Felsted, Jarvis: Big food wants to feed our protein obsession

posted in: News | 0

Protein is replacing plant-based as the latest grocery aisle obsession.

Consequently, food companies are rushing to reformulate products for protein lovers. That’s a category that includes both people taking the powerful new class of obesity drugs known as GLP-1s, who are eating less yet looking for more nutrients and protein, as well as those seeking to preserve muscle mass as they age or just hoping to get ripped.

Companies argue they’re filling a need created by these miracle weight-loss drugs. But are they offering something of real value — or simply taking advantage of another food fad? If it turns out to be the latter, the raft of ready meals and appetite-suppressing drinks could do more to fatten companies’ profits than to help people stay healthy while slimming down.

In the U.S. alone, more than 170 million adults are considered overweight or obese. While supply constraints and challenges with insurance coverage have limited access to Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy and Eli Lilly & Co.’s Zepbound, a 2024 survey found that one in eight adults in the U.S. had tried a GLP-1. That is already starting to nibble away at supermarket sales. Research company Circana found that although U.S. GLP-1 users continue to outspend non-users on groceries, those taking the drug for weight loss cut their outlay by about 1 percentage point in the first year of the regimen.

As with any form of weight loss, people taking Wegovy and Zepbound don’t only shed fat, they lose muscle too. And because the drugs are such a powerful appetite suppressant, causing people to eat much less, the nutritional value of what they do consume becomes more important. Add in the fact that the population is getting older, and that muscle mass also declines as we age, and its clear why big food is salivating over the potential for protein.

Conagra Brands Inc., the frozen-food specialist, has analyzed the buying behavior of GLP-1 users. Over the past 12 months, it has consistently seen demand from this group for single-serve meals, which are portion controlled and contain a good mix of protein, nutrients and fiber. The company has responded by changing the labeling on some of its Healthy Choice meals, first introduced in the 1980s to help people look after their hearts, with an “On Track” badge that identifies them as GLP-1-friendly.

Nestle SA, the world’s biggest food company, has gone one step further, introducing new products to meet the needs of GLP-1 users and others looking to lose weight. Vital Pursuit, a range of 14 frozen meals, including cauliflower-crust pizzas, bowls and sandwiches, arrived on U.S. supermarket shelves in September. Each portion-controlled item offers at least 20 grams of protein, as well as fiber and vitamins.

Nestle is also trialing a protein shot, containing 10 grams of the macronutrient, under the Boost nutritional drink brand. Weight loss drugs work by mimicking GLP-1, a hormone released after eating to help control blood sugar levels and induce a sense of fullness. Nestle says the Boost drink can do the same when consumed up to 30 minutes before a meal —  making it the company’s first product to carry such a claim. (Obesity medicine specialists note that all foods trigger the hormone, some more than others). Pharmaceutical and nutrition company Abbott Laboratories, meanwhile, has launched protein shake Protality. But take a stroll through the aisles of any supermarket, and you will see plenty of other items, including bread, cereal bars and yogurt, all trumpeting their protein power.

The On Track label is initially appearing on existing Conagra products priced at $3.49 and $3.99, while Nestle’s Vital Pursuit range has a recommended retail price of $4.99 and under, putting it roughly in line with more traditional ready meals. But as this market develops, such products could end up being particularly lucrative.

In general, the more added value food companies can deliver to their customers, the more they can charge. While ingredients, such as protein, may be more expensive — meat and eggs have seen some of the biggest price increases in recent years — there is a better chance of recouping these costs in special formulations than in everyday items, where competition is fierce. Smaller portions are also likely to make the economics favorable on a per-gram basis for companies, but Duncan Fox, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, notes that consumers typically get the best value from bigger packs. (Think: buying a 2-liter bottle of soda rather than a single can.)

For now, these benefits will be offset by the fact that the amount of GLP-1 friendly foods being sold is still relatively small, so production costs are high. But as more people take the drugs, economies of scale will kick in, making them cheaper to produce.

