The development of GLP-1 agonists is one of the wonders of the modern age. But I had not considered what it could mean for the fight against climate change.
The development of GLP-1 agonists, (“fatbusters” and much more) such as Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro is one of the wonders of the modern age. I discussed some of the possible implications in a Capital Letter here. I must, however, confess that I had not considered what it could mean for the fight against climate change. Amazing, but true!
Sonalie Figueiras and Nicola Spalding of Green Queen Future Food Weekly are, however, on the case. They points out that the patent for some of these medications expires in China and India in early 2026 and this will unlock a flood of biosimilar and generic versions of these drugs. This, they predict, may have significant implications for food consumption patterns:
Data from the US and Europe, where GLP-1s are already entrenched, point to fairly significant changes: grocery spending in households with a GLP-1 user plummets by 5–6% within six months, with caloric intake dropping by 15–40%. The deepest cuts hit ultra-processed foods (though some recent reports suggest folks on these drugs love processed meats), fast food, and high-calorie snacks, with these categories seeing double-digit declines.
Conversely, spending on nutrient-dense foods, i.e. fruits, vegetables, and high-quality proteins, either holds steady or ticks upward as patients seek smaller, more satiating meals. In fact, GLP-1 users in several studies consume up to 55% more fresh produce and dramatically reduce their intake of sugary drinks and alcohol.
All good, healthy stuff, one would think.
But what if these drugs take off in China and India?
Figueiras:
[T]he coming wave of GLP-1 adoption in Asia will no doubt cause a surge in protein demand, as both doctors and patients prioritize higher protein intake to offset muscle loss — a known side effect of these drugs. There are now medical guidelines for GLP-1 users to aim for 1.2–1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, driving a behavioral shift toward eggs, fish, pulses, dairy, and meat.
This has consequences for the climate crisis. High-protein foods, particularly conventional animal products, are the most resource-intensive and emissions-heavy foods we consume, requiring disproportionate land, water, and energy inputs. If demand for animal-derived proteins spikes sharply in Asia’s mega-economies, this means an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss across the region, unless a deliberate effort is made to shift demand towards plant proteins, pulses, and other alternative proteins. For progressive policymakers and foodtech leaders, it’s a clarion call: scaling sustainable, low-emission protein will be as urgent as the drugs themselves in shaping the food system’s climate future.
Some clarion calls are best ignored, but Figueiras and Spalding’s article is yet another reminder that diet is an important part of the climatists’ crusade.
I wrote at some length about this in another Capital Letter.
Here’s an extract:
Professor Gordon wants to help “consumers make better everyday choices.” Naturally, “better” will be defined on her terms — planet (supposedly) before pleasure and so on — and “help,” however much it may be camouflaged, will eventually mean coercion. When she argues for “shifting” taxes to make healthy foods cheaper, that means by increasing the taxes on “unhealthy” foods. And so, as Christopher Snowdon, a redoubtable foe of Britain’s nanny state, recounts, the report’s authors call for “health-directed taxation of meat products,” a perennial demand in climateworld and its neighbors. The higher taxes would also apply to “foods and beverages with high amounts of added sugar, salt, or saturated fats (or a combination thereof).”
Pointless asceticism is a feature of many religious or quasi-religious cults.