Food & Beverage Archives

In cafés from Stockholm to Singapore, something curious is happening to the humble latte. The milk has changed – but the meaning of what’s being poured has changed even more. Oat milk, once a fringe choice in vegan corners of Brooklyn and East London, now commands entire refrigerator shelves in mainstream supermarkets. In London alone, sales of oat milk have more than doubled in recent years, outpacing almond and soy. But its rise has sparked a question with global implications: is this just a Western infatuation – or the beginning of a broader, localised reinvention?

As plant-based milks grow in popularity, they are revealing more than just a shift in taste. They have become markers of identity, class, health politics, and cultural resistance. For younger generations in Western cities, oat milk is as much a badge of sustainability as it is a coffee additive. But in Asia, where soy and coconut milk have been kitchen staples for generations, Western brands often appear as tone-deaf outsiders. In India, almond milk is aspirational, signifying affluence and global awareness. In Japan, flavoured soy milk is sold in vending machines next to corn soup and iced matcha. Each tells a story – not just of diet, but of what progress tastes like in different corners of the world.

The Western Story: When Climate Guilt Meets Café Culture

In the West, plant-based milk has surged from niche to mainstream at breakneck speed. In the UK, oat milk has overtaken almond as the best-selling non-dairy option, with the market valued at over £146 million in 2023 and projected to reach more than £430 million by 2030—a growth trajectory that reflects not just a change in taste, but in values. In the United States, the plant-based milk market has experienced significant growth, with revenue increasing from $2.71 billion in 2024, more than doubling since 2019. This surge reflects a broader trend, as supermarkets now allocate entire aisles to milk alternatives, accommodating the rising consumer demand.

For Gen Z and Millennials, this shift is as much about values as it is about flavour. The rise of “climatarian” diets—eating based on environmental footprint—has positioned oat milk as the virtuous option. It requires far less water than almond milk (48 litres per litre vs. 1,600) and carries a lower carbon footprint than cow’s milk. Among baristas, oat milk’s texture and foam-ability have cemented its status as the café go-to.

But these motivations are not universal. Among Gen X and Boomers, plant-based milk adoption often stems from health concerns—lactose intolerance, cholesterol, weight management—rather than climate ethics. Many still view oat and almond milk as a wellness product, not a moral choice. And the taste? It’s tolerated more than it is loved.

Despite its early momentum, the plant-based milk category in the U.S. is starting to show signs of fatigue. In 2024, sales declined by 5.2%, driven more by inflation-driven price sensitivity than by waning interest. What we’re seeing at Kadence International is that consumers are making sharper trade-offs at the shelf. While oat milk is still seen as on-trend, its pricing—often double that of dairy—has started to generate real resistance.

Image credit: Minor Figures

Minor Figures, a UK-based oat milk brand, has carved out a niche among creative professionals. Its hand-drawn packaging, minimalist design, and carbon-neutral commitment resonate with urban Gen Z. The brand installed oat milk refill stations in eco-minded cafés in East London, turning sustainability into something tangible. Co-founder Stuart Forsyth emphasises their approach: “We want to grow sustainably, we want to grow ethically and just see where this sort of journey takes us.”

Still, even Minor Figures must contend with growing scepticism about “performative sustainability.” A growing share of younger consumers now want traceability—where was it grown? What happens to the packaging? As oat milk begins to look like the new default, the question becomes: what comes after default?

Southeast Asia: Taste First, Sustainability Later

If oat milk is the sustainability symbol of the West, in much of Southeast Asia, it’s still a curiosity—often priced high, unfamiliar in flavor, and positioned more as a lifestyle accessory than a kitchen staple. Here, taste and tradition are still the gatekeepers, and consumer priorities follow a different rhythm.

Soy and coconut milks remain the dominant non-dairy choices across the region. Long before Western plant-based trends took hold, these ingredients were already foundational in Southeast Asian cuisine. From Indonesia’s tempeh to Thailand’s tom kha, from soy puddings in Vietnam to rich coconut-based curries in Malaysia, non-dairy milk isn’t an “alternative”—it’s the original.

Yet, the surge of interest in plant-based eating is not being ignored. The market for dairy alternatives in Southeast Asia hit USD 3 billion in 2024 and is forecast to reach USD 4.1 billion by 2030. But the motivations driving that growth are not always what Western marketers expect.

For urban Gen Z consumers, the shift is being fueled by café culture and aesthetic appeal. In Singapore, Bangkok, and Ho Chi Minh City, oat milk is showing up in third-wave coffee shops, where latte art meets lifestyle branding. The creamy mouthfeel and mild taste of oat milk plays well with espresso, and baristas often frame it as the more “sophisticated” or “global” option. But the price—often two or three times higher than soy or coconut milk—makes it more of a treat than a household switch.

Health and digestion are also central to plant-based appeal. For Millennials balancing fast-paced urban lives with rising wellness awareness, soy milk retains a stronghold due to its protein content and familiarity. It’s not uncommon to see fortified soy drinks marketed for beauty benefits, gut health, or as part of fitness routines.

Among Gen X and Boomers, however, there’s little appetite for novelty. Traditional dairy is still prized, especially in countries like Vietnam, where sweetened condensed milk remains the heart of the national coffee. Coconut milk is not just nostalgic—it’s seen as natural, trusted, and tied to home cooking.

For Western brands attempting to gain traction here, the learning curve is steep. Oatly’s entrance into the region began with Malaysia and Singapore, distributed via speciality grocers and upscale cafés. The company announced in 2022 that Southeast Asia would form a “growth corridor” as part of its Asia expansion. But by 2024, it had shuttered its Singapore production facility to consolidate manufacturing back to Europe—a sign that demand in the region had not yet scaled fast enough to justify local production.

Oatly continues to maintain shelf presence in Singapore, but its growth in the region faces challenges. In December 2024, the company announced the closure of its production facility in Singapore as part of an asset-light supply chain strategy aimed at improving cost structures and reducing capital expenditures. This move reflects broader operational adjustments in response to evolving market dynamics in Asia.

The plant-based milk market in Singapore is becoming increasingly competitive, with local brands like Oatside gaining traction. In June 2023, Flash Coffee announced it would serve Oatside as the default in all milk-based beverages across its 24 outlets in Singapore. This highlights the growing consumer interest in plant-based options and the competitive landscape Oatly faces.

It’s evident that for plant-based products to succeed in Singapore, they must appeal to consumers in both taste and affordability. The sustainability pitch alone often isn’t sufficient; products need to meet consumer expectations in flavour and be competitively priced to gain widespread acceptance.

Local innovation may hold the key. In Thailand, companies are experimenting with rice milk made from surplus grains. In Indonesia, startups are blending coconut and cashew milk to cater to local palates while improving texture. Unlike oat, which has to be imported and processed, these ingredients are homegrown—offering not just flavor familiarity but economic resonance.

The tension in Southeast Asia isn’t whether consumers will adopt plant-based milk—it’s which ones, and why. Taste leads. Price follows. Sustainability, for now, lags behind. But for a younger class raised on Instagram, global branding, and iced matcha oat lattes, the next shift may arrive faster than expected.

Japan: Tradition Meets Innovation

In Japan, plant-based milk isn’t a trend—it’s tradition. Long before Western oat and almond milks arrived on convenience store shelves, soy was already woven into daily life. From tofu to miso to soy-based desserts, the legume’s liquid form has been consumed for centuries—not as a replacement, but as a cultural staple.

This historical baseline gives Japan a unique position in the global plant-based milk story. While much of the West is shifting away from cow’s milk, in Japan, dairy was never dominant to begin with. Lactose intolerance affects approximately 45% of the population to some degree, and the country’s culinary heritage has long favoured plant-based ingredients.

Yet even here, the landscape is shifting—quietly, and with the precision Japan is known for. In 2024, the soy milk segment still made up the overwhelming majority of plant-based milk sales, but oat and almond are inching upward. Projections estimate Japan’s oat milk market will expand from approximately $51.7 million in 2024 to over $163 million by 2033, reflecting a compound annual growth rate of 12.6%.

But growth in Japan doesn’t mirror that of its Western counterparts. Oat milk here is not a lifestyle statement. It’s more likely to be encountered in a café serving Nordic-style pastries than in a supermarket fridge. In Tokyo’s upscale coffee districts—Daikanyama, Aoyama, and parts of Shibuya—young professionals are experimenting with oat lattes, but the movement is still niche.

Soy milk is still the default. People are curious about oat milk, but it’s expensive and unfamiliar. Soy is part of the Japanese identity.

Image credit: Marusan

The soy milk aisle in Japan looks nothing like its Western equivalents. There are over 30 flavours of soy milk in most convenience stores—banana, sweet potato, black sesame, and even matcha. Sold in small, colourful cartons, these drinks are as much a snack as a supplement. They appeal across generations and demographics, from school children to business executives.

Almond milk, introduced in earnest in the early 2010s, is viewed as a beauty product as much as a drink—touted for its vitamin E content and its role in “clean eating” routines. It’s marketed in lifestyle magazines and television ads featuring pop stars and Olympic athletes.

So where does that leave oat? Still finding its place. Japanese consumers value texture and subtlety in flavor—qualities that oat milk sometimes struggles to deliver in traditional dishes or teas. But its creamy body is finding fans in the coffee world, and as more cafés experiment with it, familiarity may breed demand.

What’s clear is that plant-based milk in Japan isn’t driven by environmental activism or dietary rebellion. It’s driven by harmony—with the body, with the palate, with the past. While the West frames oat milk as progress, in Japan, progress tastes familiar—it just might be flavoured with yuzu or kinako.

India: Plant-Based Milk as Urban Status and Spiritual Alignment

In India, dairy isn’t just nutrition—it’s ritual. From temple offerings of milk to the everyday comfort of chai with malai, dairy products are woven into the country’s emotional and religious fabric. The white splash in a steel tumbler holds centuries of symbolic weight. So any conversation about plant-based milk here starts not with a health trend, but with the question: what could possibly replace something sacred?

The answer, for now, is: not much—but something is beginning to stir.

India’s plant-based milk market is still young, valued at around USD 50 million in 2024, but it is projected to grow at nearly 15% CAGR over the next six years. That growth, however, is uneven and tells a story less about dietary shifts and more about social signalling.

For Gen Z in India’s metros, plant-based milk is about cruelty-free living, fitness influencers, and Instagrammed morning routines. It’s not uncommon to see “dairy-free” smoothies and almond milk lattes showcased in the digital lives of young professionals in Bengaluru, Delhi, or Mumbai. These consumers often cite animal welfare, clean eating, and compatibility with lactose intolerance—affecting an estimated 60% of the population—as reasons for switching. But the shift is as much aesthetic as it is ethical. Almond milk isn’t just good for you; it looks good in a glass.

Millennials, especially those navigating careers abroad or within cosmopolitan India, are caught between reverence for traditional staples like paneer and ghee, and a rising curiosity about global wellness norms. Many are not rejecting dairy outright, but are experimenting with substitutes during certain meals, fasts, or fitness cycles. The language of Ayurveda also looms large—“easy on digestion,” “balance for pitta”—guiding product marketing and consumer trust.

For Gen X and Boomers, though, the idea of dairy-free milk is still foreign. Cow’s milk is considered pure in Hindu tradition. To deviate from it can feel like cultural heresy, particularly in religious households. Even within vegan circles, spiritual negotiations are common—almond milk in the smoothie, but cow’s milk in the temple.

And yet, there is movement at the margins.

Image credit: Good Mylk Co.

One company pioneering this shift is Goodmylk, a Bengaluru-based startup founded by Abhay Rangan in his teens. The company produces cashew and oat-based milk, peanut curd, and vegan butter. What sets it apart is its insistence on affordability and accessibility. “If we make it premium, we limit who gets to choose it,” Rangan said in an interview. Goodmylk raised $400,000 in seed funding and has focused on scaling without pricing itself out of the Indian middle class.

The brand also localises its innovation. Mung bean and millet-based milks are in development—grains familiar to Indian households, now reimagined for lattes and cereal bowls. This strategy isn’t just functional—it’s cultural. “People trust what they’ve grown up with,” Rangan notes. “If we can use those same ingredients in new ways, we don’t have to change people. We just meet them where they are.”

What India reveals, perhaps more than any other market, is that the future of plant-based milk may not be about substitution—but about addition. The almond milk doesn’t replace the dairy in the chai. It sits next to it in the fridge, as an option, a symbol, a signal of modernity. Milk, in this context, is not just nourishment. It’s narrative.

Cross-Cultural Observations: What Tastes Like Progress?

From Bangkok cafés to Berlin grocery aisles, plant-based milk carries different meanings depending on where you are—and who you ask. To understand the global arc of milk alternatives, it’s not enough to look at adoption rates. You have to ask what each product represents in a cultural context. Because in the world of milk, progress has many flavours.

In the UK, oat milk has become shorthand for ethical living. It’s the fuel of the “climatarian”—those who select food based on its carbon footprint. It helps that oats grow abundantly in Europe and require far less water than almonds. But this is also about optics. Oat milk in a flat white signals something specific: sustainability without sacrifice. It says, “I’m paying attention.”

In Japan, soy milk is the opposite of a trend—it’s a staple. You’ll find banana soy milk in vending machines, black sesame soy in school lunch trays, and unflavored soy behind the counter of every ramen bar. Oat milk, by contrast, is a foreigner: imported, expensive, and still largely a café novelty. Where Western markets romanticise innovation, Japan reveres the familiar.

In India, almond milk is climbing—but it’s doing so as a marker of status. Its presence in a smoothie bowl or a vegan café menu connotes wellness, modernity, and a kind of cosmopolitan sophistication. It’s aspirational, not essential. Meanwhile, mung bean and millet milks are emerging quietly from startups like Goodmylk, using ingredients that feel both futuristic and deeply local.

In Southeast Asia, coconut milk is tradition in liquid form. It’s thick, aromatic, and the base of comfort food across generations. Oat milk, by comparison, is still figuring out how to earn trust—or at least a spot in the fridge. Soy milk, sold sweet and chilled at street stalls and in grocery chains, continues to dominate the category for its price, protein, and familiarity.

And then there’s the matter of price. Across nearly every market, oat milk carries a premium—often double or triple the price of cow’s milk, and far more than local alternatives. In the UK, it retails for £1.90 per litre compared to £1.20 for dairy. In Southeast Asia, import costs push oat milk into the realm of aspirational indulgence.

This price disparity cuts to the heart of a growing identity tension: who gets to eat for the planet? In many regions, sustainability remains a luxury. And with that, a subtle backlash is brewing against the Westernisation of food. Consumers in Asia, Latin America, and Africa are increasingly questioning why “plant-based” must mean foreign, expensive, and out of touch with local ecosystems.As these questions simmer, the most forward-thinking brands aren’t scaling Western models—they’re turning inward. Instead of exporting oat milk to Jakarta or Mumbai, they’re asking: what’s already growing here? And how do we make that the new norm?

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

Global demand for chocolate is rising, even as consumer concern over sugar, processed foods and wellness reaches new heights. Across the UK, the US, and key Asian markets, confectionery companies are reporting growth not just in premium segments, but also in functional and “better-for-you” formulations once considered niche.

The shift reflects a broader recalibration of what indulgence means in the modern marketplace. Shoppers are eating less in volume but paying more for chocolate that aligns with evolving personal values-whether that means fewer ingredients, higher cocoa content, or the addition of protein and adaptogens.

Multinational players and local upstarts alike are moving quickly to capture this redefined sweet spot. In the US, dark and portion-controlled chocolates are gaining share despite higher prices. In the UK, new regulations on high-sugar foods have prompted a wave of reformulation and repositioning. And in Asia, where per capita consumption remains relatively low, demand is accelerating as chocolate becomes both an aspirational treat and a vessel for functional benefits.

