January 2026
Food and nutrition systems are being reshaped by structural, not cyclical, forces. Affordability pressures, GLP-1–driven appetite changes, shifts in consumer trust, and growing policy attention to diet-driven disease are converging in ways that make whole foods strategically central again.[7][8][9][4]
At the same time, the public debate about “ultra-processed” foods is widening, even as responsible processing remains essential for food safety, shelf stability, fortification, and access.[20][21][19]
After more than two decades advising the global food industry, one conclusion is increasingly complex to ignore: the future of nutrition is simpler than the debate suggests. Whole foods should anchor modern diets—supported, not undermined, by appropriate processing.
1. Whole foods are re-emerging as a platform of trust
Consumers are gravitating toward foods that feel understandable and transparent. “Natural” and “organic” cues are being used as shorthand for trust, not as niche lifestyle signals. In a 2025 Acosta Group study, 59 percent of shoppers said it is important that groceries or household products are natural or organic, and 75 percent said they purchased at least one natural or organic product in the prior six months.[1]
This is not a marginal dynamic. Organic has continued to grow even through cost-of-living stress. In the United States, certified organic sales reached $71.6 billion in 2024, up 5.2 percent year-on-year, according to the Organic Trade Association.[2] In global terms, FiBL and IFOAM reported organic retail sales exceeding €136 billion in 2023.[3]
What this means for leaders
Whole-food-forward portfolios lower reputational risk. In a high-skepticism environment, simpler, more legible ingredient stories tend to travel farther with less friction.
2. GLP-1s are reshaping eating patterns and nutrition priorities
GLP-1 medications are changing how people eat at scale. With smaller appetites, “value per bite” shifts toward nutrient density and tolerance.
A peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Marketing Research using a large U.S. household panel found meaningful reductions in grocery spending after GLP-1 adoption, with the most significant declines concentrated in discretionary categories such as savory and sweet snacks.[4]
What this means for leaders
Products built for volume lose ground; products built for nutrient density gain. This makes whole foods (and minimally processed whole-food formats) strategically more important, not less.
3. Cooking has reset as household infrastructure
Home cooking is not simply a pandemic artifact. Economic pressure and habit formation appear to have kept at-home meals elevated.
Campbell’s has publicly stated that consumers are preparing meals at home at the highest level since early 2020, with an emphasis on stretching budgets.[5]
What this means for leaders
The opportunity is not “back to basics” messaging. It is reducing friction: frozen, pre-prepped, and ready-to-cook formats that support whole-food meals while keeping ingredients recognizable.
4. Affordability and food security are now primary filters
In 2026, the question “what should we eat?” is increasingly constrained by “what can we afford and reliably access?”
U.S. consumers are still living with a materially higher food price baseline than in early 2022. One widely cited price tracker using inflation data shows overall food costs about 18.6 percent higher in December 2025 than in January 2022.[7]
At the same time, food insecurity in the United States has been rising. USDA’s national food security estimates indicate that 13.7 percent of households experienced food insecurity in 2024.[8]
Globally, the affordability challenge is even starker: SOFI reporting indicates more than 3.1 billion people were unable to afford a healthy diet in 2021.[9]
What this means for leaders
Whole-food strategies must align with household and national resilience agendas: nutritious, culturally relevant foods at achievable price points.
5. Processing is part of progress, not the enemy
The whole-food narrative collapses if it implies “unprocessed is good; processed is bad.” That framing is not just simplistic; it is operationally dangerous in food safety.
A peer-reviewed analysis of foodborne outbreaks underscores the elevated risk of unpasteurised milk compared with pasteurised alternatives.[10]
Processing also supports nutrition adequacy in ways that are easy to forget in headline debates. Iodine fortification is a clear example: adding iodine through widely consumed food vehicles has been a core public health strategy to prevent iodine deficiency disorders.[11] And infant formula remains essential for infants who are not breastfed, with clear safety and nutritional standards guiding its use.[12]
What this means for leaders
The proper stance is balanced: whole foods should form the foundation of diets, and responsible processing should improve safety, stability, and nutritional adequacy.
6. Protein strategy must shift from “more” to “better” market by market
Protein matters—for satiety, ageing, and metabolic health. But the strategic context differs sharply by market.
In many high-income markets, the issue is not protein scarcity; it is protein choice, overall diet quality, and displacement (protein products crowding out fiber-rich plants and minimally processed meals). The World Resources Institute has highlighted that a substantial share of the world consumes more protein than needed and that the growth opportunity lies in shifting to more sustainable protein sources.[13][14]
That has practical implications: in high-income settings, “better protein” often means more fish, legumes, dairy, eggs, and appropriately portioned meat—rather than defaulting to heavily fortified protein drinks as a daily habit.
At the same time, it is critical not to universalize a high-income lens. In lower-income settings and among lower socioeconomic groups, the challenge is often access to affordable, high-quality protein alongside adequate micronutrient intake. The global affordability gap for healthy diets makes this a structural constraint, not a personal choice.[9]
What this means for leaders
Build protein strategies that reflect reality: quality and balance in high-income markets, and affordability plus nutrient density in lower-income contexts.
