As the world is coming around to the understanding that public health policy cannot neglect the need for obesity treatment, a question hangs in the air. What does this mean for obesity prevention strategies? This question – together with fast-changing market realities – begs another question. Will prevention policy or market dynamics reduce obesity more?

After all, prevention policies have done little over the last three decades to slow the rise of obesity. And now, it is becoming unmistakable that the influence of growing GLP-1 medicine use is bringing impressive changes in the obesogenic environment that previously favored rising obesity.

Don’t Neglect Prevention

“Increased use of GLP-1 drugs must not curb public health advocacy efforts to advance obesity prevention policies,” writes Andrew Stokes in a Stat News First Opinion essay. David Sarwer builds on that thought in The Conversation, writing:

“Research is increasingly showing that ultra-processed foods play a role in promoting weight gain and potentially other diseases, such as colorectal cancer. Legislators could draw on that research to better regulate these foods – for example, to limit the use of certain especially harmful ingredients, to restrict marketing of ultra-processed products, or to limit their inclusion in school meals.

Likewise, Marion Nestle tells us she favors action on ultra-processed foods sooner rather than later. She rightly asks, “How much evidence do you need before you act?”

We agree with their sentiments. But our confidence is not great that we can trot out highly effective prevention policies to move the needle on obesity prevalence. The track record on this does not inspire confidence.

Will Market Forces Reshape the Obesogenic Environment?

Meanwhile, anecdotal evidence keeps suggesting that consumer behavior is forcing food marketers to adapt as the previously insatiable appetite for junk food evaporates with rising GLP-1 use. Industry analysts from Rabobank recently published a research report on the implications for the food industry. They write that the implications are profound:

“For the food industry, the adoption of GLP-1s represents both disruption and opportunity. Appetite suppression and altered taste perception are changing how and what people eat, challenging volume-driven models and prompting a rethink of value creation. Functional benefits such as satiety, metabolic wellness, and digestive comfort are gaining prominence, while indulgence is being reframed as smaller, more intentional, and worth the choice. The scale of these shifts is still evolving, but the direction is clear: Eating patterns are changing, and no category is immune.”

In short, they say that drivers of growth for the industry will be “less volume and more value.”

Can Food Policy and Health Advocates Adapt?

In contrast, the ideas we hear floating from food and health policy advocates seem wildly out of touch. Tax the bad stuff. Regulate how they advertise. Add more label warnings. Require nutrition info on the front of the packages. Put a “healthy” seal on the good stuff.

All of these things have been tried and studied for years. None of them have had much effect for improving dietary health – much less health outcomes.

In short, reality bites hard. As more people overcome obesity with new options like GLP-1s, food marketers are facing facts. They may no longer be able to prosper by selling ever larger quantities of poor quality food to consumers. Food policy and health advocates need to get clever about harnessing the change that’s afoot to ensure it results in improved population health.

We hope they will.

Click here and here for further perspective on the Rabobank analysis. Click here for free access to new reporting from the Washington Post on this dynamic, here and here for additional perspective. For insight on trends toward smaller orders in the pizza business, click here.

Renganeschi’s Saturday Night, painting by John French Sloan / WikiArt