For an industry once synonymous with excess, chocolate is proving remarkably adaptive. What was once a discretionary snack is now being repackaged as self-care-and that subtle shift in perception is proving to be a powerful driver of growth.

A Global Market Defying Expectations

Chocolate’s commercial momentum is not just anecdotal – it’s backed by hard numbers that defy nutritional orthodoxy. While public health messaging around sugar reduction has grown louder, global retail sales of chocolate continue to expand, particularly in markets where health consciousness and affluence are rising in tandem.

Recent industry estimates place global chocolate confectionery sales at around US$130 billion, with steady value growth driven by pricing power, premiumisation, and consumer appetite for smaller, higher-quality products. In contrast to other processed snack categories, chocolate has retained pricing resilience and cultural relevance – often viewed not as a vice, but as an acceptable reward.

In mature markets like the United States and the United Kingdom, manufacturers are offsetting flat or declining volumes with premium offerings, clean-label positioning, and targeted innovation. In the US, even as unit sales dipped last year, dollar sales rose. UK consumers, faced with inflation and regulatory pressure on high-fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) products, are adjusting by buying smaller formats or turning to private-label options – but they haven’t walked away from the category.

In Asia, the story is different. Markets like China and Singapore are seeing growing interest in chocolate, particularly among urban, middle-class consumers. Premium brands, often imported, are benefiting from rising disposable income and a gifting culture that values quality and presentation. Even in Japan, where the market has been contracting, companies are finding ways to win back consumers through functional formulations and high cocoa content offerings.

Whether as comfort, status symbol, or perceived health supplement, chocolate’s role is being redefined. And with that reframing comes an expansion in both who is buying – and why.

Changing Consumer Drivers

The growth in chocolate sales isn’t coming from nostalgia alone. It reflects a more nuanced shift in consumer mindset – one that doesn’t reject indulgence, but instead reclassifies it. Chocolate is increasingly seen as compatible with modern lifestyles, not in spite of its decadence but because of how consumers are redefining what balance looks like.

Across markets, there is growing tolerance – even encouragement – for what industry analysts term “permissible indulgence.” Rather than eliminating treats, consumers are looking for control: smaller portions, higher cocoa content, and labels that read more like pantry ingredients than chemistry sets. In the UK, more than a third of chocolate consumers say they are consciously limiting sugar – but not abstaining entirely. In the US, 91% say they’re willing to pay more for chocolate that feels like a personal reward.

What has changed is the framing. Where chocolate once sat squarely in the category of “guilty pleasures,” it’s now more likely to be marketed as self-care. Brands have responded with messaging that leans on mood, mindfulness, and mental health – themes that resonate particularly well with millennial and Gen Z consumers. In Asia, products with added collagen or calming botanicals are performing strongly, positioned as part of a broader wellness routine.

Functionality is part of the equation. But just as important is the emotional rationale. In a volatile global climate, consumers are granting themselves small indulgences, so long as they carry a justification – be it clean ingredients, health benefits, or sustainability claims. Chocolate, perhaps more than any other treat, has adapted to meet that need without losing its core appeal.

Market	Primary Positioning	Trending Segments	Notable Retail Behavior
US	Indulgence-first	Dark, functional, protein-added	Portion control, DTC growth
UK	Sustainability/Moderation	Plant-based, lower sugar, private label	HFSS-regulated placement, ethical labels
Japan	Functional-first	Stress-relief, GABA, polyphenols	Mini packs, convenience store dominance
China	Premium & Aspirational	Imported brands, gift sets	Gifting culture, boutique speciality retail
Singapore	Luxury meets wellness	Vegan, single-origin, no added sugar	Gifting culture, boutique specialty retail

Innovation in Product Development

Much of chocolate’s resilience can be traced to how aggressively manufacturers have innovated in recent years. The category has undergone a quiet but significant transformation, with R&D efforts focused on meeting modern expectations around health, quality, and purpose.

Product reformulation is now a baseline strategy. Across the UK and parts of Europe, pressure from HFSS regulations and consumer advocacy groups has accelerated the development of lower-sugar alternatives. Major brands, including Mondelēz and Nestlé, have introduced chocolate lines with 30% less sugar, while also cutting artificial additives and using alternative sweeteners like stevia and monk fruit. In the US, Hershey has expanded its zero-sugar range and invested in cleaner labels across its mainstream portfolio.

The fastest-growing segment, however, isn’t necessarily lower in sugar – it’s higher in cocoa. Dark chocolate continues to outperform traditional milk variants, buoyed by its association with antioxidants, reduced sugar, and a more “sophisticated” profile. Lindt & Sprüngli, Ferrero, and other global players have reported strong growth in dark chocolate sales across both Western and Asian markets, supported by expanding ranges with cocoa content of 70% and above.

In Asia, innovation has taken a more functional route. Japanese confectioners, long known for their product precision, have introduced chocolate fortified with stress-reducing botanicals, dietary fibre, and even blood pressure–supporting polyphenols. In China, new launches incorporate traditional ingredients like ginseng or goji berries, often positioned as “balance-enhancing” or “body-friendly.”

At the premium end, smaller brands are leading with single-origin sourcing, artisanal techniques, and clean-label credentials. Their appeal lies not just in purity of ingredients but in transparency – with packaging that highlights cocoa origin, ethical certification, and handcrafted quality. These innovations are helping redefine chocolate as not just permissible, but aspirational – a snack that delivers on taste, health alignment, and brand values simultaneously.

Some of the most telling examples of how chocolate makers are evolving come from established players experimenting beyond their traditional formulas.

In the UK, Mondelēz launched the Cadbury Plant Bar, a vegan version of its flagship Dairy Milk, using almond paste in place of dairy. The move marked the brand’s first foray into plant-based chocolate in nearly two centuries of operation, reflecting not just a shift in ingredients, but a broader strategy to reach flexitarian consumers. While still a small part of total sales, the Plant Bar represents a growing segment within confectionery where plant-based credentials are seen as a proxy for health, ethics, and modernity.

In the United States, Hu Kitchen has carved out a loyal following by doing less. Its clean-label chocolate bars – free from dairy, refined sugar, palm oil, lecithins, and emulsifiers – have thrived in premium health retailers and online marketplaces. The brand’s minimalist packaging and “Get Back to Human” tagline struck a chord with consumers seeking indulgence without compromise. Hu’s rapid success led to its acquisition by Mondelēz in 2021, underscoring how legacy players are using startup acquisitions to absorb innovation.

In Japan, functionality is a competitive advantage. Meiji’s “The Chocolate” line and Lotte’s “GABA-infused” chocolates target adult consumers seeking both pleasure and health benefits. GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid), a naturally occurring neurotransmitter linked to stress reduction, is featured prominently in Lotte’s marketing, tapping into Japan’s growing demand for mood-supportive snacks. These products are often sold in convenience stores – not as candy, but as part of the functional food aisle.

Taken together, these cases illustrate how manufacturers are navigating a more complex chocolate landscape – where taste is non-negotiable, but health cues, ingredient ethics, and wellness positioning are becoming essential to growth.

Packaging and Positioning as Strategy

As much as product formulation has shifted, so too has the way chocolate is presented – and that evolution is proving just as important in driving consumer uptake. Packaging and messaging have become strategic tools in redefining how chocolate fits into a health-conscious lifestyle. In many cases, what’s on the outside of the bar is doing just as much work as what’s inside it.

One of the most noticeable changes across global markets is the move away from traditional share-size formats toward portion-controlled, individually wrapped offerings. Whether driven by calorie-conscious consumers or regulatory nudges, this shift aligns with broader health narratives. Smaller sizes are marketed not as a cutback, but as a mindful choice. In the UK, major supermarkets have reorganised confectionery aisles to prioritise “treatwise” options, while in Japan and Singapore, individually wrapped squares dominate shelves, reinforcing the idea of moderation and intentionality.

At the premium end of the market, design language has also evolved. Brands are increasingly leaning on matte finishes, minimalist typography, and earthy colour palettes to signal quality and modernity. Sustainable packaging has become a competitive differentiator: compostable wrappers, recyclable boxes, and carbon-neutral claims are now common among premium and artisanal brands. According to NielsenIQ, 72% of global consumers say they’re willing to pay more for products that offer sustainable packaging, and confectionery is no exception. In the UK, where eco-consciousness is deeply embedded in consumer decision-making, this has helped smaller brands gain traction.

Equally important is the messaging printed on the front of pack. Chocolate makers are experimenting with a vocabulary that reshapes indulgence into alignment with health, ethics, or personal care. Terms like “source of antioxidants,” “plant-based,” “no added sugar,” and “ethically sourced cacao” are increasingly used to build trust and justify premium pricing. In Asia, functional benefits take centre stage, with Japanese and South Korean brands promoting relaxation, cognitive support, and gut health directly on packaging. In the US, mood-related cues – “energy,” “calm,” or “focus” – are finding their way onto wrappers once reserved for novelty slogans.

What’s striking is how positioning diverges across markets, reflecting local consumer priorities. In the United States, chocolate is still framed primarily around indulgence, but with an upgraded narrative: it’s an “earned” treat, often marketed with language around self-reward and quality ingredients. In Japan, functionality leads, with packaging that emphasises health outcomes and precision. In the UK, sustainability and transparency are front and centre, with brands competing on cocoa sourcing, packaging recyclability, and sugar reduction metrics.

For multinationals, adapting packaging and messaging to these local nuances has become essential. What resonates in a Los Angeles health food store may not land in a Tokyo pharmacy or a London high street supermarket. But across all regions, the direction is clear: chocolate is no longer sold simply as a sweet. It is being positioned as a curated experience – one that reflects the consumer’s lifestyle, values, and desired level of indulgence.

Regulatory and Retail Landscape

As health concerns reshape consumer expectations, regulatory bodies and retailers are playing a growing role in influencing how, where, and what kind of chocolate is sold. Far from slowing the category, these shifts are prompting structural changes in how brands operate – from formulation to shelf placement.

In the United Kingdom, one of the most ambitious regulatory efforts has been the government’s restriction on the promotion of high-fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS) products. Since October 2022, chocolate and other confectionery brands have faced limitations on prominent in-store placements such as aisle ends and checkouts, along with bans on advertising HFSS products during primetime TV and online slots aimed at children. While critics initially forecast a sharp decline in impulse sales, early results from Kantar suggest a more nuanced picture: some volume loss has occurred, but consumers are increasingly switching to HFSS-compliant versions or smaller-format treats that are still allowed in high-traffic zones. Brands that anticipated these changes – either by reformulating or launching reduced-sugar SKUs – have retained shelf visibility and sales stability.

Retail strategy is also evolving in response to both regulation and pandemic-era behavioural shifts. The rise of direct-to-consumer (DTC) models and online artisanal chocolate brands has created a new layer of competition. In the United States, premium players like Dandelion Chocolate and Raaka have built thriving businesses selling craft bars online, complete with subscription models and seasonal releases. In Asia, particularly Singapore and South Korea, social commerce and messaging platforms are enabling local chocolatiers to bypass traditional retail entirely.

At the same time, speciality health retailers such as Whole Foods, Planet Organic, and iHerb have expanded their chocolate assortments, focusing on functional, low-sugar, and vegan options. Their merchandising strategies give these products front-facing visibility – a stark contrast to conventional supermarkets, where legacy brands still dominate shelf space.

Traditional grocers are responding. IGD data shows that major supermarket chains in Europe and Asia are reallocating shelf space toward “better-for-you” indulgences, particularly as demand grows for low-sugar and plant-based chocolate. Some are trialling “wellness treat” zones, while others are integrating chocolate into broader health-and-lifestyle aisles – a sign that chocolate’s category boundaries are shifting.

Taken together, these developments point to a category in flux – not shrinking, but reshaping. Chocolate remains a high-frequency purchase, but how it’s discovered, promoted, and purchased is changing rapidly, driven by policy, platform, and purpose.

Market Outlook and Investment Trends

Chocolate’s continued growth in a health-conscious world is not an anomaly. It is a lesson in the malleability of consumer perception – and a case study in how legacy categories can evolve when indulgence is repackaged as alignment with personal values.

From an investment standpoint, this has not gone unnoticed. The past five years have seen a wave of M&A activity as global FMCG players seek to future-proof their portfolios. Mondelēz’s acquisitions of Hu Kitchen and Lily’s, Mars’ purchase of KIND and Trü Frü, and Nestlé’s investments in functional and plant-based startups reflect a strategic shift: legacy companies are buying their way into health-aligned chocolate because they understand that future growth lies at the intersection of taste, wellness, and ethics.

At the same time, private label competition is intensifying, particularly in markets like the UK and Asia. As inflation pressures persist, consumers are increasingly opting for supermarket-owned brands that deliver on price without abandoning claims like “ethical sourcing” or “no artificial ingredients.” Retailers are capitalising on this, not only by expanding their own lines but also by positioning them as premium, narrowing the gap between store brand and artisanal in both packaging and provenance. In the UK, Tesco’s and Sainsbury’s premium private label chocolates now include single-origin and vegan lines. In Asia, Don Quijote has become a bellwether for how convenience and quality can coexist, with curated chocolate assortments from both domestic and imported brands.

The bigger question is whether the category can continue to bridge the tension between health and indulgence. All signs point to yes – but not without nuance. The hybridisation of chocolate is likely to continue: functional ingredients will gain ground, especially those linked to mental wellness, gut health, and energy support. Meanwhile, classic indulgence will persist, albeit in cleaner formats and more restrained sizes. Consumers are not abandoning pleasure; they are recalibrating it.

The success of chocolate in this new era lies in its emotional elasticity. It can be a gift, a ritual, a moment of calm, or a functional snack – sometimes all at once. Unlike many processed food categories that struggle to justify their place in a health-first world, chocolate has managed to make itself feel essential. That is not just clever marketing; it’s a deep understanding of how modern consumers make trade-offs. They don’t want to eliminate joy – they want to justify it.

For investors, that makes chocolate a rare thing in today’s food landscape: a category with legacy scale, emotional equity, and evolving relevance. For brands, the challenge now is not to follow fads, but to build trust, deliver on new expectations, and never forget that taste is still the gatekeeper. The future of chocolate will belong to those who understand that indulgence and intention are no longer opposites – they are partners in modern consumerism.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

In early 2022, Panera Bread introduced its Unlimited Sip Club, a subscription service granting customers unlimited self-serve beverages for a monthly fee. It was among the first major fast-food chains to test a subscription-based model, shifting from traditional loyalty programs to a strategy aimed at securing recurring revenue and increasing customer visits.

Subscription models are becoming a mainstay as quick-service restaurants (QSRs) experiment with new ways to increase customer loyalty and spending. A 2025 report by the Food Institute found that 76% of restaurant owners plan to integrate gamification into their loyalty programs, signalling a move away from static rewards toward interactive engagement. The goal: turning casual customers into repeat visitors who interact with brand platforms daily.

The challenge now is whether consumers see enough long-term value in fast-food subscriptions to maintain their commitment – and whether brands can sustain profitability without diluting the appeal. As competition grows, success will hinge on balancing affordability, exclusivity, and genuine savings that justify a recurring fee.

The Consumer Shift Driving This Trend

Fast food has traditionally thrived on consistency – standardised meals, rapid service, and predictable experiences. But consumer expectations are shifting. Today’s diners seek more than just convenience; they crave value, exclusivity, and interactive experiences. This shift is fuelling the rise of subscription-based dining and gamified loyalty programs, turning occasional transactions into habitual brand engagements.

Subscription models have reshaped industries from entertainment to retail, and now they’re making their mark on fast food. A 2024 PYMNTS report found that 45% of US consumers subscribe to at least one food or beverage service, a sharp rise from 36% in 2020. Meal kits and coffee subscriptions paved the way, demonstrating the viability of prepaid dining experiences. Now, QSRs are leveraging similar strategies to lock in repeat visits and drive incremental revenue.

