – but risks and costs mount… Read more
• GLP-1-friendly foods are booming – but the label is still taboo: From “high protein” to “supports muscle mass” claims, brands are coding GLP-1 benefits without naming the trend outright… Read more
• GLP-1 ranges: Should you launch one?  We round up the challenges and opportunities of entering the ‘GLP-1 friendly’ meals arena… Read more
• Food cravings on GLP-1s? What formulators need to know: It’s a common misconception that GLP-1 drugs erase food cravings. Actually, they alter them… Read more
• Could the GLP-1 boom open the door to shrinkflation? Users of the drugs want smaller portions – this could help food companies save money… Read more
• Beyond GLP-1 drugs: How dietary ingredients can naturally support body’s own satiety hormone: As interest in GLP-1-based weight management grows, emerging data on a dietary ingredient suggest there could also be a more natural approach to control appetite and metabolic health…. Read more

While we are on the subject of stocking standards for grocery stores, take a look at what’s happening in Scotland.

Less sugar, more pressure: Scotland’s HFSS rules force a food industry rethink:  With Scotland’s HFSS restrictions arriving in October, food manufacturers are under mounting pressure to reformulate products without sacrificing taste, texture or brand identity… Read more

Scotland, it seems, has new regulations coming into effect in October.  These restrict promotions and prime shelf placements for foods high in fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS).

The rules say

• No HFSS products allowed at prime sale points such as checkouts, aisle ends, store entrances, and waiting areas.
• No multibuy promotions allowed.
• No free refills of soft drinks.

When England did this in 2022, the number of HFSS products sold dropped, perhaps by as much as 2 million per day—putting huge pressure on food companies to reformulate.

The big issue: What will people buy instead?

The philosophical question: Is a reformulated ultra-processed food necessarily a good choice?  It will still be ultra-processed.

Bring on the evaluators!  I can’t wait to see the research results.

The USDA has announced that retailers who serve SNAP recipients will now have to carry more real food.  As of fall 2026,

Retailers authorized to accept SNAP benefits must now carry seven varieties of items across four categories of staple foods: protein, grains, dairy, and fruits and vegetables. This change more than doubles the requirement of available foods, emphasizes more whole foods, increases the perishable food requirements, and eliminates loopholes that for too long have allowed retailers to count certain snack foods toward their staple food requirements.

The stocking standards final rule and Federal Register notice spell out the details.  Retailers who accept SNAP EBT cards will have to offer at least 7—instead of the former 3—varieties of dairy, vegetables or fruits, grains, and protein.  Some foods that used to count as varieties no longer will: butter, jerky, cheese dip, snack bars, fruit spreads even though they can still be purchased from SNAP benefits.

Comment

As with everything else this administration does, this action requires translation.  At first glance, it looks terrific.  SNAP recipients, especially those without access to supermarkets, will have greater access to fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods.

Access, of course, is only the first step in eating healthier foods.  Affordability and cultural preferences matter even more.

And here’s a clue to what this is really about:

Since the beginning of the Trump Administration, the Food and Nutrition Service has taken action on nearly 3,200 retailers regarding current stocking standards, either for failing to meet them upon application or failing to maintain them once authorized. The latter results in disqualification from accepting SNAP benefits.

As explained by the Food Research & Action Center, the USDA stocking rules will make it difficult for small groceries to meet the requirements, continue to accept SNAP benefits, and stay in business.

Furthermore, according to an analysis by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the new rules have nothing to do with helping SNAP recipients eat more healthfully.  This is because there are no nutrition standards for the varieties: “The irony is not lost on us that the Trump Administration says “eat real food” but won’t require stores to stock it.”

Bottom line: Alas, this looks like yet another mechanism for making SNAP harder to use and reducing the number of participants.

Addition, May 20

Jerry Mande reminds me that there are already lots of stores taking SNAP benefits, and that an increasing proportion of them are convenience stores not exactly famous for carrying healthy foods.  The old (before it had to move to Kansas) Economic Research Service did the store count.

Navid Teimouri, who is at the School of Public Health, University of Queensland, sent me his team’s recently published analysis of meat industry sponsored nutrition studies and their outcomes: Is Meat Industry Affiliation Associated With Study Conclusion in Nutrition Research? A Meta-Research Review.

This is a classic study of what the late Sheldon Krimsky called the “funding effect,” the bias toward favorable results caused by industry sponsorship of research.

The authors examined 500 research studies of meat and health outcome.

