Currently browsing posts about: Food-industry

With the new dietary guidelines taking such a strong stance on minimizing sugar intake, the sugar industry has its damage-control work cut out.

Lisa Sutherland, my co-author on our forthcoming (September 2026) Sugar Coated: Unboxing the Hidden Forces Shaping America’s Favorite Breakfast. Food, sent this link to information sent out to dietitian subscribers to Today’s Dietitian.

When it comes to added sugars, on one hand the public is hearing they should stop eating sugar entirely, on the other, they’re hearing that real sugar is healthier than other forms of added sugars and sweeteners. The fact is that added sugars currently make up around 13% of Americans total calories – the lowest amount in 40 years and close to the lowest amount ever recorded (11% in 1909). The steep decline in added sugars intake over the past 25 years has coincided with rising rates of childhood obesity and chronic disease – yet most people are unaware of these data and continue to demonize and place a significant amount of blame on real sugar for these conditions.

It then goes on to discuss all this under the following headings:

• Real Sugar plays a key role in healthy balanced diets
• Real Sugar is irreplaceable as a single ingredient
• Facts over fear

And it comes with great charts.  My favorite, too big to reproduce here, is titled “Sugar is a partner in nutrient delivery.”  This points out that high-fiber cereals, fruit yogurs, canned vegetables, salad dressings, peanut butter, and pre-packaged snacks all are more enjoyable to eat and have longer shelf-life with some sugar tossed in.

Alert to readers: Amazon.com displays listings for several more workbooks, study guides, and cookbooks purportedly based on my book, What to Eat Now (see previous post on this).  I did not write any of them.  Caveat emptor!

___________________________

I’ve been collecting items on the effects of GLP-1 drugs on the food industry.

Recall my mantra: Eating less is bad for business.

These drugs are a threat to the food industry.  Here’s how it is responding.

• New research from Chemi Nutra highlights how GLP-1 users want to maintain the benefits of the medication while feeling like their former selves, revealing a significant gap in addressing the broader physiological and psychological impacts of weight loss meds…. Listen now
• The GLP-1 effect: How 2026 will look for food and beverage:  From shifting grocery habits to new product opportunities, Circana’s insights reveal how brands and retailers can adapt to the rise of GLP-1 users… Listen now
• GLP-1: Threat or opportunity for food manufacturers?  At this early stage in the market, not all manufacturers know how to respond… Read more  
• GLP-1 adoption is rising steadily – and reshaping pack size, portfolio strategy and volume.  Rising GLP-1 adoption is quietly reshaping pack size strategy, category risk and marketing priorities for food and beverage brands… Read more  
• Five ways GLP-1 drugs are shaping the beverage industry:  Soda sales are taking a hit; but functional beverages are booming… Read more
• GLP-1 has changed the snack game: Here’s how to win it back:  GLP-1 users are rewriting the rules of appetite, texture and indulgence. Tate & Lyle’s latest research shows exactly where producers are missing the moment… Read more
• Could functional foods replace the need for GLP-1s?  As GLP-1 drugs disrupt the weight loss market, food and beverage players are racing to unlock the appetite-regulating power of functional ingredients… Read more

The Consumer Brands Association, formerly the Grocery Manufacturers of America (about as Big Ultra-Processed Food as you can get) has announced a transparency campaign ostensibly to promote the safety, affordability, and convenience of food products.

I learned about this from an e-mailed anouncement.

National Consumer Transparency Week…is the cornerstone of the Consumer Brands Association’s ongoing effort to support the CPG industry’s efforts to provide consumers thorough information while also emphasizing the safety, affordability and convenience of their products. The initiative also includes TV and digital advertising, backed up by SmartLabel, Facts up Front, Food Processing Facts and the Truth About Ingredients website.

Consumer confusion or misconceptions around processed food could lead to decreased diet quality, causing consumers to miss out on vital nutrients, an increased risk of food-borne illness, greater food waste, stigmatization of cultural or critical foods such as fortified grains, dietary supplements, plant-based proteins or infant formula, and exacerbate health disparities.

Myth: Food processing is harmful.

Fact: Food “processing” helps turn fresh farm goods into consumable food products. Standard processing methods include fermentation, dehydration, preservation, pasteurization and the use of preservatives to slow or stop the growth of certain pathogens. These steps help make foods more nutrient-dense, allowing them to remain affordable, safe and shelf-stable when they reach stores. Learn more about food processing here.

