The Snacking Revolution: Food Industry’s Big Bet Amidst the Rise of Weight Loss Drugs

In a significant shift in strategy, Kellogg’s is set to spin off its iconic cereal business, which has been a cornerstone for over a century, in favor of its fast-growing snack unit. As part of this transformation, the company will rebrand itself as Kellanova. This move follows J.M. Smucker’s acquisition of Twinkie maker Hostess Brands for $5.6 billion, indicating a broader trend in the food industry toward banking on consumers’ penchant for snacking.

However, while food companies are increasingly placing their bets on the snacking trend, investors are wary of the looming competition from blockbuster obesity and diabetes drugs, such as Wegovy and Ozempic, developed by Big Pharma. Although these pharmaceuticals hold promise for investors, their success could pose a potential threat to the sales of snack giants like Oreos, Doritos, and Hershey’s Kisses.

The food industry’s pivot toward snacking began about a decade ago and has gained momentum as sales in other grocery categories stagnate, particularly with rising prices. According to HSBC, the U.S. savory snacks market is projected to grow by 6% annually from 2022 to 2027, while sweet snacks are expected to see a 4.6% annual sales increase during the same period. Accenture data reveals that around three-quarters of consumers plan to snack daily.

Millennials and Generation Z are the driving force behind this snacking trend, as they tend to eat smaller, more frequent meals, creating numerous snacking occasions throughout the day. Kelsey Olsen, a food and drink analyst at market research firm Mintel, highlights that younger generations snack more frequently compared to older consumers.

Simultaneously, Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic and Wegovy have gained significant traction, largely due to their prescription-based weight loss effects. These drugs, known as GLP-1 agonists, work by suppressing appetites, often leading patients to develop aversions to high-sugar and high-fat foods, including many popular snack brands.

A Trilliant Health report reveals that over 9 million prescriptions for GLP-1 drugs were written in the U.S. in the fourth quarter of 2022. Morgan Stanley estimates that by 2035, as many as 24 million individuals, nearly 7% of the U.S. population, could be taking these drugs.

This surge in the use of GLP-1 drugs could potentially lead to a 3% decline in the consumption of baked goods and salty snacks. This impact may be even more significant if the dietary changes brought about by these treatments extend to the broader households and friends of those taking the drugs, as suggested by Morgan Stanley’s research. Companies like Hershey, Mondelez, PepsiCo, General Mills, and Kellogg’s successor, Kellanova, could be at risk.

However, not everyone in the food industry shares these concerns. Mark Smucker, CEO of J.M. Smucker, remains optimistic about the future of sweet snacks, even in the face of GLP-1 drugs. He asserts that consumers will continue to seek various types of snacks, and projections for sweet snacks remain promising.

One factor working in favor of snack sales is the high cost of GLP-1 drugs, which are priced at approximately $1,000 per month. The expense has led some insurers to opt not to cover these treatments, leaving patients to bear the cost themselves. Additionally, GLP-1 drugs may not be accessible to the consumers who are most likely to indulge in junk food, as RBC analyst Nik Modi suggests that lower-income individuals, who typically consume indulgent snacks, are unlikely to be primary users of these drugs.

Moreover, the requirement for weekly self-injections and the transient nature of the drug’s effects could mitigate the impact on snack sales. Oliver Wright, Senior Managing Director of Accenture’s consumer goods and services unit, believes that until these drugs become more affordable, easily administered, and have a more enduring effect, their influence on snacking habits will be limited.

Even if GLP-1 drugs become more accessible, change in consumer behavior will be gradual, affording food companies time to adapt. They may opt for innovations and portfolio reshaping efforts to align with evolving consumer preferences.

PepsiCo, Mondelez, and other food giants have also ventured into healthier snack brands and invested in research and development to create healthier versions of their popular products. With these innovations and evolving consumer tastes, the food industry is well-prepared to navigate the evolving landscape.

The future may hold a time when consumers won’t discern the difference between a healthy Oreo and the traditional one. Accenture’s Wright predicts that before the decade’s end, such a scenario could become a reality—a testament to the food industry’s adaptability and commitment to meeting evolving consumer demands.

Ford CEO Accuses UAW of Stalling Negotiations Over EV Battery Plants

In an unexpected turn of events, Ford CEO Jim Farley has openly criticized the United Auto Workers (UAW) union for impeding negotiations related to future electric vehicle (EV) battery plants. Farley’s comments came during a press briefing on Friday, where he expressed his frustration over the prolonged discussions.

Farley revealed, “I believe we could have reached a compromise on pay and benefits, but so far the UAW is holding the deal hostage over battery plants.” This statement followed the UAW’s announcement that it would extend strikes to two additional assembly plants, one belonging to Ford and the other to General Motors.

The Ford CEO took issue with the union’s approach, characterizing it as premeditated and implying that the UAW was not genuinely interested in reaching an agreement before the September 14th deadline. He stated, “We have felt from the very beginning, between all the lines of our comments, that the original strike was premeditated and that everything is taking way too long. That actual events are predetermined before they happen. It’s been very frustrating.”

Ford’s public criticism of the UAW is a notable departure from the company’s reputation as the most union-friendly among Detroit automakers. While Farley emphasized that the company is not at an impasse with the union, he cautioned that such a scenario could arise if the situation persists.