But do people on GLP-1s really need specific foods or snacks advertised as packed with protein? Probably not. Diana Thiara, medical director of the UCSF Weight Management program, tells her patients that the best option is to get their protein through whole foods, and if they still need help, a reasonable next step is to try a “clean” protein powder that lacks or minimizes added sugars or ingredients. Ultra-processed foods should be the last resort. And Shauna Levy, medical director at Tulane School of Medicine’s Bariatric and Weight Loss Center in New Orleans, cautions that a lot of foods promising “high protein” don’t deliver.

Companies’ efforts have one crucial factor on their side, though: convenience. Everyone, GLP-1 users included, struggles to make a well-balanced meal every night or batch cook on the weekend, a task that might feel even more daunting when trying to adapt recipes to account for nutritional needs and a more modest appetite. One example of how this is already playing out: Conagra has seen an uptick in demand for frozen appetizers, such as sushi bites. This is because people can grab a couple out of the freezer when they need to satiate their smaller appetites, indicating a desire for something quick and easy to portion.

To remain relevant amid shifting tastes and defend their sales, food companies must convince consumers that they can help make eating right easy and convenient. But unless their products really pack a protein punch, they’ll go the way of other food fads — into the compost.

Andrea Felsted is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering consumer goods and the retail industry. Previously, she was a reporter for the Financial Times. Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, health care and the pharmaceutical industry. Previously, she was executive editor of Chemical & Engineering News.

 

Andrea Felsted: Dry January is the least of big booze’s problems

posted in: News | 0

Dry January may already be a distant memory, but the problems for big booze are far from receding.

The U.S. surgeon general’s advisory on the link between alcohol and cancer, the rise of weight-loss drugs that can dampen demand for a drink, young people preferring the gym to a gin, and now the prospect of tariffs have left brewers and distillers with a nasty hangover. While they can plausibly defend their business with low- and no- alcohol alternatives, it’s enough to drive investors to drink.

The new year got off to a bad start when U.S. surgeon general under the Biden administration Vivek Murthy issued an advisory — a public statement that draws attention to a critical health issue — for alcohol. He recommended that drinks carry warnings about their links to cancer.

This sets alcohol on the same path as tobacco: increasingly in public-health crosshairs. The danger is that this could be the start of greater restrictions, from curbing advertising to adding rules on where products are sold, Duncan Fox, analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, told me.

If the trajectory follows that of cigarettes, then there may be a drop of comfort: If history is anything to go by, companies should have time to prepare. The Trump administration might push the timeline out further; Murthy’s term has ended. But surgeon general’s warnings are hard to ignore, and there is enough of a narrative around alcohol and cancer for this issue to remain in the spotlight.

In the meantime, there are more pressing matters for the booze business: While drinking is falling out of favor across  all generations, the most notable drop since the end of 2021 has come from Millennials, according to a new report from Morning Consult. Gen Z’s aversion to alcohol is also well known. At the same time, there is a growing body of evidence to back up anecdotes that GLP-1s reduce cravings not only for food, but also for alcohol.

Debra Crew, chief executive officer of Guinness and Gordon’s owner Diageo Plc, said it was difficult to identify the distinct effects of weight loss drugs from the broader trend toward moderation.

But U.S. alcohol volumes are only gradually recovering from their post-pandemic dip. That indicates that these drugs — as well as the demographic shifts and economic pressures driving consumers to purchase mini bottles of spirits, for example — are taking their toll.

Add in (delayed) 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, and the glass is half empty. Constellation Brands Inc., brewer of America’s favorite beer, Mexican import Modelo Especial, cut its full-year sales outlook in January and widened the range of potential outcomes. Meanwhile, 25% tariffs on aluminum imports to the U.S. are another blow: A lot of beer comes in cans.

But in one way, brewers and distillers are better set up than tobacco manufacturers: They have wisely already moved into low- and no- alcohol beverages.

This is comparable to the latter’s development of alternatives such as electronic cigarettes and devices that heat rather than burn tobacco. Yet some of these products still contain nicotine, hence the concern about young people vaping or using Philip Morris Inc.’s Zyn pouches, particularly if they move on to cigarettes.

That shouldn’t be a risk for low- and no- alcohol drinks, which offer consumers a way to moderate their intake while still having a social experience. The amount of alcohol in these beverages is so small that it’s hard to see a “Nonqueray” being a gateway to the real thing. Of course, people might switch between the two. But given mounting evidence of the links with certain cancers, if that cuts consumption, it should still offer health benefits.