Beyond subscriptions, fast-food chains are integrating gamification to deepen customer engagement. Interactive loyalty programs appeal to psychological triggers – competition, achievement, and status – encouraging repeat visits. Rather than simply buying a meal, customers now earn points, unlock exclusive perks, and advance through membership tiers. A 2023 McKinsey report found that well-designed gamified programs can increase customer spending by up to 40%, making them a lucrative tool for QSRs looking to sustain long-term loyalty.

Younger generations, in particular, are embracing these changes. A recent survey found that millennials and Gen Z are 35% more likely than older demographics to engage with gamified rewards. The demand for digital-first loyalty experiences is fueling innovation worldwide. In Japan, McDonald’s revamped its MyMcDonald’s Rewards with AI-driven personalisation, offering points multipliers during off-peak hours to encourage visits. Similarly, in the U.K., Pret A Manger has expanded its subscription model to include personalised incentives based on purchase history. The strategy is clear: engagement must go beyond discounts – it must create a habitual relationship between brand and customer.

There’s also a shift away from traditional discounts in favour of experience-driven perks. A 2024 Kantar study found that 60% of consumers now prioritise rewards that offer exclusivity over basic price cuts. Brands are adapting: Taco Bell’s Fire Tier Rewards unlock early access to menu innovations, while Domino’s Surprise Frees program randomly gifts free food to loyal customers, fostering excitement rather than predictable point redemptions. The shift signals that loyalty is no longer just about savings – it’s about status, engagement, and emotional connection.

The takeaway? Consumers no longer just want rewards – they want engagement. Subscription models and gamified loyalty programs are transforming routine purchases into ongoing brand relationships. As more fast-food brands invest in interactive engagement, the traditional playbook for customer retention is being rewritten. The next challenge? Ensuring these programs provide lasting value rather than becoming another short-lived marketing experiment.

How Fast Food Chains Are Adopting Gamification & Subscriptions

Fast-food chains are no longer simply rewarding repeat customers – they’re restructuring their entire loyalty approach. Subscription services and gamified rewards are turning once-sporadic transactions into habitual spending, offering brands a more reliable revenue stream. While traditional point-based programs still exist, more restaurants are shifting to systems that keep customers engaged daily, whether through app-based perks, tiered memberships, or monthly meal passes.

Pret A Manger, for example, has aggressively expanded its subscription model, first in the UK and now globally. Its “Club Pret” program, offering unlimited barista-made drinks for a fixed monthly fee, drove a 22% increase in global sales in 2023. The company reports that subscribers visit five times more frequently than non-members, significantly increasing food purchases alongside beverages. Similarly, McDonald’s Japan has rolled out digital-exclusive deals through its loyalty app, leveraging gamification to incentivise repeat visits.

While these models generate steady income, they also require constant fine-tuning. Subscription fatigue is real, and consumers are quick to cancel if they don’t see continuous value. Brands must balance pricing, perks, and exclusivity to keep customers engaged without feeling locked into a program that doesn’t evolve. Those that succeed – by offering tangible savings, personalised deals, and interactive rewards – are rewriting the rules of fast-food loyalty.

Luckin Coffee’s Play-to-Win Strategy

Image credit: Luckin Coffee

In China, Luckin Coffee has turned customer retention into a game. Unlike traditional point-based rewards, its app features dynamic challenges that encourage repeat visits. Customers who hit spending milestones unlock tiered discounts and free drinks, creating a loyalty ecosystem that goes beyond transactional incentives. The higher the engagement, the more exclusive the rewards – an approach that has cemented Luckin’s digital dominance in China’s competitive coffee market.

Luckin’s approach has yielded significant results. Its 2023 earnings report revealed that over 75% of transactions now originate through its app, demonstrating the effectiveness of its loyalty system. Customers engage with the platform an average of 21 times per month, far surpassing industry benchmarks. By integrating gamification into its core business model, Luckin has transformed occasional buyers into habitual customers, proving that digital-first strategies can redefine fast-food loyalty.

Burger King’s Subscription Bet in Europe

In Germany, Burger King is testing a different kind of subscription – one that locks in discounts rather than specific products. The chain’s King Deals program, launched in 2023, allows app users to pay a small monthly fee in exchange for access to exclusive offers, including half-price meals and premium add-ons. The goal is to increase repeat visits while giving customers a reason to keep the app on their phones.

Early reports suggest that the strategy is working. Burger King Germany has seen a 22% increase in repeat visits from subscribers compared to non-members, and the company is now considering expanding the program to other European markets.

Shifting From Discounts to Engagement

Subscription-based dining and gamified loyalty programs aren’t just about offering discounts – they’re about changing how consumers interact with fast-food brands. Whether it’s Panera making beverage purchases a habit, Luckin Coffee turning transactions into a game, or Burger King incentivising app engagement, QSRs are redefining customer relationships.

Why QSRs Are Betting on Gamified Loyalty

Fast-food chains are increasingly adopting subscription models and gamified loyalty programs to enhance customer engagement and secure predictable revenue streams. These strategies not only foster repeat business but also provide a competitive edge in a crowded marketplace.

Predictable Revenue Through Subscriptions

For QSRs, subscriptions provide a buffer against industry volatility, replacing sporadic purchases with predictable, recurring income. Pret A Manger’s “Club Pret” subscription, which grants members up to five barista-made drinks per day for a fixed monthly fee, has transformed the company’s revenue model. The initiative played a key role in pushing Pret’s global sales past £1 billion in 2023, marking the first time in its history the company reached this milestone.

Other brands are experimenting with subscription-like promotions to drive habitual spending. In October 2023, Domino’s introduced its “Emergency Pizza” initiative, allowing loyalty members to redeem a free pizza after making a qualifying purchase. The result was a surge in sales and two million new loyalty sign-ups, reinforcing the effectiveness of structured, value-driven offers in retaining customers.

Enhanced Engagement Through Gamification

Gamified loyalty programs tap into behavioural psychology, using incentives, challenges, and exclusive content to drive repeat visits. McDonald’s Australia’s “MyMacca’s Rewards” program rewards customers with points per dollar spent, which can be redeemed for menu items – a model that has significantly increased app engagement. Beyond simple reward systems, leading QSRs are now incorporating dynamic challenges and real-time achievements, creating a sense of urgency and exclusivity that encourages repeat interactions.

Gamification is proving to be more than a gimmick – it translates directly into higher spending. A Mastercard report found that brands leveraging interactive loyalty mechanics saw a 60% spike in app engagement and a sixfold increase in purchase frequency within the first year of implementation. These figures highlight the growing role of digital ecosystems in fostering long-term brand loyalty.

Social Status Rewards and Exclusive Access

Beyond financial rewards, status-based loyalty structures add another layer of appeal. Customers are often willing to engage more deeply when programs offer exclusive perks tied to higher-tier status. Pizza Express has capitalised on this psychology with a loyalty program structured around bronze, silver, and gold tiers, where members unlock escalating benefits over time. The approach has attracted 2.7 million sign-ups in two years, demonstrating that tiered rewards can drive long-term engagement more effectively than one-time discounts.

Image credit: Pizza Express

Cross-brand collaborations are also enhancing the value proposition of loyalty subscriptions. Walmart+ has partnered with Burger King to provide members with discounts on digital orders and periodic free items, including a quarterly free Whopper. These partnerships add tangible benefits to subscription models, reinforcing brand value while leveraging existing customer bases.

The Numbers Behind Loyalty Innovation

The impact of these strategies is clear. Pret A Manger’s subscription service contributed to a significant jump in global system sales, reaching £1.1 billion while underlying profits rose 12% to £166 million in 2023. Similarly, Domino’s leveraged gamified loyalty to reverse declining sales, expanding its rewards program by an additional two million members in just a few months.

Image credit: Pret A Manger

As the fast-food landscape becomes increasingly competitive, QSRs that invest in loyalty innovation will have a distinct edge. Whether through gamification, subscription models, or status-based incentives, the brands that can turn customer interactions into habit-forming experiences will define the future of fast-food engagement.

The Risks and Challenges of Subscription-Based Fast Food

As more QSRs experiment with these models, potential pitfalls are becoming apparent. From subscription fatigue and economic pressure to logistical hurdles and consumer backlash, brands face mounting challenges in retaining long-term loyalty and sustaining profitability.

Subscription Fatigue

As subscriptions extend beyond streaming and retail into fast food, many consumers are reaching their limit. Households already manage monthly fees for entertainment, groceries, fitness apps, and meal kits – and they’re cutting back. A recent study found that 42% of US consumers feel overwhelmed by the number of subscriptions they manage, with many actively cancelling non-essential services.

This trend isn’t confined to Western markets. In South Korea, a Nielsen study reported a 28% drop in new subscription sign-ups across industries, including food and beverage. Consumers are becoming more selective, gravitating toward services that offer flexibility, exclusive benefits, and genuine savings. For QSRs, this means that simply offering a discount isn’t enough – brands must differentiate their programs through value-driven perks and long-term incentives or risk being abandoned.

Economic Pressures

Fast-food subscriptions thrive in strong economic conditions, but inflation and consumer spending cutbacks are testing their durability. While some customers justify paying upfront for daily meals or drinks, others are questioning the necessity. A recent PwC consumer sentiment report found that 60% of global consumers are actively reducing discretionary spending, with dining out and food subscriptions among the first to be reevaluated.

In Europe, where inflation has driven up food prices, subscription-based meal plans are under strain. A Kantar study showed that 35% of UK consumers have cut back on restaurant subscriptions and food delivery services, shifting toward home-cooked meals instead. Unless fast-food brands can demonstrate tangible cost savings or exclusive access to high-value perks, subscriptions risk becoming expendable luxuries during economic downturns.

The Operational Strain of Managing Demand

Beyond consumer concerns, fast-food chains must grapple with the logistical complexities of recurring transactions. Unlike one-time promotions, subscriptions guarantee a steady flow of orders, requiring precise forecasting for inventory, staffing, and fulfilment.

Japan’s Mos Burger learned this the hard way when it piloted a burger subscription model. Demand exceeded projections, leading to ingredient shortages and strained operations. The company had to restrict redemptions to non-peak hours to prevent service disruptions. This underscores a fundamental risk: if not carefully managed, subscriptions can overload supply chains, increase waste, and frustrate both staff and customers.

Technology is another critical hurdle. Seamless integration of subscriptions into apps and point-of-sale systems is essential, yet many brands underestimate the investment required. In India, a major fast-food chain faced backlash when its digital loyalty program crashed under heavy demand, blocking paid subscribers from redeeming offers. The PR fallout was immediate, reinforcing the importance of scalable, reliable tech infrastructure before launching subscription models at full scale.

Consumer Backlash

When customers feel they’re not getting enough value, they cancel – fast. A 2023 PYMNTS report found that 49% of subscription users drop a service within six months if they don’t perceive consistent benefits.

QSRs are particularly vulnerable to churn. Unlike streaming platforms, where exclusive content keeps subscribers engaged, fast-food loyalty hinges on repeat consumption. If consumers hit unexpected limits – whether through redemption restrictions, menu exclusions, or underwhelming savings – they abandon the program entirely.

In France, a leading coffee chain faced widespread backlash when customers discovered that its “unlimited drink subscription” excluded premium beverages – a restriction buried in fine print. Social media complaints erupted overnight, leading to a 32% drop in renewals within three months. The company was forced to revamp its offer to rebuild trust, but the damage had already dented its reputation.

For fast-food brands, subscription success hinges on transparency, trust, and long-term value. Consumers are willing to commit to recurring spending – but only if the benefits outweigh the cost. In an increasingly subscription-saturated market, brands that overpromise and underdeliver won’t just lose subscribers – they’ll lose credibility.

The Future of Fast-Food Loyalty Programs

Fast-food loyalty programs are at a crossroads. As competition intensifies, brands are moving beyond traditional discounts and punch cards, leveraging advanced technologies and hyper-personalised incentives to deepen customer engagement. However, the future of these programs will depend on whether they provide real, lasting value – or simply add to the growing fatigue of subscription-based services.

Emerging Innovations: AI, Gamification, and Blockchain

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping how QSRs understand and engage with customers. By analyzing purchasing patterns and behavioural data, AI-driven loyalty programs can offer customised promotions, dynamic pricing, and predictive ordering. For instance, some brands are experimenting with real-time menu suggestions based on individual preferences, driving higher spending and deeper brand affinity.

Gamification is also evolving. Loyalty programs are incorporating augmented reality (AR) and blockchain technology to create more immersive and secure experiences. AR-driven campaigns allow customers to unlock exclusive deals through interactive digital experiences, while blockchain ensures transparent and fraud-proof reward transactions. These innovations move beyond transactional loyalty, aiming to foster a stronger emotional connection between brands and consumers.

Consumer Skepticism and Ethical Hurdles

Despite technological advancements, loyalty programs face growing consumer scepticism. The increasing reliance on data collection and AI-driven personalisation raises privacy concerns, prompting regulators to scrutinise how brands gather, store, and use consumer information. If customers feel they are being manipulated into spending more rather than receiving genuine benefits, backlash could follow.

Subscription-based models, once seen as a predictable revenue stream, are also losing some appeal. A 2024 industry survey found that consumers now manage an average of 5 to 7 active subscriptions, with many actively reducing non-essential commitments. The question for QSRs is whether fast-food subscriptions provide enough tangible value to justify a recurring financial commitment – or whether they will become another short-lived marketing trend.

Striking the Right Balance

The future of fast-food loyalty programs hinges on execution. Brands that focus purely on data-driven engagement without offering meaningful value risk losing customer trust. To succeed, QSRs must ensure that loyalty initiatives feel rewarding rather than obligatory, with clear, flexible benefits that align with consumer expectations.

Transparency in data usage, personalised but non-intrusive incentives, and rewards that genuinely enhance the dining experience will define the next generation of loyalty programs. As the industry evolves, brands that prioritise trust, flexibility, and customer-first innovation will lead – while those that overpromise and underdeliver risk being left behind.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

Food prices in Japan have surged since 2022, shifting consumer habits in ways that brands cannot afford to ignore. A nationwide study by our sister company, CMG Inc., reveals the extent of this shift, showing how inflation influences where, what, and how often people buy groceries.

Japanese consumers have long prioritised quality and brand loyalty, often paying a premium for fresh, locally sourced ingredients. However, inflation is shifting these behaviours. Our study shows that more shoppers seek discounts, adjust grocery lists, and change stores to cope with rising costs.

Our study of Japanese consumers aged 20 to 69 found that 90% feel the strain of rising food costs, with 70% experiencing it intensely. Prices for essential staples like rice, leafy greens, and eggs have surged, pushing shoppers toward lower-cost alternatives, bulk buying, and store-switching strategies.

Households are adjusting by choosing cheaper alternatives, relying on discounts, and carefully planning purchases to minimise costs. The findings reveal how inflation shapes the Japanese food market today and how brands must adapt to meet shifting consumer priorities.

Japanese consumers feel the weight of rising food prices

how-Japanese-consumers-feel-about-food-inflation

Inflation is hitting middle-aged consumers the hardest. Women and those aged 40 to 60 report the most strain as they juggle rising grocery bills alongside housing, childcare, and utility costs.

Rice tops the list, with three-quarters of respondents saying its cost has risen. Leafy vegetables, eggs, and fruits are among the most frequently cited items experiencing price hikes. The rising costs of these essentials are pushing consumers to reconsider their grocery lists, with many shifting to more affordable alternatives or cutting back on certain items altogether.

Consumer sentiment suggests inflation is not just a financial strain but an ongoing source of anxiety. Many households are adjusting broader spending patterns, cutting back on dining out and non-essential purchases as they prioritise their grocery budgets. This heightened sense of caution underscores the urgency for brands to meet evolving needs with adaptable solutions.