The Institute for Food Technology , which publishes Food Technology, has been exploring

the growing challenge of misinformation and the importance of building public trust in food science. Alongside highlights from IFT FIRST sessions on myth busting and consumer trust, it features Food Technology contributors and thought leaders examining how transparency, empathy, and effective communication can help bridge the gap between scientific evidence and public perception.

Here are some of the articles.

• Fighting Food Misinformation:  To counter science denial, lead with empathy, communication experts advise.
• How Food Companies Can Win Back Trust: Drawing on insights from the IFT FIRST session “How Can Food Companies Earn Trust While Combatting Misinformation?” Linda Eatherton outlines why credibility is the true currency of food innovation and how companies can strengthen reputation through empathy, transparency, and sustained communication. Read more
• A ‘Clear’ Path to Regaining Public Trust in Food and Beverage: Concerns about public trust in the food system have been part of the conversation for years—surfacing even at an IFT FIRST Scientific & Technical Forum in 2023 where experts from Edelman and IFIC discussed how fear and misinformation shape consumer confidence. They emphasized that transparency, speed, and empathy are essential for rebuilding credibility. Read more
• Building Relevance and Trust in the Food Sciences: IFT Immediate Past President Christopher Daubert calls for a balanced, evidence-based approach to debates over ultra-processed foods and reminds food professionals that facts alone are not enough—trust is built through transparency and shared values. Read more
• The Messy, Fine Art of Science Communication: Laura Lindenfeld of Stony Brook University’s Alan Alda Center discusses why empathy, storytelling, and listening are critical tools for scientists seeking to make their work heard and believed in an age of skepticism. She explains how communication grounded in trust and connection—not jargon or defensiveness—can help bridge the gap between scientific expertise and public understanding. Read more
• The Transformative Power of Positivity: Food scientist Kantha Shelke advocates for an “appreciative inquiry” approach to food communication—focusing on what’s strong, not what’s wrong—to shift public perception and reinforce trust in food science. She encourages food professionals to highlight innovation, progress, and the positive impact of scientific advances rather than emphasizing fear or limitation.  Read more
• ‘Ultra-Processed’ Foods and the Question of Consumer Trust:  Food scientist Matt Teegarden questions the Nova food classification system’s broad definition of ultra-processed foods and its influence on how consumers perceive healthfulness and trust in the food system. He calls for more precise, science-based frameworks to guide research, policy, and communication around diet and processing.  Read more

Comment: Here’s some simple advice to food companies worried about why the public doesn’t trust them or their products.  If you want to be trusted, behave in a trustworthy manner.

• Put public health and nutrition first.
• Don’t advertise ridiculous health claims.
• Don’t market ultra-procesed foods to kids.
• Don’t use your ingredient lists to obfuscate what’s in your products (e.g., sugar synonyms).
• If something is wrong, own up to it.
• Don’t condescend to your customers.
• Don’t try to convince them your products are healthy and environmentally sustainable if they are not.

Trusted companies have these rules built into their culture.

Their stockholders respect them for it.

So will their customers.

After 20 years, of being owned by Unilever, Ben & Jerry are unhappy about how that relationship is working out.  They say they are being silenced and their independence is being infringed upon.

Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield, part of the duo whose names shaped the popular U.S. ice cream brand over the last half-century, has quit his role as “brand ambassador” after a rift and public feud with parent Unilever (ULVR.L), over the conflict in Gaza.

In an open letter shared by his business partner, Ben Cohen on social media, Greenfield said that the Vermont-based company – well-known for its social activism on progressive issues – had in recent years been “silenced” by Unilever, which is currently spinning off its Magnum ice cream unit that includes the Ben & Jerry’s brand.

That independence existed in no small part because of the unique merger agreement Ben and I negotiated with Unilever; one that enshrined our social mission and values in the company’s governance structure in perpetuity. It’s profoundly disappointing to come to the conclusion that that independence – the very basis of our sale to Unilever – is gone.

Corporate Climate Resposibility Monitor has published its 2025 report: Food and Agriculture Sector Deep Dive, which looks at measures of protection against climate change.  It doesn’t find much.