So far, Europe is ahead of the U.S. in terms of low- and no- alcohol beers gaining traction, points out Sarah Simon, analyst at Morgan Stanley. The market for non-alcoholic wines and spirits is even more nascent.

But America is catching up fast. Not only has Athletic Brewing Co. become the largest non-alcoholic beer brand in the U.S., but brewers including the world’s biggest, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA, and Diageo through Guinness 0.0 are placing major bets. The Budweiser owner recently launched a non-alcoholic version of its popular Michelob Ultra, appearing in its Michelob Ultra pickleball-themed Super Bowl ad.

Sales of non-alcoholic beers in grocers — the most advanced retail channel — have been growing around 25%-35% per annum over the past few years, according to an analysis of NielsenIQ data by BUMP Williams Consulting. However, it remains small.

Margins are higher than for alcoholic drinks, Diageo said, which is helpful. Profits may be eroded as competition intensifies, but economies of scale should kick in as production ramps up.

When it comes to weight-loss drugs, selling a lower volume of better quality alcohol, which commands a higher price point, is another option.

Alternatively, with some young people choosing “California Sober,” companies could look to legal cannabis. Some, such as Constellation Brands, Molson Coors Beverage Co. and AB InBev, have dabbled in this market. But it is yet to become a major avenue of growth, partly because products still can’t be sold everywhere. And if there are health concerns around alcohol, surely the risks of cannabis, about which far less is known, are even greater?

So while big booze might raise a toast to low- and no- alcohol, this market remains in its infancy. Until it challenges the mainstream or another strategic bet pays off, it’s far too early to say cheers.

Andrea Felsted is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering consumer goods and the retail industry. Previously, she was a reporter for the Financial Times.

 

Tyler Cowen: What’s the best way to reveal a government secret?

posted in: Politics | 0

House Republicans last week announced their “Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets.” This follows an executive order issued last month by President Donald Trump ordering the release of records about the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. The broad idea is to get the federal government to reveal all its information about these assassinations as well as topics like Jeffrey Epstein, the origins of COVID-19 and UAPs (formerly known as UFOs).

Rather than speculate about whether Trump and Congress will follow through, I would like to focus on the question of how this disclosure process should work.

The first and arguably most important question is who exactly has the authority to order the declassification and publication. Ideally, the head of the congressional task force should be a credible and independent person trusted by the bureaucracy and by the national security establishment. That person should be able to declassify documents without requiring approval from the president. On first glance, the current arrangement does not seem to allow that.

The risk is that Trump would hoard the most sensitive information and disclose selectively, to manipulate the news cycle or to distract attention from other events. It also could give him more political weapons to use against what he calls the “deep state.” The president himself is hardly a model of transparency, whether the questions concern his tax returns, his medical exams or the possession of classified documents after leaving office.

But again, the issue is governmental disclosure, and so far, Trump’s record is 0 for 1. Before assuming office, he suggested that the U.S. military knew more than it was letting on about the drones that had been sighted above New Jersey and other Northeastern states. Then, after Trump took office, his press secretary said only that they were “authorized” by the government “for research and various other reasons.” There has been no subsequent attempt to clarify matters. Personally, I am more confused than I was a month ago.

Perhaps there are good national security reasons for this silence. The point is that it is foolish to expect full and open disclosure from the president, no matter what his executive order says or what he has earlier promised.

One way to improve the process would be to appoint some independent auditors on a bipartisan basis, perhaps selected from Congress. Ex post, those auditors could judge whether disclosure, with transparent explanations, had actually occurred. They could grade the degree of disclosure, but they would not have the power to prevent it. Otherwise, there is a risk that — to choose an example not quite at random — evidence favoring the “two gunmen” hypothesis for JFK’s assassination is released, but conflicting evidence for the “lone gunman” hypothesis is suppressed. The auditors would issue a report saying whether disclosure was unbalanced or unfair.

The Republican heading the task force, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, is well suited for the  job in the sense that she has had a strong interest in disclosure and transparency, and she is not building her career by courting establishment approval.

