The food industry runs the same play every time.
A dietary trend emerges and within months the machinery spins up. Reformulate to a threshold. Engineer around a restriction. Slap a claim on the front of pack. Race to shelf before the window closes.
We did it with low-fat.
We did it with Keto.
We’re doing it again with GLP-1.
And we’re about to repeat the same disaster with a consumer who deserves better.
Scroll LinkedIn right now and you’ll find no shortage of brands announcing their products are “GLP-1 friendly.” Conagra has already stamped it on Healthy Choice packaging. Others are racing to follow.
The gold rush is on.
But here’s what nobody’s saying: “GLP-1 friendly” means nothing.
It’s not a regulated term. There’s no FDA definition. No established criteria. No threshold to meet. It’s marketing language dressed up as nutritional guidance and every brand using it is building on sand.
We’ve seen this movie before.
It ended badly.
And apparently we’re watching it again.
Today’s Topic
The Keto Disaster We Refused to Learn From
The Keto era gave us a masterclass in what happens when formulation chases claims instead of experience.
Brands engineered furiously toward “net carb” thresholds, loading products with maltitol, erythritol, and sugar alcohol stacks that technically reduced countable carbohydrates while delivering GI distress, blood sugar spikes the label said wouldn’t happen, and a metallic aftertaste that lingered like regret.
Consumers bought in for a while.
Then they learned what the asterisk meant.
They learned that “net carbs” was an invented metric with no regulatory standing. They learned that the products making the loudest claims often delivered the worst experiences.
The rest are landfill.
Now watch what’s happening with GLP-1.
Brands are reaching for the identical toolkit. Protein fortification that turns texture to chalk. Fiber additions that create off-notes and gut discomfort. Alternative sweetener stacks that solve one problem while creating three others.
Same formula.
Different label claim.
Same inevitable outcome.
The industry’s reflex response to every dietary trend is restriction repackaged as innovation.
Here’s what the standard approach misses entirely.
What the Playbook Gets Wrong About This Consumer
The GLP-1 consumer isn’t looking for another set of numbers to optimize. They’re not chasing macros or hunting for the lowest calorie option on the shelf.
The medication has already changed the math.
Appetite suppression means fewer eating occasions. Smaller portions mean fewer bites. The sheer volume of food moving through their life has contracted.
They’re not on a diet in the way we’ve traditionally understood diets. Reduced appetite isn’t a temporary state they’re enduring.
It’s their new normal.
Which means the old value proposition is dead.
“Low calorie” isn’t a selling point when you’re already eating less.
“Guilt-free” is irrelevant when the guilt architecture has been chemically dismantled.
What remains is something the food industry has spent decades engineering around rather than engineering toward:
Does this taste good?
Does it satisfy?
When every bite carries more weight than it used to, does this food deliver an experience worth having?
That’s the question we should be asking.
Instead we’re asking the same one we always ask.
What claim can we put on the label?
The Formulation Philosophy Nobody Wants to Hear
There’s a different path.
It requires abandoning the restriction mindset and embracing something that sounds almost too simple. Make food that tastes extraordinary and delivers genuine nutrition in moderate, achievable amounts.
Not heroic fortification.
Not engineering gymnastics.
Not flavor sacrifice.
Three grams of fiber per serving.
Ten grams of protein per serving.
Numbers that let food be food.
Why fiber matters
GLP-1 consumers often experience constipation as a side effect. Fiber is genuinely functional for them. Not as a marketing flourish but as a real solution to a real problem.
But how that fiber shows up matters more than whether the number clears a claim threshold.
There’s a meaningful difference between fiber that behaves like food and fiber that behaves like an additive.
Natural, intrinsic fibers from intact grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables integrate cleanly into products. They carry water naturally. They contribute body and structure. They stay quiet in the gut and on the palate.
By contrast, many formulations reach first for resistant starches or synthesized inulins because they’re cheap to dose and defensible on a label. They also bring chalky textures, muted flavors, bloating, gas, and the quiet realization that you solved constipation by creating discomfort instead.
Used judiciously, fructooligosaccharides are a legitimate tool. The mistake is assuming all fiber sources are interchangeable.
GLP-1 consumers notice everything. With fewer bites, tolerance for grit, heaviness, or digestive side effects drops fast.
If the fiber becomes the experience, you missed the point.
The best fiber does its job quietly and lets the food shine.
Why moderate protein matters
Not all protein is created equal and the industry knows it.
A front-of-pack “10g protein” claim tells the consumer nothing about whether that protein will actually do what protein should do.
There’s a meaningful difference between protein that builds and protein that just counts.
Complete proteins with high digestibility and full essential amino acid profiles support satiety, preserve muscle during weight loss, and deliver real function.
By contrast, many formulations reach first for collagen, incomplete plant blends, or commodity concentrates because they’re cheap to dose and defensible on a label.
Collagen isn’t a complete protein.
A rice-pea blend that misses limiting amino acids isn’t delivering what the consumer thinks it is.
You’ve got a number on the front and a gap in the function.
GLP-1 consumers are trying to preserve lean mass while eating less. They need protein that works, not protein that counts.
And when your front-of-pack claim doesn’t match your percent daily value, you’ve created a gap between marketing and nutrition.
That gap is where plaintiffs’ attorneys are already looking.
The Want
What the GLP-1 Consumer Actually Wants
YThe GLP-1 consumer wants something this industry still struggles to deliver.
Flavor that rewards the attention they’re now paying to every bite.
Protein that builds and sustains.
Fiber that works with their body instead of against it.
Moderate nutrition that doesn’t require a calculator or a compromise.
They want food that shines.
Not food that shouts.
I’ve spent 35 years formulating in this industry and developed over 500 brands. I’ve watched every dietary trend arrive with breathless enthusiasm, spawn a thousand me-too products chasing claims, and eventually collapse into whatever actually worked.
The pattern never changes.
We have a choice right now.
We can repeat the cycle with “GLP-1 friendly” labels slapped on unchanged products and claim-chasing dressed up as innovation.
Or we can do something the industry almost never does. Start with what the consumer actually desires and formulate backward from there.
The easy path is familiar.
The opportunity is harder.
Here’s the question I’ll leave you with:
When your consumer tells you they’re eating less but enjoying food more, will your product be the reason why or the thing they stopped buying?
About the Author
Mark Haas is the founder and CEO of RegulateCPG, an AI-powered compliance infrastructure platform designed to democratize regulatory expertise for food and beverage companies. With 35 years of experience navigating food safety regulation, manufacturing operations and multi-jurisdiction compliance, Mark has formulated over 200 brands representing more than $2 billion in market value. His work spans conventional, plant-based and emerging protein technologies across FDA, USDA, CFIA and EU regulatory frameworks, with deep expertise in using sophisticated amino acid analysis and PDCAAS methodology to create litigation-proof label claims for alternative protein companies.
For more insights on using regulatory compliance as competitive advantage, visit regulatecpg.com or connect with Mark on LinkedIn.
Legal Disclaimer:
This article discusses regulatory strategy and compliance approaches but does not constitute legal advice. Companies should consult qualified food law attorneys and regulatory counsel for guidance on specific labeling decisions and regulatory interpretations applicable to their products.