The results:

Of 500 included studies, 78 (15.6%) reported industry involvement. Studies with industry ties were 16 times more likely to report favorable conclusions regarding meat consumption (odds ratio [OR] = 16.4, 95% CI: 7.5–35.8), and there was a significant association (p < 0.001) between industry involvement and study conclusion.

The conclusion:

Meat industry involvement significantly increases the likelihood of favorable study conclusions in nutrition research. These findings underscore the need for caution when interpreting research funded or associated with the meat industry and emphasize the importance of minimizing conflicts of interest in nutrition research.

Comment

When I wrote my book, Unsavory Truth, I could only find a few funding-effect studies dealing with food or nutrition.  This one adds to the collection.  It confirms previous findings.  Only a small percent of nutrition research is industry funded, but those studies are more likely to find results favoring the sponsor’s commercial interests than those that are not industry funded.  Why?  Food companies are unlikely to sponsor research that might find their products harmful.  Sheldon Krimsky mostly looked at studies funded by the pharmaceutical drug industry.  Studies funded by food or nutrition companies share similar biases.

I am a big fan of Whole Dog Journal, a terrifically interesting and useful publication about anything you might want to know about having a dog as a pet—or family member.

One of its recent articles: What to Do If Your Dog Eats Marijuana (Edibles, Weed, Vape Cartridges, etc.)

I wrote about cannabis edibles in a chapter in my latest book, What to Eat Now, and discussed edibles as pet food in that chapter.  That section starts like this:

Pet treats and supplements constitute a sub-genre of edibles, and one that is highly profitable. Owners of dogs and cats spent an estimated $426 million on CBD [non-psychoactive cannabidiol],  pet products in 2020, an amount expected to increase in parallel with reports of increasing anxiety, stress, and behavioral problems in companion animals. For the cannabis industry, pet anxiety is a market opportunity, one that easily explains Honest Paws Calm CBD Peanut Butter for dogs or D Oh Gee CBD turkey and cranberry chewies for calming support and joint wellness.

Every cannabis store in my Manhattan neighborhood sells CBD—but also THC (psychoactive delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol)—treats for dogs.

The Whole Dog Journal article warns: “The amount and type of THC-containing product consumed will determine the seriousness of this event for your dog, and dictate the level of your emergency response.”

A variety of products are available as cannabis edibles, including gummies and other candies, mints, chocolates and chocolate bars, beverages, potato chips, and baked goods such as brownies and cookies. Unfortunately, many of these sweet or savory options are also attractive to our dogs. While we may have more self-control regarding how many edibles we consume at one time, dogs are more likely to ingest an entire package of any edibles they can reach because they taste delicious.

The writer warns that if you see signs of THC toxicity in your dog “listlessness, incoordination when walking, falling over when standing, dilated pupils, slow heart rate, dribbling urine, and an exaggerated response to light, touch, and sound,” take it to a veterinarian immediately.

My advice:

• If you have edibles in your home, lock them up where your pets—and your children—cannot get at them.  Edibles are an increasing cause of kids’ visits to hospital emergency rooms.
• If you have pet edibles in your home, keep them away from your pets (so they don’t overeat them)—but also keep them away from your children.  Young kids can’t tell the difference between gummies for pets, grownups, and them.

Secretary Kennedy promised to define ultra-processed foods by April (after a call for input), but then said it may be too complicated to define these foods for policy purposes.

Apparently not.

Healthy Eating Research convened an expert panel.

It made three recommendations:

I.  Definition

A food product is ultra-processed if it contains at least one

Cosmetic additive

Examples: flavors (natural or artificial), emulsifiers, sweeteners (both sugar and non-sugar), colors (natural or artificial), thickeners, bulking agents, gelling agents, glazing agents, carbonating agents, anti-foaming agents, and other additives recognized by FDA or Codex technical classifications.

And/or

Non-culinary ingredient

Examples: casein, dextrose, high-fructose corn syrup, maltodextrin, modified starch, protein isolates (e.g., soy or whey), hydrogenated or interesterified oils, mechanically separated meats, lactose, lecithin, and others.

