Business professor suggests GLP-1 drugs are reshaping the food economy

Weight loss medications have rapidly moved from the margins of diabetes care into the center of conversations about wellness and the future of food. As their use expands, researchers are beginning to see that these drugs do more than suppress appetite; they are reshaping how people think about what they eat, how much they eat and what they are willing to pay for it.

One of the most striking shifts is a move away from sheer quantity toward perceived quality. Early evidence suggests that people taking GLP-1 drugs often consume less food overall, including less meat. Yet at the same time, they appear to value certain foods more highly, particularly those associated with nutrition and satiety. This apparent contradiction has caught the attention of economists and food industry analysts alike.

Protein has emerged as a focal point of this change. Despite mixed messages about different protein sources, many GLP-1 users are prioritizing protein-rich foods as part of their weight loss and health maintenance efforts. That emphasis is translating into a higher willingness to pay for protein products, even as total volumes purchased decline. It’s a dynamic with significant implications for grocery stores, restaurants and manufacturers.

Food companies are already taking notice. From “GLP-1-friendly” labels to smaller portion sizes and reformulated products, early industry responses hint at how mainstream adoption could accelerate innovation, premiumization and strategic repositioning. The adjustments don’t stop at the retail shelf; they may also influence agriculture, sustainability and equity throughout the supply chain.

In the following Q&A with ASU News, Justin Bina, an assistant professor with the Morrison School of Agribusiness at Arizona State University’s W. P. Carey School of Business, breaks down what the latest research reveals about GLP-1 medications and consumer behavior. He explains why protein sits at the center of these shifts, how willingness to pay is changing, and what it all might mean for the future of food, health and the U.S. food economy.

Question: GLP-1 drugs are often discussed in terms of their effects on weight loss and diabetes. What surprised you most about how these medications are influencing people’s food preferences and shopping behavior?

Answer: What surprised me most was the somewhat counterintuitive demand increases. Based on external industry reporting and empirical research, we’re fairly confident in stating that GLP-1 users consume lower quantities of meat after adopting the treatment. Holding prices constant, this would imply a reduction in their demand for those products. However, we’re seeing the opposite, as evidenced by users’ increased valuations, or willingness to pay, for meat proteins.

The question then becomes, “How can the seemingly contradictory patterns of lower consumption and higher valuations for meat proteins be explained?” We think this reflects a form of “premiumization,” or a shift from quantity to quality. That is, upon adoption, GLP-1 users desire lower volumes of protein but place greater value on nutrient density or other characteristics typically found in higher-margin food products.

Q: Your research shows that people taking GLP-1 medications place a higher value on protein-rich foods. Why protein, and how is that priority showing up in real-world purchasing decisions?

A: Protein is an interesting space here, as it is somewhat ambiguous in terms of dietary recommendations and health impacts. Certain protein sources, such as chicken breast and fish, are generally recommended as part of a healthy diet, particularly during GLP-1 treatment. Consumption of other protein sources, such as red and processed meats, is typically discouraged due to concerns over cardiovascular health and other potential adverse outcomes.

That said, regardless of the source, there are documented benefits to high-protein diets during periods of weight loss. These include the retention of muscle mass, increased fat loss and overall improvements in body composition compared to other diets. In general, these benefits, along with dietary advice to prioritize protein during treatment, make high-protein diets attractive to GLP-1 adopters, driving the increases in willingness to pay for protein that we estimate. This effect may be further amplified by the broader societal “protein craze.”

Early research suggests that retail protein expenditures, particularly for meat protein, decrease following the adoption of GLP-1 medications, even though users’ desire and valuation of protein remain the same or increase. This creates a gap in which higher valuations are not yet offsetting volume reductions. I think the story of 2026 will involve food manufacturers attempting to fill that gap by capturing a “GLP-1 premium” through higher-margin product offerings.

Q: How are these changing preferences affecting what consumers are willing to pay at the grocery store, and what does that mean for food pricing more broadly?

A: We find that GLP-1 adoption directly increases what users are willing to pay for protein products, independent of income and other factors. What this implies for nationwide protein prices remains uncertain, but price impact assessments should become feasible as data continue to be collected and made available to researchers. Our study suggests that nationwide price sensitivity may decrease as adoption rises, indicating that protein sellers could have a greater ability to raise prices to offset reduced quantities purchased.

More broadly, GLP-1 medications are likely to have differing price effects across food sectors. Some categories, such as protein, may experience upward price pressure, while others, such as ultra-processed foods, may see reduced demand and downward pressure on prices. These dynamics are top of mind and will be closely studied as better data become available.

Q: Do you see food companies already responding to this shift? How might packaging, marketing or product development change as GLP-1 use becomes more mainstream?

A: Yes, we’ve seen a relatively rapid response from food manufacturers and restaurant chains. Some have implemented new packaging and labeling strategies to indicate that products are “GLP-1-friendly,” while others have launched entirely new product lines or menu items. These efforts have typically focused on marketing products as nutrient- and protein-dense.

Looking ahead, I expect continued development of products and menu items that are smaller in portion size, aligning with reduced appetites, and fortified with protein and other nutrients that must be maintained as overall consumption declines. Reformulation of existing products may also be an important strategy for retaining consumers as appetite signals change following adoption. My colleagues, Tim Richards and Glynn Tonsor, and I will further explore these questions in future work.

Q: Beyond individual diets, what ripple effects could this trend have on the broader food economy, from retailers to manufacturers to restaurants?

A: Intuition suggests shifts toward premium products, relabeling and reformulation as the food industry attempts to capture higher per-unit valuations for products like protein. For sectors more adversely affected by GLP-1 adoption, we may see diversification into new product lines or consolidation through acquisitions of firms producing products better aligned with GLP-1 therapies.

More broadly, changes in willingness to pay among GLP-1 users are likely to influence nationwide prices as markets adjust to the rising adoption of this treatment. Competitive incentives among firms may shift, altering pricing and product design strategies. These changes may also create distributional effects, as some consumers face higher prices than under the status quo, raising equity concerns if lower-income consumers’ access to affordable protein is strained.

Further upstream, lower total food volumes imply, all else equal, reduced agricultural production. In the protein sector, U.S. cattle production has a relatively high environmental footprint. In my opinion, then, GLP-1 adoption could serve as a demand-side sustainability tool that reduces total beef production while addressing obesity. However, this depends on whether the industry can successfully capture GLP-1-related premiums to maintain economic viability.

Q: Looking ahead, if GLP-1 medications continue to grow in popularity, how might they reshape Americans’ long-term relationship with food and health?

A: These medications necessarily alter relationships with food via the hormonal mechanisms that reduce appetite. Beyond this, I think we’ll see a shift from quantity to nutrient density and per-unit satisfaction. That is, there will be a dietary reprioritization, and food quality will become increasingly important to Americans as adoption rates rise.

We may also see a divided market where GLP-1 users desire premium products and are less price sensitive (driving product innovations and higher prices), while more price-sensitive consumers either switch to cheaper foods or reduce purchases. This would have important implications for dietary quality across consumer groups.

Many questions remain regarding long-term effects on food preferences and health. Our results show higher demand for several protein products, including red meat. Could this increase the risk of chronic disease despite lower body weights? How might parental GLP-1 use shape children’s food preferences? Are complementary lifestyle changes, such as increased physical activity, occurring alongside adoption? These are all interesting uncertainties and will keep me busy in the years to come.