GM CEO Mary Barra echoed many of Farley’s criticisms regarding UAW President Shawn Fain’s approach to the negotiations. Barra stated, “It’s clear that there is no real intent to get to an agreement. It is clear Shawn Fain wants to make history for himself, but it can’t be to the detriment of our represented team members and the industry.”

In response to Farley’s allegations, UAW President Shawn Fain refuted the CEO’s claims, stating that Farley has not been present at the bargaining table and accused him of misrepresenting the state of negotiations. Fain explained, “It could be because he failed to show up for bargaining this week, as he has for most of the past ten weeks. If he were there, he’d know we gave Ford a comprehensive proposal on Monday and still haven’t heard back.”

The negotiations concerning multibillion-dollar EV battery plants hold immense significance for the automotive industry’s future. They are also closely tied to President Joe Biden’s initiative to promote domestic manufacturing. Despite their importance, these battery plants are considered a “wild card” issue in the contract negotiations, as many of them are joint venture facilities and cannot be directly included in the current talks.

Ford has already announced plans for four future battery plants, including three joint ventures and a wholly owned subsidiary. The company recently paused construction on one of these plants in Michigan due to ongoing union negotiations.

Jim Farley emphasized that some of the battery production falls outside the timeline covered by the current negotiations. He defended Ford’s previous offers, which included over 20% hourly wage growth, the reinstatement of cost-of-living adjustments, job protections, and other benefits.

Farley concluded, “If the UAW’s goal is a record contract, they have already achieved this. It is grossly irresponsible to escalate these strikes and hurt thousands of families.”

The negotiations surrounding EV battery plants are pivotal not only for the automakers and the UAW but also for the future of the U.S. automotive industry and its workforce.

Federal Judge Upholds Medicare Drug Price Negotiations Amidst Legal Challenges

A federal judge has made a significant ruling in favor of the Biden administration’s efforts to lower drug prices within the Medicare program, preserving a controversial initiative that aims to provide affordable medications for elderly Americans.

In a decision that carries substantial implications for the pharmaceutical industry, Judge Michael Newman of the Southern District of Ohio rejected a preliminary injunction sought by the Chamber of Commerce, one of the nation’s largest lobbying groups. The Chamber of Commerce had sought to halt the implementation of Medicare drug price negotiations before the October 1st deadline, which marked the cutoff for manufacturers of the initial 10 selected drugs to participate in these negotiations.

The Chamber had filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration in June, contending that the drug negotiations violated both the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the principle of separation of powers. However, Judge Newman’s 28-page order stated, “As to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, they have demonstrated neither a strong likelihood of success nor irreparable harm. Consequently, their request for immediate preliminary injunctive relief… is denied.”

While Judge Newman denied the preliminary injunction, he also declined to dismiss the lawsuit entirely. Instead, he has given the Chamber until October 13th to amend its complaint, seeking clarification on specific aspects of the case. The Biden administration has been granted until October 27th to renew its motion to dismiss the case. The final decision on standing issues will be determined after a short 60-day discovery period and any renewed motions to dismiss.

This ruling represents a setback for the pharmaceutical industry, which has expressed concerns that the Medicare drug price negotiations could negatively impact revenue growth, profits, and drug innovation. President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, passed in a party-line vote last year, granted Medicare the authority to directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers, marking a historic shift in the federal program’s nearly six-decade history.

The Chamber of Commerce, along with pharmaceutical giants like Merck and Johnson & Johnson, initiated multiple lawsuits in recent months challenging the constitutionality of these negotiations. However, the Chamber’s lawsuit was the only one to seek a preliminary injunction.

The Chamber’s argument centers on the claim that the program infringes upon drugmakers’ due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, as it allows the government to essentially dictate drug prices without providing procedural safeguards to ensure fair pricing. The Chamber cites the precedent set in the 2001 case Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Engler.

During a hearing earlier this month, Jeffrey Bucholtz, an attorney for the Chamber, expressed concern about the potential for “unfair” pricing, asserting that drugmakers would have to accept the government’s set prices or face excise taxes of up to 1,900% of U.S. sales of the drug.

However, lawyers for the Department of Justice argued that participation in the program was not obligatory. Drug manufacturers have the option to withdraw their voluntary participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs if they disagree with the terms, according to attorney Brian Netter.

The legal battles over Medicare drug price negotiations are not limited to this case, as other lawsuits are currently scattered in federal courts across the United States. Legal experts suggest that the pharmaceutical industry hopes to obtain conflicting rulings from federal appellate courts, potentially fast-tracking the issue to the Supreme Court.

Medicare, which covers approximately 66 million Americans, is expected to save an estimated $98.5 billion over a decade through the drug price negotiations, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In August, the Biden administration unveiled the initial 10 drugs subject to negotiation, initiating a lengthy process set to conclude in August 2024. However, the reduced prices for these medications will not take effect until January 2026. Among the drugs selected for negotiation are blood thinners from Bristol-Myers Squibb and J&J, diabetes drugs from Merck and AstraZeneca, and a blood cancer drug from AbbVie, one of the companies represented by the Chamber of Commerce.