Implications for Brands

As inflation shapes consumer habits, brands operating in the food industry must rethink their strategies. Price sensitivity is now a dominant force in purchasing decisions, making affordability and value essential selling points. Companies that rely on staple food products may need to introduce smaller pack sizes, bulk discounts, or subscription-based models to maintain customer loyalty.

This shift presents an opportunity for brands that offer alternatives to high-cost staples. The surge in demand for lower-cost items like bean sprouts and tofu suggests that consumers are willing to make substitutions. Positioning these products as smart, affordable choices through targeted marketing and in-store promotions could help brands capture market share.

Retailers and food manufacturers must also recognise that Japanese consumers actively seek ways to save. Loyalty programs, digital coupons, and promotional bundles could play a more significant role in purchasing decisions as shoppers become more selective about where they spend their money. Companies that can balance pricing strategies with perceived value will be best positioned to navigate the evolving food market in Japan.

How Consumers Are Changing Their Shopping Habits

changing-grocery-shopping-habits-in-Japan

As prices climb, Japanese consumers are becoming more strategic. Nearly 30% are actively hunting for clearance deals, while an equal share is switching supermarkets in search of lower prices. Discount chains and bulk retailers see increased foot traffic as shoppers shift from premium stores to budget-friendly alternatives.

Beyond price-driven decisions, shoppers are becoming more disciplined in their purchasing habits. Many are researching deals in advance, planning their shopping lists, and buying only what is necessary. This shift suggests that impulse buying is declining, making it harder for brands to capture spontaneous purchases. Instead, consumers approach grocery shopping with a calculated mindset, weighing every purchase against cost and necessity.

Digital engagement is also playing an increasing role in consumer decisions. More shoppers use online price comparison tools, retailer apps, and e-commerce platforms to track discounts and find the best deals. Brands that integrate their promotions seamlessly into these digital channels will have a greater chance of influencing purchase decisions early on.

However, in-store promotions and point-based rewards in Japan remain highly influential, offering brands an alternative way to engage cost-conscious consumers. Brands that integrate their promotions seamlessly into digital and physical retail channels will have a greater chance of influencing purchase decisions before consumers even enter a store.

Implications for Brands

With price-conscious behaviour shaping the market, brands must adapt their pricing and promotional strategies. Offering flexible discounts and personalised promotions could help retain customers who might otherwise trade down to lower-cost alternatives. Brands traditionally relying on premium positioning may need to consider budget-friendly variations or value packs to stay competitive.

A prime example of a brand adapting to shifting consumer behaviour is Nissin Foods, the maker of Cup Noodles. The company has introduced new flavours and healthier options for health-conscious consumers while maintaining affordability. Its focus on sustainability through eco-friendly packaging and responsible sourcing has also helped sustain consumer loyalty despite economic challenges.

Retailers also need to rethink in-store and digital promotions. Placing high-demand items in visible areas, bundling products at competitive prices, and integrating discount offers into mobile shopping apps can help maintain customer engagement. As shoppers become more deliberate, brands must ensure they are part of the decision-making process before consumers reach the checkout counter.

What are people buying less and more often?

top-10-foods-with-price-increases-in-Japan

Rice, snacks, and cabbage are the top three foods that people buy less of due to price increases.

Rising prices are forcing consumers to rethink where they shop and what they buy. The survey reveals a clear pattern – high-cost staples are being purchased less frequently, while affordable alternatives are gaining traction. Since 2021, Japan has experienced a significant surge in rice prices. In 2023, the average selling price for a 60-kilogram bag of rice was approximately ¥15,310 (about $139 USD). By January 2025, this price escalated to ¥25,927, a 69% increase from the previous year. This equates to roughly $171 USD.

At the same time, lower-cost and versatile food items are seeing an uptick in sales. Bean sprouts and tofu, known for their affordability and adaptability in Japanese cuisine, are among the top foods people buy more often. Bread, another relatively inexpensive staple, has also gained popularity. The trend suggests consumers prioritise foods that offer more servings, opting for ingredients that stretch further and provide better value.

Implications for Brands

Understanding these shifts is critical for food manufacturers and retailers. Brands in high-cost categories need to rethink how they position their products. Offering smaller portion sizes, value packs, or price promotions could help retain consumers considering cutting back. For brands selling products that are growing in demand, this is a moment to strengthen their market position. Highlighting the versatility, nutritional benefits, and affordability of products like tofu and bean sprouts can reinforce their appeal in price-sensitive times.

Retailers should also adapt by ensuring budget-friendly items are well-stocked and prominently displayed. Promotional strategies should focus on cost-effective meal solutions, helping consumers maximise their grocery budgets. As inflation influences purchasing decisions, brands that align their offerings with consumer priorities will be best positioned to maintain loyalty and sales.

How Japan’s food inflation compares to the West

Rice isn’t just a staple in Japan—it’s a cultural cornerstone and an economic indicator. Unlike many Western nations where grains are heavily imported, Japan produces most of its rice domestically, meaning price fluctuations reflect deeper economic shifts. This inflation trend mirrors similar surges in other staple foods worldwide, such as wheat in the U.S. and soybeans in China.

Food prices are rising worldwide, but the impact varies from country to country. While Japan is seeing sharp increases in staples like rice, vegetables, and eggs, the US and the UK markets are grappling with their inflation-driven shifts in consumer behaviour. In Western markets, dairy products, meat, and processed foods have been among the most affected categories, driving consumers toward discount grocery chains, bulk buying, and private-label alternatives.

In the US, shoppers increasingly turn to wholesale retailers and discount supermarkets to cut costs. Many are switching from brand-name products to store-brand alternatives, with major retailers reporting a surge in private-label sales. Coupon usage once thought to be in decline, has made a strong comeback, mainly through digital platforms and loyalty apps. In the UK, where food inflation and the cost of living have been a persistent challenge, many households are scaling back on meat purchases and opting for frozen or tinned foods as a cost-saving measure.

Despite regional differences, the global trend is clear – consumers are becoming more intentional about how and where they spend their grocery budgets. The shift toward discount-driven shopping, meal planning, and strategic purchasing decisions redefines how food brands and retailers operate across markets.

While Japan sees a shift toward staples like tofu and bean sprouts, the US and UK consumer shifts lean toward private labels and bulk buying, highlighting different approaches to cost savings.

Implications for Brands

Brands must recognise that price sensitivity is no longer confined to specific regions. Inflation-driven purchasing habits are reshaping consumer expectations on a global scale. Affordability and value have become key decision-making factors, making it essential for brands to rethink their pricing and promotional strategies.

Companies that traditionally cater to premium or discretionary food categories may need to introduce flexible pricing structures, offering economy-sized packaging or subscription models to retain budget-conscious shoppers. Meanwhile, brands positioned in lower-cost categories have a unique opportunity to strengthen their appeal, emphasising the affordability and versatility of their products.

Japan’s beef bowl industry thrives despite multiple price hikes due to rising costs. Zensho Holdings, the parent company of Sukiya, a Japanese restaurant chain that serves gyudon (beef bowls), curry, and other dishes, has reported strong profit growth and increased customer numbers, highlighting how strategic pricing and strong brand equity can sustain demand even in inflationary times. This resilience reflects Japan’s unique consumer behaviour, where quality and convenience often precede purely cost-cutting measures.

Retailers, particularly those in markets where discount shopping is on the rise, should focus on making savings more accessible. Digital loyalty programs, targeted promotions, and clear communication around price advantages will be critical in maintaining consumer trust and engagement in a price-sensitive environment.

How brands can adapt to a cost-conscious market

Food inflation is not just reshaping consumer habits but redefining how brands must approach pricing, marketing, and product development. As shoppers prioritise affordability and shift toward lower-cost alternatives, companies must take a proactive approach to remain relevant in a rapidly changing market.

One of the most immediate strategies for brands is pricing flexibility. Offering a range of product sizes at different price points can help cater to varying consumer budgets. Smaller packaging options can attract shoppers looking to control their spending, while bulk discounts can appeal to those who prefer to stock up when prices are favourable. Subscription models that provide cost savings over time may also help retain customer loyalty, particularly for staple goods.

Product positioning is equally important. Brands that once relied on premium pricing must now justify their value through differentiation. Messaging focusing on nutritional benefits, sustainability, or versatility can encourage consumers to keep buying products even if prices increase. For brands in high-growth categories like tofu and bean sprouts, reinforcing affordability and multiple-use meal applications can strengthen market share.

Retailers have a crucial role to play in guiding purchasing decisions. Strategic in-store placements, meal-planning promotions, and digital tools that showcase the best value options can help shoppers navigate rising prices. Supermarkets that integrate personalised discounts, loyalty rewards, and digital coupons into their customer experience will be better positioned to retain price-sensitive consumers.

The brands that succeed in an inflationary market will listen to consumers, adapt to shifting priorities, and offer tangible value beyond price alone. As economic conditions continue to shape spending behaviour, remaining flexible and responsive will define long-term brand resilience.

Turning Challenges Into Opportunities

Rising food prices are forcing consumers to rethink their purchasing decisions, but they are also creating new opportunities for brands willing to adapt. The shift toward cost-conscious shopping is not a temporary adjustment; it reflects a more profound change in consumer behavior likely to persist even if inflation stabilises. Brands that recognise these shifts and respond strategically will retain their customer base and strengthen their market position in the long run.

Innovation will be key for companies in high-cost categories. Reformulating products to be cost-effective without compromising quality, offering flexible portion sizes, and introducing alternative ingredients can help brands navigate price sensitivity. For companies in growing categories, reinforcing the value of their products through effective messaging and promotions will be essential to sustaining momentum.

Digital engagement is also becoming more critical. Consumers increasingly rely on price-comparison tools, e-commerce discounts, and loyalty programs to make informed purchasing decisions. Brands that invest in personalised marketing, mobile-based promotions, and transparent pricing strategies will be better positioned to build long-term trust with their audience.

Food inflation is reshaping the competitive landscape but must not be a setback. Companies that approach this challenge with flexibility, creativity, and consumer-first thinking can turn market uncertainty into a moment of strategic growth.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

When Miguel and Mikayla Reyes launched Quesadilla Gorilla in Visalia, California, they weren’t just selling quesadillas – they were tapping into a growing demand for customisation. By letting customers build their meals with fresh ingredients and signature salsas, they transformed a small local shop into a rapidly expanding chain.

Fast food chains are no longer defined by speed alone – choice now drives the industry. Consumers are rejecting fixed menus in favour of meals that fit their diets, tastes, and lifestyles. A 2024 report by Tillster found that one in three quick-service diners skipped a restaurant because it lacked customisation, a jump from 21% the previous year.

Personalisation isn’t just a trend – it’s an expectation. More than half of diners (58%) say they’re more likely to recommend a fast food chain if they had a positive custom-ordering experience. For Quick Serve Restaurants or QSRs, that’s not just about loyalty – it’s about survival.

QSRs are racing to keep up, using technology to turn customisation from a challenge into a competitive advantage. Self-service kiosks, now fixtures in many chains, fuel this shift. Demand is rising fast – 57% of diners want more of them, up from 36% last year. Beyond convenience, kiosks give customers greater control over their meals, making customisation seamless.

But technology alone isn’t enough. A seamless experience matters just as much as the ability to customise. Nearly nine in ten diners (89%) say inconsistency across locations frustrates them, and more than half (57%) will take their business elsewhere because of it. Fast food chains that embrace personalisation but fail to execute it uniformly risk losing the very customers they’re trying to attract.

Image credit: Quesadilla Gorilla

Quesadilla Gorilla is proof that customisation isn’t just a gimmick – it’s a growth strategy. By giving customers complete control over their meals, the California-based chain has built a cult-like following and expanded rapidly. When diners feel ownership over what they’re eating, they don’t just return – they become brand ambassadors.

The Consumer-Driven Shift

Fast food was built on uniformity – the same burger, the same fries, the same experience. But consumers now expect meals that reflect their diets, values, and preferences – and they’re willing to pay for that control.

A recent report found that 72% of fast food customers prefer restaurants with personalised ordering, and a third have ditched a restaurant that lacked it. The message is clear: if QSRs don’t offer customisation, someone else will.

Dietary Needs Are Driving Change

Health-conscious consumers and specialised diets are reshaping fast food. More people are adopting plant-based, keto, and allergen-free options, forcing QSRs to adapt. In the UK, a study found that 34% of Brits follow a flexitarian, vegetarian, or vegan diet. McDonald’s responded with its McPlant burger – a fully vegan option that proved so popular it became a permanent menu item.

Gluten-free and allergen-conscious dining is no longer niche – it’s mainstream. In the US, 32 million people have food allergies, and one in ten adults avoids gluten. QSRs that once overlooked these needs are now making them a priority. Chipotle lets customers filter its entire digital menu by allergens and diet preferences, making ordering safer and easier.

Regional Preferences Are Reshaping Menus

Personalisation isn’t a one-size-fits-all trend – it looks different in every market. In Japan, MOS Burger lets customers swap ingredients for vegan, keto, or high-protein options. In India, where 40% of the population is vegetarian, McDonald’s runs separate vegetarian kitchens in select locations to meet demand.

Image credit: Salad Stop!

Customisation in Southeast Asia is shaped by local food culture. In Singapore, SaladStop! thrives on made-to-order salads and grain bowls, catering to a region where 65% of consumers prioritise fresh, healthy ingredients (Statista, 2024). In South Korea, Lotteria’s “Mix Your Own Burger” system lets customers pick everything from the bun to the sauce, tapping into a younger generation that values choice.

Fast Food No Longer Means Fast Decisions

Fast food has evolved from a mass-production model to a made-for-you experience. Consumers expect meals to match their dietary needs and personal values and are willing to pay for that control. Whether it’s plant-based options, high-protein choices, or allergen-free meals, customisation is no longer a perk; it’s the baseline. The brands that keep up are driving higher order values and stronger customer loyalty. Those that fall behind risk becoming irrelevant.

How AI and Technology Are Making It Possible

Technology is reshaping fast food, making personalisation scalable. AI and machine learning are making customisation scalable, helping restaurants tailor meals while streamlining operations. For fast food chains, this isn’t just about convenience – it’s about survival in an era where consumer expectations are shifting faster than ever.

AI-Powered Ordering Systems

Image credit: Wendy’s

Automation is now streamlining drive-thru service. Wendy’s has partnered with Google Cloud to roll out FreshAI, a voice assistant designed to speed up service and reduce errors. Already in 100 locations, the system is set to expand to 600 outlets by 2025. While some diners appreciate the efficiency, others miss the human touch – highlighting the tension between automation and experience in fast food’s tech-driven future.

Digital Kiosks and Personalisation

Self-service kiosks are not just about convenience – they’re becoming personalised digital waiters. AI-driven kiosks now remember past orders, suggest meal pairings, and tailor recommendations based on dietary needs. By reducing friction and speeding up service, these machines are transforming customer interactions – and helping fast food chains increase sales along the way.

Machine Learning for Menu Customisation

The smartest menus now learn from you. Machine learning lets QSRs track past orders, adapt to dietary preferences, and even tweak menus based on ingredient availability. Running low on an item? The system suggests an alternative in real-time. Beyond customer convenience, these AI-driven menus help restaurants reduce waste, streamline inventory, and boost margins.

Operational Efficiency Through AI

AI isn’t just in the front of house—it’s redefining kitchen operations behind the scenes. Predictive analytics help QSRs anticipate demand, adjust staffing, and keep inventory tight. The same technology can even flag equipment issues before they cause breakdowns, cutting costly downtime. The result? Faster service, lower costs, and a more efficient back-end operation.

This shift isn’t just changing how customers order – it’s restructuring the entire industry, from kitchen design to staffing strategies.