II.  Exempt ingredients

Some ingredients do not mark foods as ultra-processed:

• Vitamins
• Minerals
• Herbs
• Spices
• Yeast-derived ingredients

III.  Exempt foods

Foods that meet the FDA’s definition for “Healthy” claims are not considered ultra-processed.  These contain:

• Adequate amounts of recommended food groups
• Less than FDA thresholds for added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat
• No non-sugar sweeteners

Using this definition, the panel recommended a broad range of policies to deal with ultra-processed foods.  These are worth a look and further discussion.  See:

• Executive Summary
• Technical Report
• Partner Toolkit

FDA: take note.  This ought to work.  Now you can get started on some policy actions!

The USDA has announced its implementation of President Trump’s Whole Milk for Health Kids Act.

This act (see Federal Register notice):

• Removes requirements that school milk be fat-free or low fat, flavored or not.
• Permits schools to also offer whole and reduced-fat milks, flavored or not.
• Excludes the saturated fat in milk from counting toward limits.

Bottom line: This act of Congress allows schools to offer full-fat chocolate milk.

As you might guess, the International Dairy Foods Association is thrilled:

 IDFA applauds USDA for moving quickly to put the law into effect and provide school nutrition directors and school milk processors the certainty they need to offer students the nutritious milk options that best meet their nutrition needs. For too long, federal regulations limited schools’ ability to offer the milk options students prefer and are more likely to drink.

Should we care?

Here is a quick comparison of one-cup portions (from USDA Data Central).

• Nonfat plain milk:  84 calories, 0.1 grams saturated fat, 12 grams sugars
• Nonfat chocolate milk: 160 calories, 1.5 grams saturated fat, 25 grams sugars
• Full-fat chocolate milk: 208 calories, 5 grams saturated fat, 24 grams sugars

Thus, it has taken an act of Congress to allow schools to offer milk with more saturated fat and more calories.

Why?  Because the dairy industry thinks it can sell more milk to school kids if that milk is higher in fat and sugar-sweetened.

Selling more chocolate milk in schools is a long-standing goal of the dairy industry.

As I wrote on this very topic in 2009,

• Schools represent sales of 460 million gallons of milk – more than 7% of total milk sales
• More than half (54%) of flavored milk is sold in schools
• Chocolate milk is a key growth area for milk processors

So this act has little to do with the health of America’s children, and everything to do with compensating for failing sales of milk.

How serious a problem is this?  In the greater scheme of problems affecting school meals in the U.S—lack of adequate funding, no kitchens, poor equipment, supply chains that don’t work, inedible USDA commodities—I can’t get too upset about adding a few grams of saturated fat to kids’ diets, much as I would prefer that they were getting their calories from fruits, vegetables, A that this is the kind of thing our current Congress is concerned about—the health of the dairy industry, not of kids.

A CORRECTION OF SORTS

A reader reminds me that the new school food rules that go into effect by 2025-2026 (at the earliest) call for no more than 10 grams of added sugars per 8 ounces of flavored milk.  This standard will apply to whole as well as reduced or no fat milks.

Let me start with a summary from Food Safety News:

The final four in the [meat] consolidation game are:

• JBS – This Brazil-based food giant is the world’s largest beef processor. It owns facilities that slaughter and pack over 20,000 cattle per day in the U.S.
• Tyson Foods – Known for chicken, Tyson is also the second largest U.S. beef processor. Their five beef plants process thousands of cattle daily.
• Cargill – This agribusiness conglomerate is the third largest U.S. beef packer and also owns one of the nation’s largest feedlot operations, Cargill Cattle Feeders.
• National Beef – Majority owned by Brazilian meatpacker Marfig, National Beef operates three U.S. packing facilities that process thousands of cattle per day.

Those are the four companies that control about 80 percent of the U.S. beef market, and there is no reason to believe that any of them are satisfied with their share. American consumers are paying some of the highest, inflation-adjusted prices for steaks and hamburgers than at any time in history.

The Trump administration says it is taking this on.  In a series of announcements on X (formerly Twitter), USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins says:

We must work to address this to protect our ranchers and consumers. @POTUS  and this administration are focused on promoting fairness and competition — ensuring our producers have options and a level playing field.

Not only that, she adds,

Half of these meatpacking giants, including the largest meat packer in the world, are either foreign-owned or have significant foreign ownership and control, making them a threat not just to our cattle producers, but a threat to America itself.

Here’s what she says they doing about it:

We’re putting forward short- and long-term solutions through the @USDA  Beef Plan and a major DOJ investigation into anti-competitive practices ordered by @POTUS.  Food security is national security.

And what is the USDA Beef Plan?  This will enhance disaster relief, increase grazing access, and build demand.

Anti-trust regulation?

Not a chance.