It does find:

• Agrifood companies present measures that are unlikely to lead to structural, deep emission reductions in the sector.
• Agrifood companies’ emission reduction targets are currently undermined by the undefined role for land-based carbon removals.
• Standard setters need to anchor the need for deep and structural emission reductions in their voluntary standards and guidelines, guided by key transitions for the sector, and need to call for separate targets for emission reduction and removal.

Overall,

Not much green in this chart.

The report goes into detail for each of the companies it’s tracking.

Not much good news here.  No surprise.  Reducing and cleaning up emissions costs money.

I learned about this report from Ag Funder News: Danone and Nestlé hit back after new report accuses Big Food of ‘corporate greenwashing.’

According to the report, penned by nonprofits NewClimate Institute and Carbon Market Watch, “This focus on CDR [carbon dioxide removal] distracts from their lack of commitments to deep, structural emission reductions, especially regarding methane.

“While the draft GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance recommends setting separate targets for emissions reductions and removals, the current SBTi FLAG guidance appears to allow companies to count removals toward their reduction targets. Danone, Nestlé and PepsiCo seem to be taking this approach.”

It adds: “Companies are exploiting loopholes in voluntary standards like SBTi FLAG and the GHG Protocol, which allow them to blend removals with reductions in a single figure, masking a lack of real mitigation.”

Never mind the effects of anti-obesity drugs on the health and well-being of people taking them.  From the food industry’s standpoint, what counts is what they are doing to sales of food and drink.  Ouch.

Here is my most recent collection of items from industry newsletters.  These make it clear that GLP-1 drugs are a real threat to food industry profits.

• The snackdown: Are GLP-1s really killing snacks or is it just all hype?  Weight-loss drugs are billed as a $150bn threat to bakery and snacks, but so far the impact looks more hype than reality…. Read more
• Food industry scrambles to respond to GLP-1 craze:  The drugs have already been predicted to change the way we eat… Read more
• How food brands can stay ahead of GLP-1 craze:  Don’t underestimate the GLP-1 trend. It’s going to hit, hard… Read more
• Sweet speculation: GLP-1s could already be nibbling at confectionery sales.  As enthusiasm for the confectionary sector declines, could weight-loss drugs have a role to play?… Read more
• How is GLP-1 changing eating habits in Europe?  As GLP-1s begin to make themselves known on the continent, consumers’ habits are starting to change… Read more

As to what food companies are trying to do to respond:

• GLP-1 is changing taste: How can food makers reignite flavour?  When GLP-1 drugs make food taste dull, exciting taste buds will be the aim of the game… Read more
• What makes a GLP-1-friendly yogurt drink? Danone tells all: By formulating a dairy drink that specifically caters for weight loss medication users, Danone has set a new standard with Oikos Fusion… Read more
• 4 natural food ingredients that boost GLP-1:  It’s not only drugs that induce the satiety-causing hormone… Read more
• Food’s answer to Ozempic? New ingredients mimic GLP-1 without the pharma price tag.  Once everyone’s had enough of injections, side effects, and the vast expense of GLP-1 drugs, it could be natural alternatives’ time to shine… Read more
• GLP-1 users are undernourished: why F&B needs to fill the gapNutrient gaps in GLP-1 diets present a challenge and an opportunity for the food industry… Read more

Fascinating, no?  I’m paying close attention to all this.

Michael Jacobson, founder of CSPI and now working on developing a National Food Museum in Washington, DC has issued press release and a graph-filled report analyzing changes in the U.S. diet since 1975.

He calls the report, “Opening the 1975 Food Time Capsule – Diet, Health, & Food Industry.”

From the press release:

And the food industry has gotten a lot more concentrated:

• In 1975, the top 20 grocers sold 40 percent of retail food. Now, just four companies (Walmart, Costco, Kroger, Ahold Delhaize) control 65 percent of the market.
• The market shares of the top four beef, pork, and poultry processors roughly doubled over the last 50 years.

Meanwhile, food prices (adjusted for inflation) have gone up, down, or sideways. For instance, milk costs half as much as 50 years ago, while ground beef has stayed the same. Overall, consumers are spending just 11 percent of their disposable income on food now compared to 13 percent in 1975.

From the report:

Lots of fun information here!

I particularly like it because I cover these changes and lots of others in my forthcoming book What to Eat Now.  to be published on November 11 this year.