Business Impact and Industry Disruption

The push for hyper-personalisation is reshaping how fast food chains operate, forcing them to balance customisation with efficiency. Kitchens once designed for assembly-line efficiency are now adapting to a made-to-order model – one that delivers choice but also adds complexity. While brands that get it right see higher sales and stronger customer loyalty, those that can’t balance personalisation with efficiency risk slowing down service and driving up costs.

Rethinking fast food Kitchens

Fast food kitchens are undergoing a major overhaul to meet the demands of customised ordering. McDonald’s is experimenting with automation at a Texas location, where robots handle grilling and order assembly. Meanwhile, AI-powered kitchen display systems (KDS) are helping restaurants reduce human error and improve efficiency.

Chipotle’s “Chipotlanes” are redefining the drive-thru experience. By separating app-based orders from in-store transactions, these digital lanes reduce congestion and speed up fulfilment. CEO Brian Niccol reports that digital sales reached 37% of total revenue in 2023 – a figure likely to climb as more customers opt for customised meals.

The Business Upside

Customisation isn’t just a consumer preference – it’s also good for business. A study by McKinsey & Company found that brands offering personalised experiences drive 40% more revenue than competitors that stick to traditional menus. In fast food, higher-order values, repeat purchases, and improved brand loyalty are the biggest wins.

Data collection is another major advantage. Every custom order provides insight into consumer preferences, allowing QSRs to fine-tune menu options, predict demand, and minimise food waste. A report by the National Restaurant Association found that smart inventory management driven by AI could reduce waste by up to 15%, saving businesses millions annually.

The Hidden Costs of Personalisation

Despite the upside, the shift toward extreme customisation brings new risks. More complex orders require more ingredients, increased prep time, and a higher likelihood of operational slowdowns. In 2023, Shake Shack’s CFO, Katie Fogertey, noted that over-customisation led to longer wait times, straining kitchens and frustrating customers.

There’s also the cost of technology. AI-powered ordering systems, digital kiosks, and smart kitchen tech require significant upfront investment – something smaller franchises may struggle to afford. According to a 2024 industry analysis by Deloitte, the cost of implementing AI-driven food prep technology can range from $500,000 to over $2 million per location, depending on the scale of automation.

For QSRs, the challenge is clear: how to balance efficiency with personalisation without sacrificing speed or profitability. Some are leaning on AI, others on pre-set customisation limits, but one thing is certain – fast food is no longer just about being fast.

Fast Food’s New Balancing Act: Customisation Versus Efficiency

Fast food chains are under pressure to rethink their entire model as customisation moves from novelty to necessity. The old system of standardised meals is being replaced by flexible menus that cater to individual preferences, but adapting at scale is no easy feat. While personalised ordering can boost sales and improve inventory management, the operational complexities are mounting – forcing even the biggest QSRs to reassess how they function.

Kitchens Built for Speed Are Getting a Makeover

The shift toward customisation is forcing QSRs to rethink not just their menus, but their kitchens. Designed for efficiency and volume, traditional back-of-house operations are now struggling to accommodate a growing demand for personalised meals. Chains that once thrived on uniformity are now experimenting with new layouts, technology, and automation to keep up.

Quick-service chains are automating to stay competitive. McDonald’s is testing a robotics-driven location in Texas, where AI-powered kiosks and automated fry stations are reducing labour costs and speeding up prep times. At the same time, Chipotle is using automation in its kitchens, piloting robotic tortilla chip makers to streamline production without disrupting customisation. As QSRs scale automation, the challenge isn’t just efficiency – it’s integrating technology without sacrificing the personalised experience customers expect.

More Choices, Bigger Profits

Customisation isn’t just about consumer preference – it’s driving higher spending at fast food chains. Research from Deloitte highlights that brands excelling in personalisation see stronger customer engagement and long-term loyalty. Meanwhile, studies on digital ordering trends show that consumers spend more when they can modify their meals, opting for premium ingredients or add-ons. For QSRs, this means a direct link between menu flexibility and increased revenue, making personalisation more than just a marketing tool – it’s a business strategy.

Data is another major driver. Every custom order provides valuable insight into consumer preferences, allowing QSRs to refine menus, optimise ingredient sourcing, and reduce food waste. AI-driven inventory tracking is helping QSRs minimise waste and maximise margins. The National Restaurant Association estimates these systems could save restaurants millions annually by optimising ingredient use.

The Cost of Getting Personal

Offering limitless choices isn’t always good for business. Shake Shack CFO Katie Fogertey warned that an influx of custom orders slowed service and strained kitchen operations, frustrating both customers and staff. More ingredients mean more prep time, higher operational costs, and a greater risk of bottlenecks – issues that can erode the efficiency QSRs rely on.

The shift toward automation comes with a steep price tag. AI-powered kiosks, digital ordering systems, and robotic kitchen assistants require significant upfront investment. A 2024 Deloitte report estimates the cost of implementing AI-driven food prep technology ranges from $500,000 to over $2 million per location – an expense that could widen the gap between industry giants and smaller franchises.

QSRs are now walking a tightrope between customisation and efficiency. Some are doubling down on AI to streamline operations, while others are setting boundaries on how much personalisation they allow. The brands that strike the right balance will define the next era of fast food – one where convenience and choice must work in sync.

The Future of Hyper-Personalised Fast Food

The next wave of fast food will be shaped by technology and consumer demand for hyper-personalization. What was once a novelty is fast becoming the norm, with AI-driven pricing, predictive meal planning, and real-time nutrition tracking set to redefine how QSRs serve their customers.

Dynamic Pricing

Dynamic pricing, long used in airlines and hotels, is now entering fast food. AI-powered pricing models adjust costs in real-time based on demand, location, and even weather. A surge in lunchtime traffic? Expect a slight uptick in menu prices. A slow afternoon? Discounts might appear to draw in customers. The goal isn’t just profit – it’s about balancing kitchen efficiency and customer flow to avoid bottlenecks.

AI-Generated Meal Plans

AI-driven meal planning is changing how customers interact with fast food menus. Using past orders, dietary preferences, and budget constraints, algorithms can now recommend tailored meals in real time. Billionaire Marc Lore, through his company Wonder, is betting on AI-powered meal curation that personalises menus to match individual needs. The result? A shift from one-size-fits-all offerings to menus that adapt to customers – not the other way around.

Personalised Nutrition Tracking

Nutrition-conscious consumers are demanding more than just quick meals – they want food that fits their health goals. fast food chains are tapping into this trend by linking menus to wearable tech and health apps, offering real-time meal recommendations based on calorie needs, macros, or fitness plans. By turning fast food into a data-driven dining experience, QSRs are positioning themselves as allies in personal wellness rather than just a convenient option.

Regulatory and Ethical Considerations

AI-powered personalisation isn’t without controversy. With fast food chains collecting customer data to refine menus and pricing, concerns over privacy and data security are growing. The 2024 exposure of the WildChat dataset, which leaked sensitive AI interactions, highlighted the risks of poor data handling. If QSRs want consumers to embrace AI-driven dining, they must prove their systems are transparent, secure, and not exploiting personal data for profit.

AI-driven menus raise another concern – are they truly serving consumers, or just steering them toward higher-margin meals? Critics warn that AI could prioritise profits over nutrition, subtly pushing customers toward pricier, less healthy choices. Regulators are beginning to scrutinise how food brands deploy AI, with calls for transparency around algorithmic decision-making and whether recommendations serve the diner or the bottom line.

Empowering Consumers in the Age of Personalisation

Fast food is no longer a one-size-fits-all industry. Consumers expect choices that reflect their health goals, ethical beliefs, and personal tastes – shifting from passive diners to active decision-makers. But with more power comes more risk. The industry must find a way to balance innovation with transparency, ensuring that personalisation enhances, rather than exploits, the dining experience.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

A billion people depend on India’s wheat harvests. What happens when the heat rises too fast for crops to survive?

Export bans. Soaring grain prices. A scramble for alternatives. Across Asia and beyond, food systems are under strain as extreme weather makes staple crops increasingly unpredictable. In response, scientists in China have developed drought-resistant rice to protect food security, yet consumer scepticism remains high.

Meanwhile, in the US, biotech giants like Bayer and Syngenta are pushing climate-proof seeds, but supermarket shelves still prominently feature “Non-GMO” labels – proof that consumer hesitation lingers despite scientific advancements.

This paradox defines the future of food security. Climate change is upending agriculture at an unprecedented pace – longer droughts, erratic rainfall, and rising temperatures are cutting into global crop yields. In response, agribusinesses and research institutions are racing to develop climate-resilient crops that can withstand these harsh conditions. The science is advancing rapidly, but will consumers accept it in time?

The science behind genetically engineered crops is well-established, yet scepticism remains deeply entrenched. Public attitudes vary widely: China and India are ramping up biotech adoption to secure food supplies, while Japan and the UK remain resistant, prioritising “natural” and organic labels. Meanwhile, Southeast Asia – a critical agricultural hub – faces a delicate balancing act, weighing the urgency of food security against long-standing cultural reservations about modified crops.

The question now is whether scientific innovation can outpace consumer scepticism. As extreme weather disrupts global food systems, climate-resilient crops could be the key to stabilizing agriculture. But will they gain mainstream acceptance in time, or will regulatory delays and public distrust slow their adoption? The outcome could determine whether the world’s farmers can keep feeding a growing population in an era of climate volatility.

The Climate Crisis Driving Innovation

Climate change is no longer a looming threat – it is already redrawing the global agricultural map. Farmers in some of the world’s most productive regions are contending with crippling droughts, unpredictable monsoons, and heat waves that arrive earlier and last longer. Yields are dropping, and supply chains are fraying. The stakes are high: without immediate adaptation, food security in major economies will be under serious threat within the next two decades.

Science has a solution – but can it scale fast enough? Researchers are developing crops that withstand floods, survive heat waves, and thrive in drought-stricken soil. Yet the challenge isn’t just in the lab. Getting these climate-resilient crops into the hands of farmers – before extreme weather renders existing varieties obsolete – is the real test.

The Data on Climate Impact on Agriculture

The warning signs are already here. In some of the world’s biggest agricultural hubs, extreme weather is slashing yields and reshaping the future of food production.

United States: The US Corn Belt, which supplies nearly a third of global corn exports, is in jeopardy. The USDA warns that by 2050, heat stress could cut corn yields by 30% – and in some areas, losses could reach 44%. California’s almond industry is already feeling the strain, with water shortages forcing growers to abandon thousands of acres of orchards.
Asia: Rice, the staple for more than half the world’s population, is under direct threat. FAO projections show that by 2050, rice yields across Asia could fall by 15% due to rising temperatures and unpredictable monsoons. Thailand and Vietnam – two of the world’s biggest rice exporters – are already struggling with prolonged droughts, shaking global supply chains.
Indonesia and the Philippines: Archipelagic nations like Indonesia and the Philippines aren’t just battling drought – they’re losing farmland to the sea. Salinisation is creeping inland, making traditional rice paddies unviable. Farmers are being forced to pivot to salt-tolerant and flood-resistant varieties, but adaptation is slow.
Singapore: As a nation that imports more than 90% of its food, Singapore is acutely vulnerable to agricultural disruptions. To counter this, it is betting on vertical farms and gene-edited crops as a way to build a more self-sufficient food supply.

The Urgency for Climate-Resilient Crops

As climate extremes intensify, scientists are in a race against time to engineer crops that can survive the chaos. Governments and research institutions are doubling down on drought-proof wheat, flood-resistant rice, and heat-tolerant corn – hoping to keep food supplies stable in an increasingly unpredictable world.

China: In the country’s northern plains, farmland is turning to dust. Desertification is creeping southward, threatening wheat and rice yields in one of the world’s biggest food producers. In response, China is fast-tracking drought-resistant crop trials, hoping to shore up food security before harvests take a major hit.
Indonesia: Rice paddies are drowning. Every year, typhoons and monsoon floods submerge vast swathes of farmland, wiping out crops overnight. Now, the government is betting on submergence-resistant rice – strains designed to survive weeks underwater. If successful, these biotech varieties could become a lifeline for Southeast Asia’s most populous nation.
Singapore: In a city where farmland is scarce, food security is a growing concern. The island nation imports more than 90% of its food, leaving it vulnerable to supply chain shocks. To counter this, Singapore is betting on gene-edited crops and vertical farms, pushing the boundaries of high-tech agriculture. The government’s 30 by 30 initiative is a bold attempt to produce 30% of the country’s nutritional needs locally by 2030 – a challenge for a nation where skyscrapers vastly outnumber fields.

The science is clear – climate change is moving faster than agriculture can adapt. Farmers are already struggling to keep up. The real battle now isn’t just about innovation – it’s about trust. Will policymakers and the public embrace the science in time to prevent a global food crisis?

The Science Behind Climate-Resilient Crops

The fight to secure the future of food is happening in laboratories as much as in fields. As rising temperatures, droughts, and erratic weather threaten global harvests, scientists are engineering crops that can survive extreme conditions. But not all solutions are the same – some rely on age-old techniques, while others push the boundaries of genetic science.

GMOs vs. CRISPR vs. Selective Breeding: What’s the Difference?

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): This approach involves inserting foreign DNA into a plant’s genome to introduce traits that wouldn’t naturally occur. The most well-known example is Bt corn, which carries a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis – allowing it to produce a protein lethal to insect pests but harmless to humans. Despite widespread use, GMOs remain a flashpoint of debate, with critics raising concerns over long-term ecological impact and corporate control of seeds.
CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats): A revolution in genetic science, CRISPR offers a scalpel-like precision compared to the blunt instrument of traditional GMOs. Instead of inserting foreign DNA, this gene-editing tool allows scientists to modify a plant’s own genes, enhancing traits like drought resistance or disease immunity without introducing external genetic material. Because CRISPR mimics natural mutations, regulators in countries like Japan and the UK are moving to fast-track approvals, arguing it is closer to selective breeding than traditional genetic modification.
Selective Breeding: The oldest agricultural tool in human history, selective breeding has shaped the crops we eat today – from sweeter apples to drought-hardy wheat. Farmers crossbreed plants with favourable traits over multiple generations, slowly refining resilience, flavour, and yield. But in a world where climate change is accelerating, this slow, incremental process may no longer be enough. Unlike CRISPR or GMOs, selective breeding is constrained by what exists in nature, limiting how quickly crops can adapt to rising temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns.

Golden Rice: A Case Study in Asia

A bowl of rice can mean the difference between sight and blindness. In parts of Asia, where rice is a staple but diets lack essential nutrients, millions of children suffer from vitamin A deficiency (VAD), a condition that can cause blindness and even death. Enter Golden Rice – a genetically engineered grain designed to deliver life-saving nutrients to those who need them most. But despite its promise, this crop has spent more time in policy debates than in the hands of farmers.

In the 1990s, scientists Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer set out to solve a deadly problem – how to infuse rice, the primary food source for billions, with a nutrient that could save lives. Their solution: Golden Rice, a genetically modified variety engineered to produce beta-carotene, the precursor to vitamin A. Its distinctive golden hue isn’t just for show – it’s a sign that the grain carries the potential to prevent blindness and child mortality across Asia.

But Golden Rice’s journey from lab to field has been anything but smooth. Activists have torched test plots, anti-GMO campaigns have labelled it “Frankenfood,” and bureaucratic red tape has stalled its approval for years. While scientists hail it as a game-changer for nutrition, critics argue that it opens the door to greater corporate control of the food system and unknown environmental risks. The question remains: is the world ready to accept a genetically engineered solution to malnutrition?

After two decades of political battles and scientific trials, Golden Rice has finally reached farmers’ fields. In 2021, the Philippines became the first country to approve it for commercial cultivation, marking a milestone in the fight against malnutrition. Other nations, including Bangladesh and India, are still weighing its adoption. But even with regulatory green lights, the biggest hurdle remains: Will consumers embrace it?

