GLP‑1 demand: Are we already seeing a slowdown?

GLP-1 drugs and the food industry summary

• GLP-1 drugs reshape food industry focus on weight loss
• Side effects and cosmetic concerns are tempering enthusiasm among some consumers
• Access expands via pill formats patent expiry and emerging multi-agonists
• Household eating and shopping shifts may amplify impacts beyond users
• Lower calorie intake threatens volume sales despite healthier category opportunities

GLP-1 drugs have dominated the food and beverage conversation for the past twelve months.

They’ve reignited an industry-wide fixation on weight loss as body positivity wanes, driven waves of new product development, and proven a massive crowd draw at presentations and panel discussions on the subject.

But has the industry jumped on the GLP-1 bandwagon too soon?

With health and cosmetic concerns emerging, there are signs the trend is already losing its appeal.

Is the tide turning on GLP-1s?

Mounting reports of side effects – from gastrointestinal distress to more serious risks such as blindness and acute pancreatitis – are already dulling the shine of the so‑called wonder drugs.

Added to this, the term “Ozempic face” is becoming increasingly recognised as a way of describing either puffiness from the effects of the drugs or facial hollowness – sagging skin and increased wrinkles – from rapid fat loss.

But while this might be turning some consumers away from GLP-1s their appeal continues to grow, particularly amongst first timers, as they become increasingly accessible.

“The first pill formats are just now hitting the market,” says Matthew Barry, global insight manager for food at Euromonitor International. “Semaglutide patent protections are expiring in much of the world, and the more potent multi-agonists are likely to become commercially available relatively soon.”

In fact, far from declining, Barry argues we are “only at the beginning of the GLP-1 revolution”.

Although price remains a major barrier to wider adoption and unless they “fall significantly in cost” they’ll fail to reach full market penetration. “The greatest risk to enthusiasm is if no significant progress is made in reducing costs and increasing coverage rates.”

He adds that a “significant number of people” still expect “devastating long-term side effect to be discovered”, despite little evidence to support such concerns. “That belief is having at least a minor effect on uptake.”

Though he’s quick to point out that what is known about the health implications of GLP‑1s is based solely on drugs already in circulation. “Pills and multi-agonists could be different in how significant they are in their side effects.”

GLP-1 household impact

As well as looking at the behaviours of new and existing GLP-1 users, food and beverage manufacturers are also focusing their attentions on the people they live with, in what’s now being termed the “household effect”.

This effect is notoriously hard to fully understand. And that, says Barry, is what makes it so compelling.

Most of the research on GLP‑1s remains tightly focused on the individual user, yet eating is rarely an individual act. Food purchasing, meal planning and consumption decisions are made at the household level. When one person starts eating less, shopping differently, or avoiding certain foods altogether, those changes ripple outward to partners, children and other household members.

Only a handful of studies even attempt to capture these dynamics, and in much of the analysis to date the household effect is effectively invisible. That blind spot matters. Ignoring the indirect influence GLP‑1 users have on the diets and buying habits of those around them risks materially understating the drugs’ real-world impact. For the food industry in particular, this means demand shifts may be broader, faster and more structural than individual usage rates alone would suggest.

Food and beverage sales decline

While industry attention has been focussed heavily on the impact of GLP-1 drugs, there’s been a reluctance to admit the impact they could have on volume sales.

There will, says Barry, be gains in healthier categories but there is no way that entirely compensates for declines elsewhere.

“If people eat less, food companies will sell less and there is no escaping that.”

What’s more, this is just one of many volume headwinds the industry is facing, with high prices, weak consumer confidence, and a tough demographic outlook all weighing on demand.

Where does this leave the industry?

For food and beverage companies, GLP‑1s represent both a genuine growth opportunity and a structural threat.

There’s clear potential in products tailored to smaller appetites, higher protein needs, improved nutrient density and digestive comfort. Brands that can credibly deliver satiety, reassurance and functional benefits may find new relevance not only with GLP‑1 users, but with entire households adjusting to changed eating patterns.

Yet the risks are just as significant. If calorie intake falls meaningfully at scale, volume-led growth models begin to creak.

Reformulation alone won’t solve that problem, and not every category can trade down on portion size while trading up on value.

Over‑indexing on GLP‑1‑specific innovation also carries danger if consumer enthusiasm softens, side effects gain prominence or access stalls on cost and reimbursement. The industry could end up chasing a moving target – or worse, overbuilding around a trend whose full shape is still emerging.

Crucially, there is still far more that the industry doesn’t know than it does. Long‑term usage patterns remain unclear. Will people stay on GLP‑1s indefinitely, cycle on and off, or abandon them altogether? Will pills and multi‑agonists change adherence, outcomes or side‑effect profiles in ways that materially alter eating behaviour? How will children in “GLP‑1 households” be affected over time? And how will regulators, insurers and health systems respond as usage expands?

What is clear is that GLP‑1s are forcing the food and beverage industry to confront some uncomfortable questions it has long skirted around – what happens when less food really is eaten, and when health outcomes, not consumption, become a more explicit organising principle of the market.