Member Matters
Protected: GLP‑1 drugs could reshape global food markets — but not evenly
26 June 2026
Increasing research suggests weight‑loss medicines are already changing what people eat in high‑income countries, with potential flow‑on effects for global food markets.
A recent perspective* article (1) highlights that weight-loss medicines – such as Ozempic and Wegovy known as GLP-1 drugs – are rapidly becoming mainstream in high-income countries. It also considers whether their growing use could have similar effects in lower-income countries, where access to these medicines remains more limited.
Originally developed for diabetes, these medicines reduce appetite and help people feel full for longer. Clinical trials show they can lead to weight loss of between 5% and 25%, alongside improvements in cardiovascular risk. This study describes early evidence that GLP‑1 use reduces both how much people eat and what they choose to eat. For example, in US households with a GLP‑1 user, grocery spending fell by around 5% within six months, with larger reductions seen in higher-income households. The largest declines were seen in energy‑dense foods such as savoury snacks, sweet bakery products, and biscuits. At the same time, spending on fast food and takeaway meals fell, and overall kilojoule intake dropped by around 20–30%. People also reported reduced their consumption of “ultra‑processed foods” (UPF)**, sugar‑sweetened beverages and red meat, while slightly increasing their intake of fruit, leafy greens and water. These effects appear to persist for at least the first year of treatment.
Implications for the food industry
These eating pattern shifts could have important implications for the food and beverage sector. In response, companies are already adapting their product portfolios. Many are reformulating products to emphasise protein and fibre, introducing smaller portion sizes, expanding low‑ and zero‑sugar options, and marketing products as “suitable for GLP‑1 users”. The key question raised by the study is how companies will respond at a global level. If demand of food categories slows in high‑income markets, food manufacturers may increasingly look to low‑ and middle‑income countries for growth.
The authors also note that many of these products would still be classified as “ultra-processed foods” (UPFs). They argue that while reformulation may improve a product’s nutrient profile, it does not necessarily change the level of processing, which they associate with adverse health outcomes.This they argue would build on existing trends, where expanding availability and affordability of UPF in these markets has been linked to changing diets and rising rates of obesity and diet‑related disease. By 2035, most people living with overweight or obesity are expected to be in low‑ and middle‑income countries.
A possible “spillover effect”
The authors describe a potential “spillover effect”, where reduced consumption in high‑income countries leads to increased commercial activity elsewhere. They suggest companies may intensify lobbying efforts, increase marketing—particularly through digital channels—expand modern retail networks, and use pricing strategies such as discounts and smaller pack sizes to drive consumption. They also note the potential growth of “health‑positioned” ultra‑processed products, such as high‑protein or low‑kilojoule /calorie offerings. While these pathways are not yet proven, they are consistent with patterns observed in other sectors when growth slows in developed markets.
Uneven access to treatment
A key challenge is that access to GLP‑1 medicines remains highly unequal. These medicines are expensive and unaffordable for many people in low‑ and middle‑income countries. Even by 2030, fewer than 10% of eligible people globally are expected to receive treatment. The authors argue this creates a structural imbalance: GLP‑1 use may reduce food consumption in high‑income countries, while lower‑income countries continue to face increasing exposure to UPF.
What are the authors’ policy views?
In the authors’ view, these developments should be seen as an early warning signal for policymakers. They argue that governments should strengthen existing measures to improve food environments, including tighter controls on unhealthy food marketing, taxes on sugar‑sweetened beverages and ultra‑processed products, stronger management of conflicts of interest, and better monitoring of food environments and corporate practices. They also stress that medicines should support, not replace, broader prevention strategies.
*A narrative study can provide useful insights, but because it is not based on a systematic review of all available evidence, it may be more prone to selection bias and author interpretation.
**AFGC does not support the use of the term “ultra-processed foods”, or the view that a food’s nutritional profile should be assessed primarily by its level of processing rather than its nutrient composition.
Anne-Marie Mackintosh – Health, Trade & Regulatory Affairs, Associate Director
Reference
- Even, B., Abdulai, AR., Ambikapathi, R. et al. Shrinking appetites: Will GLP-1 adoption in high-income countries accelerate Big Food’s push into low- and middle-income countries?. Global Health (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-026-01217-9