Science alone won’t decide the fate of Golden Rice – trust will. Dr. Adrian Dubock, one of its leading advocates, believes acceptance hinges on education and transparency. “The successful deployment of biofortified crops like Golden Rice depends not only on scientific innovation but also on building public trust,” he says. That trust, however, has been decades in the making – and is still far from guaranteed.

The Global Divide on Consumer Trust

A technology that can feed the world is also one of the most divisive. While some countries champion biotechnology as the future of farming, others reject it outright, driven by deep-seated cultural beliefs, political decisions, and misinformation. The result? A fractured global food system, where scientific breakthroughs face vastly different levels of consumer acceptance – shaping everything from government policy to supermarket shelves.

Consumer Perception Across Key Markets

United States: Once a battleground for GMO opposition, the US is slowly shifting toward acceptance. A 2020 Pew Research Center survey found that 27% of Americans believe GMOs are safe to eat, while 38% consider them unsafe. Yet, old fears die hard. Supermarket aisles are still packed with “non-GMO” labels, even on foods that have no genetically modified equivalent – more a marketing strategy than a scientific necessity.
China: The government wants biotech crops, but the people remain unconvinced. A 2023 China Agricultural University study found that 55% of Chinese consumers still oppose eating GM foods, citing safety concerns and deep distrust of corporate-controlled agriculture. Yet Beijing isn’t waiting for public sentiment to change. By classifying CRISPR-edited crops as “precision breeding” rather than genetic modification, regulators are pushing forward with gene-edited agriculture – betting that branding will make all the difference.
India: Farmers embrace GM crops. Consumers reject them. The divide couldn’t be clearer. While Indian farmers widely cultivate pest-resistant genetically modified cotton, a Statista survey found that 45% of Indian consumers actively avoid GM foods, citing fears of health risks. Despite this, the government is inching toward approving GM mustard – a decision that has sparked protests and political infighting.
Japan and the United Kingdom: Few places are more resistant to biotech foods than Japan and the UK. In Japan, over 70% of consumers favour “natural” labels, and government restrictions on GMOs remain among the toughest in the world. The UK, meanwhile, has begun rethinking its stance post-Brexit, with officials debating whether gene-edited crops should be regulated separately from traditional GMOs. But consumer sentiment hasn’t caught up to policy changes – demand for organic and non-GMO options remains strong.
Southeast Asia: A region caught between food security concerns and biotech scepticism. The Philippines made history as the first nation to approve Golden Rice, but protests from anti-GMO activists have slowed its rollout. In Indonesia and Thailand, gene-edited crops are being tested, but public scepticism keeps governments cautious. Meanwhile, Singapore – a leader in agritech – is moving ahead with lab-grown and gene-edited foods, though consumer acceptance remains uncertain.

The Role of Misinformation in Fueling Skepticism

Fear spreads faster than facts. Nowhere is this more evident than in the debate over genetically modified foods. Social media has supercharged public scepticism, fueling viral claims about “Frankenfoods” and exaggerated health risks. A recent study in Nature Food found that misinformation about GMOs spreads six times faster than science-backed evidence – giving fear an outsized influence on consumer perception.

“The future of billions of people literally depends on changing the narrative about how we view genetically modified food and genetic technologies,” says Professor Ian Godwin, a plant geneticist at the University of Queensland. “Misinformation has distorted public perception, and we need to refocus the conversation on science, safety, and the role of biotechnology in food security.”

The real challenge isn’t just growing climate-resilient crops – it’s convincing consumers to accept them. With climate change straining global food supplies, the gap between scientific innovation and public perception has never been wider. If biotech crops are to help feed the future, winning public trust may matter just as much as the next agricultural breakthrough.

The Industry’s Strategy to Win Over Consumers

Science is on one side. Public opinion is on the other. Despite overwhelming evidence that genetically engineered crops are safe, scepticism remains one of the biggest hurdles to widespread acceptance. In response, the biotech industry is rethinking its messaging – rebranding GMOs, influencing regulations, and tapping into behavioural science to shift consumer sentiment.

How Food Companies Are Rebranding GMOs and Gene-Editing

The term “GMO” has become a branding disaster. Decades of fear-based messaging have turned it into a red flag for many consumers, prompting biotech firms to distance themselves from the label altogether. Now, companies and policymakers are rewriting the language of genetic innovation – betting that new terminology will reshape public perception.

The new labels sound less like science and more like sustainability slogans:

“Precision Breeding” – the UK’s preferred term, positioning gene-edited crops as an extension of traditional breeding rather than genetic modification.
“Climate-Smart Crops” – a phrase gaining traction, emphasising the role of biotech in reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint.
“Next-Gen Agriculture” – used by industry giants like Bayer and Syngenta to make gene editing sound more futuristic and consumer-friendly.

But this isn’t just a marketing play – it’s a regulatory strategy. In countries like China and the UK, policymakers are reclassifying CRISPR-edited crops as something separate from GMOs, making them easier to approve and less likely to spark consumer backlash. The distinction matters: if gene editing is seen as “breeding” rather than “modification,” it faces fewer restrictions – and far less public scrutiny.

Corporate Investments in Gene-Edited Foods

The race to secure climate-resilient crops isn’t just happening in labs – it’s now a boardroom priority. Major food corporations are pouring millions into biotech investments, betting that gene-edited foods will protect their supply chains from climate shocks and shifting consumer demands.

Nestlé is backing CRISPR-edited coffee beans that can survive rising temperatures without losing flavour or yield – an urgent investment as climate change threatens global coffee production.
Unilever has teamed up with agritech firms to develop gene-edited oilseed crops, positioning gene-editing as a tool to make plant-based foods more sustainable.
PepsiCo is investing in drought-resistant potato strains, aiming to reduce the environmental footprint of its global snack empire.

These corporate bets aren’t just about innovation – they’re about survival. As extreme weather upends agriculture, food giants are moving to insulate their supply chains before climate disruption hits their bottom line.

Can Branding Change the Narrative?

Rebranding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can influence public perception, but it doesn’t alter the underlying realities. Behavioural science indicates that consumer trust is built through education and transparency, not just terminology shifts. A 2022 study by the European Food Safety Authority found that consumers were 40% more likely to accept gene-edited foods when provided with clear, science-backed explanations of their benefits.

Dr. Kevin Folta, a plant scientist at the University of Florida, emphasises the importance of clear communication: “Stop using ‘GMO.’ It is imprecise. Everything not arising as a clone is genetically modified from previous forms.”

The future of food isn’t just about innovation – it’s about persuasion. As climate pressures mount and global food demand rises, gaining consumer trust is essential for genetic breakthroughs to reach their full potential. The stakes extend beyond corporate profits; they encompass the future of global food security.

The Future of Climate-Resilient Crops

The future of food is being rewritten – one policy, one investment, and one breakthrough at a time. As climate change threatens global food systems, governments are redrawing the regulatory landscape for genetically modified and gene-edited crops. Some nations are fast-tracking approvals to ensure food security, while others remain trapped in political and public pushback. Meanwhile, agritech startups are seeing an influx of capital, and carbon markets are emerging as unexpected drivers of sustainable agriculture. The question is no longer if biotech crops will play a role in feeding the future, but how quickly they will be embraced.

How Governments Are Handling Biotech Crops

China is breaking its long-standing GMO hesitation – and food security is the reason. In late 2023, the government greenlit commercial planting of gene-edited soybeans and corn, a major policy shift for the world’s largest food importer. Officials have positioned the move as an economic and strategic necessity – designed to cut reliance on foreign seed technology, boost domestic yields, and protect China’s food supply from worsening climate volatility.

India remains deeply divided on biotech crops. While farmers champion genetic innovation as key to improving yields, environmental groups continue to push back against its expansion. The Supreme Court is now weighing a landmark case on GM mustard, a ruling that could set the tone for future biotech approvals. Farmers argue that modified crops are critical to boosting productivity, but critics warn of corporate seed monopolies and environmental fallout. Despite the deadlock, India has already embraced GM cotton – the question is whether food crops will be next.

Post-Brexit, the UK is embracing biotech in a way the EU never did. In 2023, lawmakers fast-tracked the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act, slashing EU-era restrictions and making Britain a testing ground for gene-edited agriculture. Officials argue that CRISPR crops should not be lumped together with traditional GMOs – a move designed to attract investment in gene-edited wheat, oilseeds, and climate-resilient fruits. With fewer regulatory hurdles, the UK is positioning itself as a biotech leader in Europe.

Southeast Asia is turning to biotech and urban farming to secure its food future. Singapore is leading the charge with its “30 by 30” initiative, investing heavily in vertical farming and gene-edited crops to meet 30% of its nutritional needs domestically by 2030. Indonesia, meanwhile, is channelling capital into agritech startups focused on climate-resilient crops – but policymakers remain wary of fully legalising GMOs. The region’s approach reflects a balancing act between food security and public caution.

Investment Trends in Biotech Agriculture

Biotech investment is no longer a niche bet – it’s a global race. As climate volatility disrupts food production, investors are pouring capital into agricultural biotechnology, betting that genetic innovation will be the key to long-term food security. The global agri-biotech market is projected to hit $104 billion by 2030, fueled by demand for climate-smart crops, precision breeding, and gene-editing breakthroughs.

Venture capital is chasing the next frontier in food tech: gene-editing. Unlike traditional GMOs, CRISPR-edited crops face fewer regulatory hurdles, making them a safer bet for investors. Startups like Tropic Biosciences, Pairwise, and Inari Agriculture have secured major funding rounds, developing crops such as fungus-resistant coffee and nutrient-enhanced leafy greens. The appeal is clear – gene-edited foods promise climate resilience without the regulatory baggage of older biotech crops.

The Role of Carbon Markets in Driving Adoption

The future of biotech crops could be shaped by an unlikely force: carbon markets. Indonesia and Vietnam are rolling out carbon credit initiatives that reward farmers for adopting regenerative agriculture practices – including biotech crops that boost soil health and reduce chemical inputs. If these incentives take off, farmers could be financially rewarded for planting gene-edited crops that sequester carbon, use less water, or cut fertilizer reliance. This shift could turn biotech adoption into not just an environmental decision, but an economic one.

Biotech crops are no longer just a scientific breakthrough – they are becoming an economic and political necessity. The intersection of government policy, venture capital, and sustainability incentives is redefining agriculture, with gene-edited crops at the centre of the debate. While regulatory fights continue, one thing is clear: the success of biotech crops won’t be decided in labs – it will be decided by farmers, investors, and consumers.

The Race Between Innovation and Acceptance

Climate change isn’t waiting for regulatory approvals or consumer sentiment to catch up. Extreme weather is already reducing global crop yields, disrupting supply chains, and putting food security at risk in regions dependent on staple crops like wheat, rice, and corn. Scientists are engineering solutions, policymakers are reshaping regulations, and agribusinesses are scaling up climate-resilient crops – but none of it matters if regulatory roadblocks and consumer hesitancy delay adoption.

Some nations are moving forward. China and the UK are accelerating approvals for gene-edited crops, while India and Southeast Asia remain caught between the urgency of food security and deep-rooted public hesitation. The industry has rebranded, investors are funnelling billions into biotech, and breakthroughs have produced crops that can withstand extreme heat, require less water, and resist disease.

For climate-resilient crops to reach their potential, three critical shifts must take place:

Public education must dismantle outdated GMO fears – moving beyond decades-old misconceptions and clearly explaining how modern gene editing differs.
Companies must change how they communicate biotech benefits – focusing on sustainability and nutrition rather than technical jargon that alienates consumers.
Regulators must find a balance between public trust and innovation – streamlining approvals without ignoring consumer concerns.

The future of food security won’t be decided in labs – it will be decided in grocery aisles, political chambers, and consumer conversations. The race between scientific progress and public acceptance will determine whether climate-resilient crops become a global necessity – or a solution that came too late.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

In Brazil’s Cerrado Mineiro region, coffee farmer Marcelo Montanari is redefining what it means to grow coffee in a changing climate. By interplanting native trees with his coffee crops and reducing chemical use, he’s not just nurturing healthier soil – he’s building resilience against the unpredictable swings of climate change. This shift hasn’t gone unnoticed. Global coffee giants like Nespresso and Illycaffè are seeking partnerships with farmers like Montanari as they shift toward sustainable sourcing.

Once confined to niche eco-farms, regenerative agriculture has now caught the attention of food industry leaders such as General Mills, Nestlé, and Unilever. Their growing investments in soil health aren’t solely about boosting crop yields; they’re responding to a more powerful catalyst – consumers demanding tangible proof of sustainability.

The familiar green labels of the past – “organic,” “non-GMO” – no longer carry the same influence. Today’s consumers, especially Gen Z and millennials, are asking sharper questions: What is this product’s long-term environmental impact? Where does it come from? Brands unable to provide clear answers risk more than lost sales; they risk fading into irrelevance in a market driven by sustainability-conscious buyers.

The Science Behind Regenerative Farming

Regenerative farming is more than just the latest sustainability trend – it represents a shift in thinking about how food is grown. Unlike conventional farming, which prioritises high yields often at the expense of soil health, regenerative practices aim to restore the land. The goal is simple: rebuild soil vitality, enhance biodiversity, and create farms that capture and store carbon.

At the heart of regenerative farming are a few key principles:

Reducing Soil Disturbance: Minimal tilling preserves soil structure, improves moisture retention, and supports thriving microbial ecosystems.
Crop Diversity: Rotating a variety of crops maintains nutrient balance, disrupts pest cycles, and reduces dependency on chemical inputs.
Cover Crops: Plants like clover and radish protect against erosion, enrich the soil, and prevent nutrient depletion between growing seasons.
Integrating Livestock: Managed grazing mirrors natural ecosystems, with livestock contributing to soil fertility as part of the regenerative cycle.

The Carbon Sequestration Question

Perhaps the most ambitious claim of regenerative agriculture is its potential to combat climate change by capturing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in the soil. Some studies suggest it could sequester up to 10 billion tons of CO₂ annually – comparable to emissions from the global transportation sector. However, this promise remains under scrutiny. Critics point out that carbon capture rates can vary widely depending on climate conditions, soil types, and farming practices.

How Buying Habits Are Reshaping Farming

A decade ago, “organic” was the gold standard for eco-conscious consumers. Today, its appeal is fading. While organic farming limits synthetic chemicals, it doesn’t always enhance soil health or biodiversity. Regenerative practices go further – restoring ecosystems, capturing carbon, and rebuilding soil fertility.

Consumer awareness is surging. According to The Hartman Group, 40% of US consumers now recognise “regenerative agriculture,” a sharp increase from just 10% five years ago. A 2024 NYU Stern survey found that 65% of values-driven shoppers are willing to pay a premium for products grown using regenerative methods. But this shift isn’t just about spending power – it’s about cultural influence.

Gen Z and millennials are redefining corporate accountability. A single viral TikTok can expose a brand’s empty sustainability claims in hours. For example, Oatly faced backlash after consumers highlighted an investor’s ties to deforestation.

Today, consumers demand more than green labels – they want proof. QR codes on packaging trace sourcing origins, while certifications like Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) and Land to Market provide independent verification. Food influencers dissect supply chains for millions of followers, making greenwashing increasingly difficult.

The economic benefits are clear. A study by the Soil Health Institute found that US farmers experienced a 78% increase in per-acre profits for corn and a 29% boost for soybeans after adopting regenerative methods, thanks to reduced input costs.

Corporations are responding with significant investments:

General Mills: Targeting 1 million acres under regenerative practices by 2030 to improve soil health for products like Cheerios.
Nestlé: Committing over $1 billion globally to regenerative agriculture programs.
Danone: Expanding regenerative dairy initiatives in the US and Europe to lower methane emissions.

