GFI FOOD INDUSTRY & MARKET INTELLIGENCE

The food industry built a working theory of the GLP-1 consumer: less food, less spending, permanent damage to snacks and bakery, and a fix built on protein and fiber. New research from PwC, BCG, IFF and Harris Poll UK suggests that theory is wrong in several important ways.

Key Takeaways

• Roughly 60% of GLP-1 users buy less food, but around 30% trade up to pricier products, partially offsetting the volume decline for manufacturers with strong premium or functional positioning.
• Bakery is not uniformly declining. The category is splitting between products consumers still choose and those losing shelf justification, which argues against blanket capacity cuts.
• Adding protein and fiber addresses only the nutritional half of the GLP-1 response; behavioural shifts in appetite, taste and eating enjoyment remain largely unaddressed by reformulation alone.
• Category effects are mostly temporary during active treatment, except alcohol, which shows durable decline, and produce, which shows sustained growth.
• Aggregate US snack unit sales have held roughly steady through 2024 despite rising GLP-1 adoption, suggesting household-level effects haven’t yet clearly moved topline market numbers.

Less Food Does Not Mean Less Value

PwC’s Strategy& survey of more than 2,300 UK adults found that nearly 60% of GLP-1 users are buying less food, confirming the industry’s core fear. But roughly 30% are simultaneously trading up, offsetting some of that volume decline through more expensive products. BCG’s research adds detail: active users expect to spend 15% more monthly on fruit and vegetables, 11% more on high-protein foods, and substantially more on fibre-rich and wholegrain products. They are also twice as likely to choose functional products over conventional premium alternatives.

That combination, less volume but more selective, higher-value purchasing, is a materially different commercial picture than simple demand destruction. It suggests manufacturers able to justify premium positioning through function, not just indulgence, may be better insulated than the volume-decline narrative implies.

Bakery Is Splitting, Not Collapsing

Bakery has been repeatedly cast as one of GLP-1’s biggest casualties, and BCG’s data does show baked goods among the categories where consumption falls during active treatment. But the new research complicates a blanket write-off. The category appears to be splitting between products that struggle to justify their shelf space and those consumers still have a clear reason to eat.

That distinction matters operationally. A short-term dip in consumption calls for a very different response than a permanent structural decline, and manufacturers or retailers who remove capacity or rationalize ranges based on the wrong diagnosis risk cutting products that would otherwise recover.

Protein and Fiber Solve Only Half the Problem

The industry’s default response to GLP-1, add protein, increase fiber, shrink the portion, may be necessary but insufficient. IFF’s UK findings, drawn from the same research wave, suggest that formulation fixes address the nutritional side of the equation while leaving a behavioural one largely untouched.

Harris Poll UK data reinforces this. Among current users, 38% reported reduced food noise, 37% experienced less emotional eating, and 36% had fewer cravings, effects that can support more controlled choices but may also weaken the impulses and reward mechanisms many food categories depend on commercially. Separately, 70% of GLP-1 consumers reported losing some of the joy of eating, 73% said their taste preferences had changed, and 66% reported some change in mood or personality. Reformulating a product’s nutrition panel does not address a consumer whose relationship with eating itself has changed.

The Effects Are Real, but Mostly Temporary, With Exceptions

Longer-run data adds an important qualifier to all of this. Analysis from OC&C Strategy Consultants estimates GLP-1s will act as roughly a 0.2% annual volume drag on US food and beverage demand through 2031, describing this as a structural headwind rather than a temporary disruption. Yet the same research finds many category-level effects fade once treatment stops, with two notable exceptions: alcohol shows a more durable decline, while produce demonstrates sustained growth even after discontinuation.

Cornell University and Numerator’s household-level research supports the fading-effect pattern more broadly. GLP-1 households cut grocery spending by an average of 5.3%, rising to 8% among higher-income households, but the magnitude of that reduction shrinks over time. Restaurant spending fell by a similar 8% within the first six months of use.

The Aggregate Numbers Have Not Moved Much Yet

Perhaps the most important reality check comes from USDA data presented at the Agriculture Outlook Forum in February. Despite the extensive industry hand-wringing, snack unit sales held essentially steady at just over 10 billion units annually through 2024, roughly matching 2020 levels. At the scale of the entire US market, GLP-1’s effect on aggregate snack volume remains difficult to detect in the topline numbers so far.

---

Sources

1. FoodNavigator / Bakery&Snacks. Overturning 7 Industry Assumptions About the GLP-1 Consumer, citing IFF, BCG, PwC Strategy& and Harris Poll UK research. August 19, 2026.
2. PwC Strategy&. UK consumer survey of 2,300+ adults on GLP-1 purchasing behaviour. 2026.
3. OC&C Strategy Consultants. GLP-1s and the Future of Food: New 2026 Insights on Consumption, Category Winners and Losers.
4. Cornell University & Numerator. Household grocery and restaurant spending study following GLP-1 adoption. December 2025.
5. USDA. Agriculture Outlook Forum, snack unit sales data. February 19, 2026.