On the other hand, she is not the most credible spokesperson for the cause of disclosure. She has a partisan and contentious political history, recently introducing a bill to have Trump’s face carved into Mount Rushmore. The letter she sent soliciting information for disclosure slams President Joe Biden’s administration, hardly a move designed to build a consensus in favor of the process or its outcomes. The cause of transparency is best served when it is not partisan.

Another problem with the task force is that it is authorized for only six months. Bureaucracies are by nature slow-moving, and can be even more so when they wish to be. A six-month deadline creates incentives to wait things out. Trump could threaten to extend the mandate, and perhaps he will. But then the disclosure campaign would turn out to be just a bargaining chip, rather than a genuine attempt to bring the truth to light.

Mostly I favor this new policy, if only because so little progress has been made under the status quo. Above all else, I am a curious human being, and if handled properly, this task force could be revelatory. But there are also plenty of ways it could go wrong, so I am also curious to see how it all plays out.

Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a professor of economics at George Mason University and host of the Marginal Revolution blog.

 

Letters: Never before have I seen the Democrats in this hot a mess

posted in: News | 0

This is how Democrats plan to win?

Never before have I seen the Democrats in this hot a mess.

And what is their master plan for taking back Congress in 2026?

Try to save the careers of hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats hiding out in the partisan Democrat deep-state, and accuse Musk of being an unelected president despite the fact he openly campaigned with Trump and everyone knew what the dynamic duo would do?

Meanwhile, they throw temper tantrums in committees, sue Trump in every liberal court they can find, denounce popular efforts to trim trillions in waste, threaten violence in the streets, conspire against ICE, and write stupid protest songs they can’t sing on-key.

Is this how Democrats plan to win next time? This? What a gift to taxpayers.

Mark D. Overholser, South St. Paul

 

Elon Musk, Bureaucrat in Chief

Over the past few years, I have written various times on this page questioning actions of Democrats who are beholden to “Progressives,” or the extreme wing of the party. I have generally written from a centrist and critical perspective of “this is why people vote for Donald Trump.” Well, Trump once again occupies the White House, and I feel it is time to shift attention.

Since his inauguration, the Trump administration has done so many profoundly problematic and destructive things that it is difficult to know where to focus. However, I will address one element of his administration: The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

DOGE as it is being implemented is based on deceit and questionable legality. The official DOGE website can be found at www.doge.gov. This is a very unusual website for a government agency in that it shares so little information about the agency. Under the “About” tab, the only information provided pertaining to DOGE is Trump’s executive order which created DOGE. It is a very short and generalized document, yet it provides the legal basis and justification for all DOGE actions. It has only one Purpose clause, which reads: “This Executive Order establishes the Department of Government Efficiency to implement the President’s DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”

“The President’s DOGE Agenda” is not defined anywhere in the order. DOGE supersedes the former US Digital Service (renamed by the executive order as the US DOGE Service).

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) was created in 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance around the world, and to promote goodwill towards the US, countering similar aid/development programs by other foreign powers (most notably the USSR). This agency has indisputably saved and/or improved many millions of lives over the years. One can debate the validity and/or efficiency of this agency. However, to gut and functionally eliminate USAID under a program whose legally defined purpose is to modernize technology and software is absurd. I am not a lawyer, but it seems very questionable from a legal perspective. It precludes any sort of public debate (i.e. transparency and accountability). This is just one of many examples of wrecking-ball actions being implemented by DOGE under Elon Musk.

Trump and his supporters have long railed against unelected bureaucrats who they claim have too much power. How ironic, now, that Musk is functionally the Bureaucrat in Chief. He has never run for office of any kind, yet he is arguably the second most powerful man in the United States, given his unchecked political power as the in-fact administrator of DOGE combined with his vast economic and communications clout.

Peter Langworthy, St. Paul

 

Joe’s reasoning needs a tweak

Joe Soucheray’s article about transgender people participating in women’s sports this past Sunday needs a little tweaking.