Regenerative products are entering the mainstream. Whole Foods has introduced a dedicated “Regenerative Agriculture” section, while retailers like Walmart and Kroger are pushing suppliers to adopt regenerative practices. The message is clear: adapt or risk being left behind.

The Corporate Pivot to Regenerative Farming

Regenerative agriculture has entered the mainstream, but corporate commitments vary significantly. Some brands are making substantial investments, while others rely on broad pledges with minimal follow-through.

General Mills: Invested $2 million in regenerative wheat pilot programs, incorporating the results into products like Cheerios.
Nestlé: Partnering with over 500,000 farmers worldwide, focusing on soil restoration efforts in Vietnam, Brazil, and Côte d’Ivoire.
Unilever: Committed to sourcing 100% of its agricultural ingredients from regenerative farms by 2030, though specific strategies remain vague.

Critics argue that many corporate sustainability initiatives prioritise optics over impact. While bold acreage targets make headlines, the absence of clear metrics raises questions: How much carbon will actually be sequestered? What verification systems are in place to track soil health improvements?

Companies are eager to showcase their regenerative sourcing efforts, but often fall short of providing what farmers need most: financial security. Without incentives such as premium pricing or long-term contracts, the financial burden of transitioning to regenerative practices – which requires significant upfront investment – rests heavily on farmers.

Regenerative agriculture is more than a marketing trend; it requires a fundamental overhaul of supply chains. For corporations to make a genuine impact, they must move beyond PR-driven commitments and invest in initiatives with measurable, transparent outcomes.

Tech in Regenerative Agriculture

While the principles of regenerative agriculture are rooted in traditional land stewardship – such as crop rotation, reduced tillage, and soil health management – the future of this movement may depend on technology. Digital tools, artificial intelligence (AI), and blockchain are reshaping how farmers manage their fields, how companies verify sustainability claims, and how consumers trace the origins of their food.

The Challenge of Measurement

One of the biggest hurdles in regenerative agriculture is measuring impact. Unlike organic certification, which relies on specific criteria like pesticide restrictions, regenerative agriculture focuses on outcomes such as soil health, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity. This is where AI becomes invaluable.

Companies like Indigo Agriculture are leveraging AI-powered platforms to monitor soil carbon levels with remarkable precision. By analyzing satellite imagery, soil samples, and weather data, AI models can track changes in soil organic matter, moisture retention, and microbial activity. This not only helps farmers optimise regenerative practices but also provides verifiable data for companies striving to meet sustainability goals.

For instance, Indigo’s Terraton Initiative claims to have sequestered over 20 million metric tons of CO₂ through regenerative projects, with AI-driven models validating these outcomes. As corporate climate commitments face increasing scrutiny, this technology plays a crucial role in ensuring accountability.

Blockchain and the Future of Food Transparency

Beyond measuring soil health, blockchain technology is emerging as a powerful tool for supply chain traceability. In regenerative agriculture, where verifiable proof of sustainability is essential, blockchain’s ability to create tamper-proof digital records is invaluable.

Consider Provenance, a UK-based tech company that uses blockchain to authenticate sustainability claims for food brands. Through QR codes on packaging, consumers can trace products back to specific farms, accessing data on soil health practices, carbon footprints, and even farmer testimonials. This level of transparency has moved beyond marketing – it’s becoming a consumer expectation.

The Intersection of Tradition and Technology

While regenerative agriculture often conjures images of pastoral landscapes and time-honoured farming practices, its future is increasingly tied to data science. AI and blockchain won’t replace traditional methods, but they will be critical tools for scaling them. In an era where “trust but verify” defines consumer-brand relationships, technology is no longer optional – it’s the foundation of the regenerative movement.

Case Study: Nestlé’s Regenerative Coffee Farming in Vietnam

Image credit: Global Coffee Report

In Vietnam’s Central Highlands, coffee farms sprawl across the landscape, anchoring one of the country’s key exports. Yet beneath this agricultural success lies an ecosystem under strain – soil degradation, water scarcity, and the escalating impacts of climate change are taking a toll. Nestlé’s Nescafé Plan 2030, a billion-dollar initiative, aims to address these challenges through regenerative farming practices.

The Problem: Coffee Under Pressure

As the world’s second-largest coffee producer, Vietnam has leaned heavily on intensive farming to meet global demand. This approach, marked by chemical fertilizers and monocropping, has eroded soil health, reduced yields, and strained water resources, jeopardising the long-term sustainability of coffee cultivation.

The Approach: Scaling Regenerative Practices

Since its launch in 2010 and expansion under the Nescafé Plan 2030, Nestlé has partnered with over 100,000 Vietnamese farmers to implement practices aimed at restoring soil health and enhancing climate resilience:

Agroforestry: Intercropping coffee with shade trees to regulate soil temperature, conserve moisture, and support biodiversity.
Cover Cropping: Using legumes and grasses to improve soil fertility, reduce erosion, and naturally replenish nitrogen.
Precision Irrigation: Introducing water-efficient techniques, cutting usage by up to 20% on pilot farms.
Organic Fertilizers: Transitioning from synthetic inputs to compost and biofertilizers to boost soil microbiome health.

The Impact: Promising but Limited

Nestlé’s internal assessments and independent evaluations report notable gains:

Carbon Reduction: Up to a 20% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of coffee.
Water Efficiency: A 30% improvement in soil moisture retention, vital in drought-prone areas.
Biodiversity: A 50% rise in beneficial insect populations, reducing reliance on pesticides.

Beyond the Farm: Economic Shifts

Farmers involved in the program have seen yield increases of 15–20% and lower costs for fertilizers and irrigation. Nestlé has also introduced training in financial literacy and farm management, encouraging data-driven decision-making.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite these results, questions linger. Critics argue that corporate-led regenerative projects often overpromise and underdeliver. Concerns include the scalability of these practices, the potential for increased farmer dependency on corporate programs, and the lack of standardised metrics to evaluate success across different regions.

A Model for the Future?

Nestlé’s regenerative coffee program in Vietnam highlights both the potential and limitations of corporate-driven sustainability initiatives. Whether this model can be replicated at scale remains uncertain. As climate risks intensify, regenerative agriculture may shift from an experimental approach to a necessity – but its true impact will depend on measurable outcomes..

Will Regenerative Farming Become the Norm?

For regenerative agriculture to move from the margins to the mainstream, government policy will be pivotal. Some nations are already taking steps:

United States: The Farm Bill now includes provisions supporting regenerative practices.
European Union: Subsidies are in place to encourage carbon sequestration farming methods.
India: Pilot programs aim to improve soil fertility and combat desertification.

Yet, regulatory frameworks remain inconsistent. Without standardised definitions and third-party oversight, there’s a risk that “regenerative” could become just another marketing buzzword.

Retailers & Restaurants Drive the Shift

Beyond government action, major retailers and restaurant chains are shaping the future of farming. Companies like Whole Foods, Walmart, and McDonald’s are integrating regenerative sourcing into their procurement strategies. The transformation is underway – the challenge now is how quickly and effectively it scales.

The New Farming Economy

Regenerative agriculture isn’t just changing how we farm; it’s reshaping the agricultural economy. Over the next decade, the divide will grow between companies that embrace meaningful change and those that rely on superficial greenwashing.

The Winners: Farmers and Brands Leading the Transition

Farmers who adopt regenerative practices early stand to gain the most. Studies show these methods reduce costs for fertilizers, pesticides, and water while boosting yields and improving soil health. Early adopters can secure premium contracts with brands eager to showcase sustainability leadership. Companies like Patagonia Provisions and General Mills are offering financial incentives and long-term partnerships to farmers committed to regenerative methods.

Retailers are also capitalising on this shift. Whole Foods has launched dedicated regenerative product lines, while chains like Chipotle are expanding their commitment to sustainably sourced ingredients. Investors are following suit, with climate-focused venture capital funds backing regenerative food startups in response to growing consumer demand.

The Losers: Brands That Fail to Adapt

Not all companies will keep pace. The food industry has a history of sustainability promises that fell flat. Coca-Cola, for example, pledged to become “water neutral” by 2020 but quietly abandoned the goal when it proved unattainable. Consumers and watchdog groups are increasingly scrutinizing such claims, and companies that rely on cosmetic changes risk reputational damage and lost market share.

Industries tied to traditional, extractive farming practices – like fertilizer and pesticide manufacturers – also face challenges. As demand for synthetic inputs declines, these companies will need to pivot toward sustainable solutions or risk obsolescence.

The Big Question: Will Regenerative Agriculture Be Mandated?

Governments are already experimenting with mandates related to carbon sequestration. The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) includes financial incentives for soil regeneration, while California’s Healthy Soils Program offers grants for carbon-capturing practices. If these models expand globally, companies that fail to adapt could face financial penalties, carbon taxes, or restricted market access.

The financial sector is also taking note. Banks and insurers are beginning to assess soil health as part of lending and risk evaluations. Poor soil management could soon translate into higher borrowing costs or lower land valuations.

The Road Ahead

Regenerative farming won’t become the norm overnight. The shift requires systemic changes in agriculture, business, and policy. But those who adapt – whether they are farmers, corporations, or governments – will be better positioned in the evolving food economy.

The future of food won’t be decided in boardrooms alone. It will be shaped by the choices consumers make every day. The question isn’t whether regenerative agriculture will take hold – it’s whether companies can keep up.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

Food and beverage giants are scrambling to keep up with shifting consumer demands. Shoppers want healthier ingredients, fair prices – not smaller portions – and full transparency on what they’re buying. With inflation squeezing budgets and a growing backlash against shrinkflation, companies are under pressure to rethink everything from product sizes to formulations or risk losing consumer trust.

PepsiCo’s Q4 2024 numbers tell the story: net revenue dipped 0.2%, with its Frito-Lay (-3%), Quaker Foods (-6%), and beverage (-3%) segments taking hits. In response, the company is pushing portion control and value packs – smaller products positioned as both health-friendly and cost-effective. CEO Ramon Laguarta calls it a ‘highly strategic’ move, but consumers see it differently: is this genuine innovation or just shrinkflation in disguise?

It’s a paradox: consumers want affordability but won’t tolerate shrinkflation. In the US and UK, outrage over downsized products is growing, with brands accused of sneaky pricing tactics. But in Southeast Asia, smaller portions aren’t a scandal – they’re a selling point. Brands that market ‘value packs’ instead of just shrinking products are finding success in price-sensitive markets.

With health concerns, inflation, and shifting regional preferences reshaping consumer priorities, food and beverage brands are in a race to adapt before their loyal customers disappear.

The Health-First Consumer Is Reshaping the Industry

Health-conscious consumers are forcing brands to rethink ingredients, reformulate products, and move away from ultra-processed foods. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this shift, with shoppers scrutinising sugar content, artificial additives, and seed oils more than ever.

A 2024 survey by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) found that 79% of American consumers consider food processing levels when making purchases – up from 66% in 2020. In the UK, supermarkets are cutting back on promotions for high-fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS) products in response to new regulations. Meanwhile, social media scrutiny has exploded, with viral posts slamming seed oils, artificial dyes, and hidden sugars in processed snacks. Food giants have no choice but to adapt – or lose market share.

A Regional Divide in Health Trends

While Western markets are turning against ultra-processed foods, the trend looks different in Southeast Asia. Singapore is leading the charge with government-backed initiatives promoting healthier eating. The Healthier Choice Symbol program and sugar taxes are pushing brands to reformulate products to meet stricter national health standards.

Elsewhere in the region, the health movement is less clear-cut. In Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam, demand for functional foods is rising, especially among the urban middle class. But price still rules – health-conscious products must stay affordable. Instead of ditching processed foods, many consumers are opting for fortified options like probiotic dairy or ‘better-for-you’ snacks.

How Food Giants Are Reformulating Products

To keep up, major brands are investing in health-focused innovation. PepsiCo’s $1.2 billion acquisition of Siete Foods – known for grain-free, gluten-free snacks – signals a push into the clean-label movement. Nestlé is betting big on plant-based proteins and dairy alternatives, doubling down on the shift toward natural and functional foods.

As consumer priorities shift, brands are walking a tightrope – balancing taste, affordability, and the rising demand for transparency. The industry is changing fast, and companies that fail to adapt risk becoming irrelevant.

The Inflation Dilemma and the Shrinkflation Backlash

As inflation squeezes household budgets, food and beverage brands are making tough pricing decisions. Some have raised prices outright, while others have turned to shrinkflation – reducing portion sizes while keeping prices the same. But consumers aren’t fooled, and backlash is growing.

A McKinsey report found that over 60% of global consumers now track product sizes and pricing changes. Social media has amplified the frustration, with brands like Cadbury and PepsiCo called out for reducing product weight while keeping prices steady. Toblerone even faced outrage for widening the gaps between its signature chocolate peaks – seen as a sneaky price hike.

The Shrinkflation Paradox

Brands say shrinkflation is necessary to offset rising costs, especially as ingredient prices fluctuate. But the strategy is a double-edged sword:”

Companies shrink portions to protect profit margins without raising retail prices.
Consumers notice – and they aren’t happy, seeing it as a hidden price hike.
Governments are stepping in. France, India, and Malaysia are calling for clearer product labelling to curb deceptive packaging.

In the UK, regulators are pressuring brands to disclose when product sizes shrink. In the US, consumer complaints are mounting, prompting retailers like Walmart to push back against suppliers reducing portion sizes.

A Different Response in Southeast Asia

While Western consumers reject shrinkflation outright, Southeast Asia takes a more practical approach. Price is the priority, and many shoppers accept smaller portions – if they come in value packs or multipack bundles. Instead of quietly shrinking products, brands in the region market smaller portions as cost-saving options.

This strategy fits local preferences. In Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam, single-serve and ‘on-the-go’ formats are booming, especially among younger consumers looking for affordable convenience. Nestlé and Mondelez have responded with mini packs of popular snacks, marketing them as budget-friendly rather than sneaky price hikes.

Turning Shrinkflation Into a Marketing Strategy

To counter backlash, some brands are spinning shrinkflation as a health-conscious choice. PepsiCo markets its smaller snack packs as ‘portion control’ options, framing them as a wellness move rather than a cost-cutting tactic. Coca-Cola’s mini-cans follow the same playbook, targeting health-conscious consumers instead of budget-conscious ones.

With inflation squeezing both companies and consumers, the pricing battle is far from over. Whether through transparency, portion control, or government intervention, food brands must strike a balance between affordability and trust – or risk losing loyalty.

The Rise of Portion Control as a Market Strategy

Portion control is no longer just a diet trend – it’s now a core strategy for food and beverage brands adapting to shifting health and economic pressures. Once a niche tactic for calorie-conscious consumers, it has gone mainstream, fueled by rising obesity concerns and the growing influence of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs like Ozempic

A Morgan Stanley report estimates that GLP-1 drugs could cut US calorie consumption by up to 10% in the coming years, as users eat less and prefer smaller portions. Food brands are already adapting, rolling out smaller servings, reformulated products, and snack-size options to match changing eating habits.

Regional Differences in Portion Control

Portion control is a global trend, but how it’s marketed differs by region:

In the US and UK, brands are positioning smaller portions as a tool for calorie management and weight control. Products like Coca-Cola’s 7.5-ounce mini-cans and Mondelez’s reduced-size snack packs cater to consumers who are actively trying to reduce sugar and calorie intake.
In Southeast Asia, portion control is about value, not dieting. Budget-conscious consumers in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam prefer multipacks and individually wrapped servings for controlled spending and convenience. Nestlé and Unilever have leaned into this, marketing smaller products as cost-effective solutions, especially in cities where disposable income is tight.

PepsiCo’s Portion Control Playbook

PepsiCo is leading the charge on portion control. With sales slipping across its Frito-Lay, Quaker Foods, and beverage segments, the company has doubled down on single-serve and multipack options, marketing them as both healthier and budget-friendly.

