The road to get to different scenarios is bumpy and filled with obstacles. The more people on GLP-1 eventually some bad outcome and litigation will happen and then who knows what happens. Some patients will stop responding and some will decide to drop out unless it is a pill. Change does not always happen as expected and reality likely will be a hybrid version of all the scenarios thought of and some that will be created in the future
Completely agree—you're seeing the ground-level reality these scenarios inevitably smooth over. The litigation risk is a sharp point. Reality will be messier, more hybrid, and full of surprises none of these futures fully capture.
A thought provoking article…here are some of my thoughts in response:
- I totally agree that tech solves one problem while creating another one.
- Your perspective is American-centric. Will the world continue to revolve around America?
- Scenario 1: Will people shift to better food? Why? People want treat food and treats don’t generally equate with exceptional quality or healthiness in food. Not to mention, why wouldn’t the premium foods also be ultra-processed? NZ food research has a major focus on extracting parts of food materials to insert into processed food materials because there’s little added value in just meat or veges! So the scale of production doesn’t necessarily change because we are extracting components out of food and ditching the fibre (a whole other health story).
- Scenario 2: What about exporting to other markets where the drugs are not available? South America? Africa? Big food won’t give up easily.
- Scenario 4 just isn’t likely
- I pick a mix of Scenario 1 and 3…new products for those on GLP-1s while creating mass products for everyone else still to grow the markets…because until we get off the growth train nothing changes. And maybe it’s not possible to get humans off the growth train because that’s what is inbuilt in organisms. However, there is no infinite growth on a finite planet. Humans like to think they are immune to the standard population growth curve but…
- Consumption of food is such a complex issue because it is multi-level - it is inextricably simultaneously socio-cultural and about individual survival while the business of food is global and linked to corporate monopolies as well as vocationally-driven farmers. It’s very difficult to untangle that level of complexity to achieve unity of action! I think hoping there will be a single, overriding lever in this (or any) complex situation is implausible. But trying to create hope is a good thing because without hope...
You're right that GLP-1s are going global—China's developing alternatives, Europe's scaling. Makes the export angle more complex—Big Food faces similar pressures across markets, just on different timelines.
Your NZ extraction example nails it. "Premium" doesn't mean "better"—the industry will likely engineer ultra-processed products for GLP-1 users at higher margins. Your mix of 1 and 3 feels most probable: bifurcated market that gets us nowhere systemically.
The growth paradigm tension you raised is the real limitation these scenarios can't escape. Finite planet problem persists in all of them.
This is informative and enlightening. Thank you.
The road to get to different scenarios is bumpy and filled with obstacles. The more people on GLP-1 eventually some bad outcome and litigation will happen and then who knows what happens. Some patients will stop responding and some will decide to drop out unless it is a pill. Change does not always happen as expected and reality likely will be a hybrid version of all the scenarios thought of and some that will be created in the future
Completely agree—you're seeing the ground-level reality these scenarios inevitably smooth over. The litigation risk is a sharp point. Reality will be messier, more hybrid, and full of surprises none of these futures fully capture.
Appreciate the perspective from the frontlines.
A thought provoking article…here are some of my thoughts in response:
- I totally agree that tech solves one problem while creating another one.
- Your perspective is American-centric. Will the world continue to revolve around America?
- Scenario 1: Will people shift to better food? Why? People want treat food and treats don’t generally equate with exceptional quality or healthiness in food. Not to mention, why wouldn’t the premium foods also be ultra-processed? NZ food research has a major focus on extracting parts of food materials to insert into processed food materials because there’s little added value in just meat or veges! So the scale of production doesn’t necessarily change because we are extracting components out of food and ditching the fibre (a whole other health story).
- Scenario 2: What about exporting to other markets where the drugs are not available? South America? Africa? Big food won’t give up easily.
- Scenario 4 just isn’t likely
- I pick a mix of Scenario 1 and 3…new products for those on GLP-1s while creating mass products for everyone else still to grow the markets…because until we get off the growth train nothing changes. And maybe it’s not possible to get humans off the growth train because that’s what is inbuilt in organisms. However, there is no infinite growth on a finite planet. Humans like to think they are immune to the standard population growth curve but…
- Consumption of food is such a complex issue because it is multi-level - it is inextricably simultaneously socio-cultural and about individual survival while the business of food is global and linked to corporate monopolies as well as vocationally-driven farmers. It’s very difficult to untangle that level of complexity to achieve unity of action! I think hoping there will be a single, overriding lever in this (or any) complex situation is implausible. But trying to create hope is a good thing because without hope...
You're right that GLP-1s are going global—China's developing alternatives, Europe's scaling. Makes the export angle more complex—Big Food faces similar pressures across markets, just on different timelines.
Your NZ extraction example nails it. "Premium" doesn't mean "better"—the industry will likely engineer ultra-processed products for GLP-1 users at higher margins. Your mix of 1 and 3 feels most probable: bifurcated market that gets us nowhere systemically.
The growth paradigm tension you raised is the real limitation these scenarios can't escape. Finite planet problem persists in all of them.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.