It’s true that biological men normally out-compete women. What gives men this advantage is their testosterone. It makes their muscles larger and stronger. However, if a transgender person is taking a testosterone-blocking agent together with a feminizing estrogen, as most of them do, this advantage is lost. According to my reading, (easily found on the internet), testing repeatedly shows that cis-women consistently compete well against trans-women in all feats excepting for hand-grip strength. They can actually jump higher, and have better lung function than trans-women.

Like Joe, I don’t have a dog in this fight, excepting that I wouldn’t mind seeing Minnesota prevail in its resistance to the bullying we are seeing from Washington.

G.J. Mayer, Lino Lakes

 

Handing the field to Goliath

Ukraine vs Russia is the David and Goliath, good vs evil, story of our time. I am sad, worried and angry that at a time when the United States should be standing with democracy against a cruel dictator we have just taken the stone from David’s sling and handed the field to Goliath. This level of capitulation is right up there with Neville Chamberlain declaring peace in our time after meeting with Adolf Hitler. We all know how that turned out.

Ukraine has put up quite a fight against our mortal enemy, putting Putin the dictator in a weakened state. Why in the world are we abandoning our allies and throwing Putin a lifeline?

Greg Kvaal, Mendota Heights

 

A puddle of tears?

I’m responding to Wednesday’s New York Times report of federal funding being cut to the CDC, FDA and National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Hold it right there, Mister. While all that sounds like a done deal, our Attorney General, Keith Ellison, has co-led a 22-blue-state lawsuit against the federal administration for “unlawfully cutting (NIH) funds that support cutting-edge medical and public health research at universities and research institutions across the country.”

And, Massachusetts District Court Judge Angel Kelley has wagged her finger in Elon Musk’s puffy little face. She is one of Joe Biden’s 2021 picks.  It’s only a temporary reprieve and a further hearing is scheduled for Feb. 21.

Here’s the kicker: The pause is limited to the 22 blue states that enjoined the lawsuit. The red states have been left sitting in a puddle of their own tears.  For those of you who enjoy the schadenfreude

Regina Purins, St. Paul

 

Oh, that T-Bird

Thank you for the supplement to the 14 Feb.25 Pioneer Press, “A Ford assembly plant story.

My father had been a Ford car owner for most of his life.  In 1955, I was 11 years old, we as a family drove from southern Minnesota to St Paul to take a tour of the Ford plant.

Parked in front of the main office building was a brand new 1955 Ford Thunderbird, black with a red and white interior.  Awesome! I don’t remember much about the tour but I do remember telling my father that someday I would own a Thunderbird like the 1955 model we saw at the plant.

In 1971, I found a 1956 Ford Thunderbird (1955 and 1956 models were almost identical) on a Ford dealership used car lot.  No hesitating, I bought it and made arrangements to drive it home.

I spent many wonderful hours over the years overhauling the 312 CID V8, its transmission and its running gear.  I still have it and marvel at its beauty everyday.

A Ford Thunderbird lover,

Gary Schraml, Lindstrom

 

Let’s make a deal — for your pennies

There’s been recent discussions about the lowly penny. How now, It costs about three and a half cents to mint one penny.

There seems to be a faulty assumption that once a penny is spent or received as change, the pennies are tossed away in the trash never to be seen again, which is absurd thinking.

The reality is that many pennies are recycled again and again and often for many years. To be used again and again in multiple purchases or to be received as change.

There’s another reality. Pennies do get lost and need replacing. Or they get saved ( hoarded). You’ll hear about some people saving (hoarding) pennies over many decades. Sometimes you read about people out of vengeance or malice choosing to pay off debts off with thousands of pennies. Sometimes you read about people showing up at a bank to convert decades of savings pennies in a wheel barrow. That becomes newsworthy and an attention getter.

I would suggest that every once a while, when the US Treasury needs more pennies, instead of minting more pennies, to instead institute a buying plan to pay the hoarding savers one and a half cents to two cents for each penny they turned into an authorized bank to be converted to cash. The same idea goes with nickels.

I’m sure a plan can be worked out. It has to be a plan with a very defined and closed window of opportunity to work.

There are probably millions, maybe billions of pennies that are now entrapped at homes and businesses across the USA that needs to be released. Hopefully a buy-back program would save some taxpayers money.

Barry Siebert, St Paul