I write from my hotel room crouched over a dim table after attending Future Food-Tech in San Francisco. It confirmed something I’ve been thinking for a while: Big Food has lost the battle for consumer trust. I don’t think it’s because of the food itself, but because decades of shady business practices—think DuPont and PFAS, Nestlé and infant formula/water rights, Monsanto and glyphosate, have eroded public trust. The facts and morality of it doesn’t even matter. Consumers don’t trust corporations or federal institutions— They trust influencers.
The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement is capitalizing on this distrust, weaponizing food anxiety to advance political narratives. This is the wellness-to-conservatism pipeline in action.
Key Takeaways from Future Food-Tech:
- Food tech investment is struggling. Attendance this year was half of last year’s.
- Chasing functional benefits and alternative ingredients at the expense of taste/texture is a losing game. Consumers demand both.
- State-level food dye bans are gaining momentum. The Trump administration has signaled: Remove dyes, or else.
- “Big Food” will either settle or lose the class action lawsuit on ultra-processed foods.
- GLP-1 drugs (Ozempic) are not a fad—they’re here to stay.
My Prediction?
Big Food is too entrenched to pivot quickly to consumer and political pressures—or to the GLP-1 revolution. They will lose money and try to compensate through inflated prices and shrinkflation (at least in the short term). But this will only further alienate consumers, pushing them elsewhere. This opens the door for whole foods and small to mid-sized companies to thrive.
The rush to remove dyes will disrupt legacy brands (think Froot Loops) without meaningfully improving public health. But it won’t stop there—sweeteners, emulsifiers, preservatives, and texturizers will be next. Meanwhile, consumers will continue looking for functional bioactives rather than making fundamental lifestyle changes (eating more fruit/veg, exercising, etc.).
I believe MAHA will make surface-level policy changes that appear “good,” but consumers will continue to pay the price through rising grocery bills, lack of social supports, little time to cook, and sedentary lifestyles. Chronic disease will continue to rise.
How I Think the Food Industry Should Adapt
Big Food doesn’t need to “win the trust battle”—it just needs to remain indispensable. Consumers value convenience, taste, and affordability above all else. Smaller companies can likely win the trust battle, those who succeed will eventually be acquired/targeted by the larger players. That said, the industry should evolve through strategic marketing, reformulation, and partnerships.
Marketing: Reframing the Narrative
Unfortunately, influencers are today’s food authorities. The industry doesn’t need to fight misinformation from influencers—it needs to co-opt them.
- Micro-influencer partnerships(smaller, more trusted voices)
- Chefs, dietitians, and fitness personalitieswho integrate these products into a healthy lifestyle
- Education-driven content (not “we’re right, you’re wrong,” but “let’s explore food science together”)
Functional Messaging & Personalization
- Position processed foods as part of a balanced, functional lifestyle.
- Lean into bioactives, health claims, and performance nutrition rather than just avoiding “bad” ingredients.
Reformulation: Strategic, Gradual Shifts
- Stealth Health, Not Drastic Changes
- Consumers reject radical changes. Instead, phased reductions in sugar, sodium, and additives will be the norm.
- Hybrid approaches—blending traditional and alternative ingredients—will help maintain cost and sensory experience.
- Functional, Better-For-You Indulgence
- Consumers still want treats, but they’ll demand permissible indulgence (e.g., high-protein desserts, gut-friendly snacks).
- This will give rise to further “nostalgic wellness”—familiar flavors with upgraded nutrition. We’ve already seen this with Halo Top, low-calorie options, and non-alcoholic beers.
- Preempting Regulatory & Consumer Backlash
- Instead of waiting for ingredient bans or class-action lawsuits, manufacturers should proactively phase out controversial ingredients before mandates force their hand.
Partnerships: Strengthening Credibility & Innovation
This is tricky. The industry will need to increase investment in academic institutions to develop the science, but this will likely be privatized as federal funding declines and academics struggle to survive. Academia cannot be propped up by industry alone (never mind the perceptions of bias). We may see a rise in hybrid funding models and multi-party collaborations.
Biotech Partnerships
Big Food doesn’t innovate—they acquire. But as Big Food faces tighter margins, startups will struggle to find the investment and partnerships they desperately need. Further, we now know not to expect software-level growth out of most food tech startups—our expectations need to be realistic. Unless the U.S. steps up in a BIG way, we will be dwarfed by China’s investments in the same sector. Clearly, we are not moving in the right direction on this front. When I sat down to write this, I was going to say expect acquisitions and partnerships with alternative protein, fermentation, and AI-driven nutrition companies. However, I also heard a panelist say: “It’s a dark time for food tech.”
The GRAS Problem
The potential removal of self-affirmed GRAS presents a fascinating contradiction: How can the FDA take on more regulatory oversight while facing budget cuts and workforce reductions? If self-affirmed GRAS disappears, Big Food won’t suffer much—they already require ingredient suppliers to obtain a “No Questions” letter before using an ingredient. But for small and mid-sized companies, this could be devastating, especially given their lack of cash to pay for expensive regulatory support.
What Could Happen?
- Regulatory bottlenecks that stifle innovation
- A shift away from novel bioactives and biotechtoward “legacy” ingredients
- Maybe dietary fiber finally gets the respect it deserves?
- A possible forced shift toward whole foods
Final Thoughts
Some people see the attack on UPFs and the MAHA movement as an alignment of righteous vengeance against an industry that has “poisoned” America. I don’t believe our chronic disease issues are about getting rid of some additive boogeyman. I don’t see how the same administration that is dismantling national parks, USAID, and defunding the CDC/FDA/NIH can possibly “have the consumer’s back.” Most proposed changes are surface level. Public health will continue to decline.
And no matter what, I will bet money that the consumer is screwed no matter what happens.
“Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.” – The Big Lebowski