I’d like to share four graphs with you, all of which give an uncomfortable signal. Even if these different “stories” relate to topics as diverse as climate change and health, combined, they give the impression that the future of food is increasingly shaped outside the food industry. Is the Food Industry Losing Control of Its Future?

1 – Climate pledges have become much less fashionable

We may have reached the first corporate climate plateau: we are getting used to the idea that sustainability has lost some of its shine since the change of administration in the US, notably through the numerous examples of companies moving away or reducing the scope of their climate pledges (we listed a good number of them in the agrifood industry here).

In this graph from the MSCI institute, we have an industry-agnostic view of how much climate targets by publicly listed companies have stalled, as well as net-zero targets:

• A pre-existing movement: as we can clearly see on the graph, the slowdown was already in motion before Trump’s election. Rather than a trigger, it was a catalyst for an existing movement of reduced public engagement. This is something we have observed in the pledges of many agrifood companies, which have increasingly struggled to meet pledges aligned with the Paris climate accord: as we get closer to 2030, rather than halving their emissions, they often register increases.
• A small but rising number of companies with scientifically backed pledges: the increase in SBTI-validated pledges, even if starting from a slow base, is a positive move. Hopefully, it will help with the credibility of corporate climate targets, which in many instances were not coming a plan nor the means to reach them.

As for the question of the usefulness of commitments, a study looked at the median evolution of the same set of listed companies, showing that over 5 years:

• 4.3% increase for those without a net-zero target
• 0.2% increase in those with a self-declared target
• 0.5% decrease for those with an SBTi net-zero target.

In a word, while not transformative, commitments have a relatively noticeable impact.

2 – The rise of Chinese peptides, and what it means for the future of food

I was quite surprised to see that search interest for “peptides” has now surpassed “GLP-1” globally, with the gap widening since late 2025.

What are peptides? Technically, peptides are “just” a type of protein, but here, we are talking about untested injectables, used for muscle mass gain, longevity, metabolic and cognitive enhancement or GLP-1 drug substitution.

Beyond the hype, two dynamics are happening simultaneously:

1. Chinese manufacturers are scaling peptide synthesis at industrial speed, targeting the rest of the world as their market.
2. Biohacking: western consumers, especially in the US, are buying and testing these untested, unapproved products on themselves.

Launched by GLP-1 drugs, it appears that we are entering a new phase where consumers are not afraid to experiment with drugs acting as enhanced supplements. Behind this grey market are at least two consequences for the agrifood industry:

• It is supporting the scale-up of an infrastructure that could be used for bioactive food ingredients. On one hand, this will drive costs down and be positive for the whole industry. However, it also provides an additional hedge for Chinese manufacturers.
• It shows consumers’ increasing appetite for experimenting with new compounds, as long as they have strong health and longevity claims.

As for the other topics, the centre of gravity of innovation, at least in the healthy ageing category, which is often recognised as a key driver of future growth for ingredient and food companies, may shift away from food companies to biotech manufacturers.

3 -More people than ever are able to afford a healthy diet… and choose not to

The FAO recently published its annual factsheet report, with a list of fascinating graphs on the state of agriculture globally. Beyond the evolution of different productions and environmental outputs, I was really surprised by the following two maps showing the absence of any correlation between obesity and the cost of a healthy diet:

• The share of consumers unable to afford a healthy diet has decreased significantly globally, from 38.4% in 217 to 31.9% in 2024 (a decrease of more than 500 million people). Even as food inflation made a healthy diet significantly more expensive, it was more than compensated for by global growth.
• The comparison between the cost of a healthy diet and the prevalence of obesity is striking ,with no visible correlation, in both developed and undeveloped countries. There are situations of countries with a high cost for a healthy diet and yet a population with low levels of obesity (Japan, Korea), and the reverse: countries with affordable healthy diets and yet extremely high rates of obesity (English-speaking countries, Gulf countries).

The map doesn’t support the simplistic narrative that obesity is mainly caused by the unaffordability of healthy food. Access can be part of the story, but cultural behaviour, education, social norms, food environment and regulation seem to matter far more.

4 – GLP-1 drug sales slowdown

GLP-1 sales hit $69B in 2025, but growth should slow, and sales will “only” reach $79B in 2026 if we follow the main players’ forecasts. Rather than being the start of the end, it signifies that we enter a new stage:

• Sales growth will decrease as competition intensifies (in the past weeks, many news have pointed towards declining prices)
• Volumes are still increasing fast, making the impact of GLP-1 ever more significant beyond the sales of the drugs.
• New products which will expand the market are appearing in 2026, notably pills (Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy pill, and Eli Lilly’s Orfoglipron).

What’s next for the food industry?

These four graphs all point towards radical changes for the future of food, with:

• Consumers taking charge of their health (even if it implies risks) instead of modifying their diets and overall behaviour;
• An industry struggling to combine growth while reducing its impact.

The question is no longer whether change will happen, but whether agriculture and food companies will shape it, seize the opportunity to reinvent themselves, or be shaped by it.