CEO Ramon Laguarta calls portion control a long-term strategy, not just a response to economic pressures. By rolling out smaller Lay’s chip bags, Gatorade bottles, and Quaker oat packs, PepsiCo hopes to keep customers loyal while adjusting to changing eating habits.

Portion control is no longer just a diet trend – it’s now a core business strategy. Whether sold as a health-conscious move or a cost-saving measure, it’s here to stay. The shift is reshaping how food brands market and package products in an age of rising health awareness and economic caution.

Southeast Asia’s Unique Consumer Trends and Responses

In the West, portion control is about calories. In Southeast Asia, it’s about cost. Price sensitivity still dominates, but demand for healthier, premium products is rising. That leaves brands walking a fine line – balancing affordability for the mass market with high-quality options for urban consumers willing to pay more.

A Dual Consumer Base: Price-Conscious vs. Health-Focused

In Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam, affordability still drives purchases, with consumers favouring cost-effective, single-serve options over bulk buys. But a rising middle class and exposure to global health trends are boosting demand for fortified foods, local superfoods, and functional drinks.

In Singapore, where consumer preferences lean heavily toward health-conscious choices, government initiatives are further shaping the industry. The city-state’s Nutri-Grade labelling system, which categorises beverages based on sugar and saturated fat content, has pushed brands to reformulate drinks to avoid lower-grade ratings. According to Nielsen’s Southeast Asia Consumer Trends Report, demand for low-sugar and naturally sweetened beverages has surged in urban centres, reflecting a broader shift toward mindful consumption.

A Growing Preference for Local and Natural Ingredients

While Western markets focus on plant-based and protein-enriched foods, Southeast Asian consumers favour traditional, natural ingredients. Products with pandan, coconut sugar, turmeric, and herbal infusions are gaining ground, seen as both functional and culturally familiar.

Brands are taking note and adjusting their portfolios:

Nestlé has expanded its fortified dairy and cereal lines, adding local flavours to appeal to Southeast Asian tastes.
Unilever has reengineered its ice cream portfolio, developing lower-sugar and plant-based alternatives specifically for the region.
PepsiCo has reformulated Quaker Oats, using local grains and flavors to appeal to Southeast Asian consumers..

Regulation-Driven Reformulations

Governments in the region are shaping food trends. Beyond Singapore’s Nutri-Grade system, Malaysia and Thailand have taxed sugary drinks, pushing brands to cut sugar and create healthier alternatives.

Winning in Southeast Asia means going hyper-local – balancing affordability, tradition, and innovation. With urban consumers embracing healthier choices, brands that navigate these demands will be best positioned to thrive.

The Future of Food and Beverage Brands in a Changing Market

Consumer preferences aren’t just influencing the food industry – they’re reshaping it. Legacy brands are scrambling to keep up, forced to balance health-conscious reformulations, affordability, and regional differences while dodging the backlash against shrinkflation – all without sacrificing profits.

The era of mass-market, one-size-fits-all food is ending. Consumers from New York to Singapore are scrutinising labels, rejecting artificial additives, and demanding transparency. Clean-label products – those with simple, recognisable ingredients – are now a $180 billion industry, and Innova Market Insights expects them to keep growing at double-digit rates.

A New Era of Food Innovation

The next wave of food innovation is here. Functional foods, alternative proteins, and sustainable ingredients are no longer niche – they’re mainstream. Nestlé and Unilever are expanding plant-based dairy, while startups push lab-grown proteins and allergen-free snacks.

Pricing strategies are shifting. Shrinkflation backlash has forced brands to rethink how they price and package products. Instead of sneaky downsizing, companies are testing tiered packaging – premium, mid-tier, and value options – to cater to different buyers. Coca-Cola’s mini-cans and PepsiCo’s single-serve packs prove that portion size is becoming a choice, not a trick.

Who Will Win the Consumer Loyalty Battle?

Can legacy brands adapt, or will disruptors take their place? History shows big players can evolve – McDonald’s revamped its menu for the health-conscious, and PepsiCo is pivoting to cleaner, portion-controlled products. But the game has changed. Consumers have more choices, more information, and more power than ever.

The winners will be the brands that listen, adapt, and innovate – not just react. The losers? They risk becoming relics of an industry that couldn’t keep up.

Kadence is a global market research firm helping food and beverage brands decode consumer behavior, price sensitivity, and taste preferences. If you want to understand how packaging changes impact demand – and what drives buyers’ choices – reach out to us.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced sweeping changes to how nutritional information is displayed on packaged foods. Under a rule proposed on January 14, 2025, food manufacturers would be required to feature a prominent “Nutrition Info box” on the front of most packages. This new labelling system aims to simplify consumer choices by categorising key nutrients – saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars – as “low,” “medium,” or “high,” offering a straightforward snapshot of a product’s health profile.

This initiative addresses mounting concerns over diet-related chronic diseases like diabetes and heart conditions, which place an increasing burden on public health systems. By streamlining how nutritional content is presented, the FDA seeks to empower consumers to make healthier choices quickly. The public has until May 16, 2025, to comment on the proposal, which could take effect as early as 2028 if finalised.

The proposal builds on recent FDA initiatives, including updates to the definition of “healthy” labelling and revisions to the Nutrition Facts panel. These efforts underscore a broader push for transparency and accountability in the food industry, setting the stage for a paradigm shift that could transform how consumers, manufacturers, and marketers engage with food products.

Countries like Australia, the UK, and Chile have pioneered FOP labelling systems, reshaping consumer behaviour and driving industry reform. The US now aims to join this global push for nutritional transparency, marking a critical step in aligning domestic policies with international trends.

Breaking Down the FDA’s Proposal

The FDA’s proposal represents a pivotal shift in how nutritional information will appear on packaged foods. At its core is the mandatory placement of a “Nutrition Info box” on the front of most packages, categorising saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars as “low,” “medium,” or “high” based on established dietary thresholds. This design aims to provide consumers with immediate, clear insights, eliminating the need to search for details on the back of the packaging.

The proposed changes respond to escalating public health challenges tied to diet-related conditions. With nearly 42% of American adults classified as obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the FDA sees clear labelling as a vital tool to promote healthier dietary choices and combat chronic diseases.

Industry Reactions

Industry reactions to the FDA’s proposal have been divided. Health advocacy groups applaud the initiative’s potential to simplify nutrition labelling and encourage informed choices. Meanwhile, food manufacturers voice concerns over the costs of redesigning packaging and reformulating products. Some critics warn that simplified labels may sacrifice nuance, potentially misleading consumers about broader nutritional contexts.

Despite expected industry resistance, the FDA remains firm in its commitment to align US policies with global standards for nutritional transparency. The underlying message is clear: food manufacturers must evolve to meet the demands of a health-conscious consumer base.

Learning from Global Approaches to Nutritional Transparency

As the US moves toward implementing new nutrition labelling, lessons from countries like Australia, the UK, and Chile provide critical insights into the challenges and opportunities ahead. These case studies reveal how policy changes can reshape consumer behaviour and transform industry practices.

Australia: The Health Star Rating System

Australia’s Health Star Rating system, launched in 2014, rates foods on a 0.5 to 5-star scale to help consumers quickly gauge nutritional quality. Ratings consider key factors like sugar, sodium, and saturated fat, as well as beneficial elements such as protein and fibre, offering a balanced assessment of overall healthiness.

Impact on Consumer Choices:
Research shows the Health Star Rating system has reshaped consumer habits, particularly among health-conscious buyers. Products with higher ratings consistently drive sales, demonstrating the power of clear, accessible labelling in influencing choices.

Industry Adaptation:
Manufacturers have adapted by reformulating products to secure higher ratings, often lowering sugar and sodium levels. Many brands now feature star ratings prominently in marketing, using them to stand out in competitive markets.

United Kingdom: The Traffic Light Labeling System

The UK’s traffic light labelling system, launched in 2013, uses red, yellow, and green to indicate high, moderate, or low levels of calories, sugar, fat, and salt. This intuitive design offers consumers a quick and clear understanding of a product’s nutritional content.

Consumer Preferences:
Studies reveal the colour-coded system resonates with consumers, simplifying the identification of healthier choices. Shoppers consistently favour traffic light labels over numeric formats, especially during time-pressed grocery trips.

Influence on Buying Behavior:
The traffic light system has been linked to shifts in consumer purchasing patterns, with a measurable decline in sales of products marked with red indicators. This has prompted many manufacturers to reformulate products, particularly those high in sugar and salt, to avoid red labels and maintain competitiveness.

Chile and Latin America: Warning Labels for High-Risk Nutrients

Chile led the way in 2016 with mandatory warning labels, using bold black-and-white icons to flag products high in sugar, sodium, calories, or saturated fat. This model has since been adopted across Latin America, including Peru, Mexico, and Uruguay.

Impact on Product Development:
The warning labels spurred widespread product reformulation. Many companies lowered sugar content to avoid high-sugar warnings, a designation that risks alienating health-conscious shoppers.

Marketing Adjustments:
Marketing practices have also been affected, as products with multiple warning labels often face negative consumer perceptions. Some brands have shifted focus to promoting healthier product lines and emphasising natural ingredients to rebuild trust.

Key Takeaways

Simplified, Visual Information Drives Change: Systems like traffic light labels and warning icons show that consumers respond well to clear, easily interpretable information.
Reformulation as a Competitive Necessity: Mandatory labelling often pushes brands to improve nutritional profiles, particularly to avoid negative perceptions tied to high-risk nutrients.
Consumer Education is Crucial: Transparency initiatives are most effective when paired with public education campaigns that help consumers understand and use the information provided.
Balancing Regulation with Branding: US manufacturers will need to find ways to comply with FOP requirements without sacrificing brand identity, drawing inspiration from global strategies that blend health messaging with effective marketing.

The US now has an opportunity to leverage these global learnings, ensuring its approach not only improves public health outcomes but also fosters innovation and accountability across the food industry.

Consumer Trends and the Appetite for Transparency

US consumers are calling for greater clarity in food labelling. According to a 2023 International Food Information Council (IFIC) survey, 63% of Americans actively look for nutritional details when shopping, a sharp increase in recent years. Yet nearly half report feeling overwhelmed by current labels, underscoring the need for clear FOP solutions.

Generational Insights: Millennials and Gen Z Leading the Charge

Millennials (Born 1981–1996):
Millennials are spearheading the clean-label movement, prioritising transparency and simplicity in ingredients. Compared to older generations, they are more likely to scrutinise labels for added sugars, sodium, and artificial additives, making clear labelling a key factor in their purchasing decisions.
Gen Z (Born 1997–2012):
Gen Z, raised in an age of instant access to information, demands quick, digestible details from brands. A 2024 NielsenIQ study found that 72% of Gen Z shoppers are willing to pay more for foods they consider healthier, with clear FOP labelling playing a pivotal role in influencing their perceptions.

These generational shifts have made transparency not just a preference but a baseline expectation for food brands, influencing how companies market their products and connect with their target audiences.

Transparency Reshaping Purchasing Behaviors

Health-Conscious Choices:
Consumers are increasingly rejecting products that are perceived as unhealthy. FOP labels categorising nutrients as “low,” “medium,” or “high” will help shoppers avoid items high in added sugars, saturated fats, or sodium.
Trust as a Deciding Factor:
Transparency builds trust, and brands with clear, honest labelling are far more likely to secure consumer loyalty. A 2023 Label Insight report found that 94% of consumers favour brands they perceive as transparent.
Impact on Market Segments:
The number of products marketed as “natural,” “organic,” or “low-sugar” has already risen, and clearer labelling is expected to accelerate this trend. Conversely, brands with poor nutritional profiles may see consumers shift to competitors with healthier options.

Transparency is no longer optional – it’s a baseline expectation for today’s informed, health-conscious consumers. As the FDA’s FOP labelling proposal advances, brands that embrace this demand will position themselves to succeed in an increasingly competitive market.

The Role of Package Testing in Adapting to FOP Labels

Adapting to the FDA’s new labelling rules brings challenges but also opens doors for innovation. Market research, especially package testing, is critical for meeting regulatory demands while keeping consumers engaged. By leveraging targeted testing methods, brands can fine-tune packaging to deliver clear nutritional information and maximise consumer appeal.

A/B Testing: Fine-Tuning Label Design and Placement

A/B testing enables brands to compare FOP label designs and identify what best captures consumer attention. For example, testing can assess:

Label placement, such as top-centre versus lower-left.
Colour schemes that balance brand identity with regulatory compliance.
Font size and style to enhance readability and impact.

By evaluating consumer preferences and purchase intent, A/B testing ensures packaging meets FDA standards without sacrificing visual appeal or branding.

Eye-Tracking Studies: Decoding Consumer Behavior

Eye-tracking studies provide detailed insights into how consumers engage with FOP labels. These studies help brands analyze:

Label visibility: Which parts of the packaging draw attention first?
Information retention: Are key nutritional details noticed and remembered?
Purchase intent: How do FOP labels influence buying decisions?

By understanding visual patterns, brands can optimise label size, placement, and design to ensure critical information stands out in busy retail settings.

Message Testing: Highlighting What Matters Most

Message testing helps brands pinpoint the nutritional claims that resonate most with their audience. This includes:

Testing phrases like “low sugar” or “high protein” to determine their influence on consumer perceptions.
Simplifying complex nutritional concepts without compromising accuracy.
Identifying regional and demographic differences in nutrient priorities to refine messaging.

Effective market research can uncover both opportunities and risks, such as the potential trade-offs between sugar reduction and perceived taste quality.

Real-World Examples of Package Testing Success

Investing in package testing equips brands to navigate the FDA’s FOP labelling rules with precision. These tools not only ensure compliance but also help optimise packaging to meet consumer expectations and build loyalty in an evolving, health-conscious market.

Nestlé: In Chile, where warning labels are mandatory, Nestlé used A/B testing to redesign packaging, reducing negative perceptions of sugar content while maintaining a family-friendly appeal. These changes, paired with product reformulation, boosted consumer trust.

Kellogg’s: In the UK, Kellogg’s used eye-tracking studies to refine traffic light labels, ensuring key nutritional data stood out. The result: improved consumer confidence and stronger alignment with health-conscious buyers.

PepsiCo: In Australia, PepsiCo conducted message testing before launching a low-sodium snack line. The term “reduced salt” was replaced with “balanced sodium,” which resonated better with consumers and drove sales growth.

Winning Strategies for Food Marketers

The FDA’s proposed labelling rules are more than a compliance hurdle – they’re an opportunity for brands to redefine their positioning and build consumer loyalty. By embracing strategic adaptations, companies can turn these regulations into a competitive edge, aligning their offerings with the priorities of health-conscious shoppers.

Reformulating Products to Improve Nutrition Profiles

Reformulating products is a powerful way to leverage FOP labelling, as healthier profiles naturally resonate with consumers. Labels categorising saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars as “low,” “medium,” or “high” will make products with better nutrition profiles stand out.

Reducing Negative Nutrients: To avoid unfavourable designations, brands like General Mills have already reduced added sugars in cereals by nearly 16% over the past decade, reflecting evolving consumer priorities.
Highlighting Positive Attributes: Adding fibre, protein, or vitamins not only meets health standards but shifts consumer focus toward benefits, positioning products as better choices in a crowded market.

Highlighting Positive Attributes Prominently on Packaging

Using FOP labels as part of a holistic packaging strategy allows brands to meet health-conscious expectations while maintaining a strong market presence.

Strategic Placement: Integrating FOP labels with visually appealing branding elements – such as clean colour schemes or bold health claims – enhances shelf visibility and consumer appeal.
Simplified Messaging: Clear phrases like “Heart-Healthy” or “Naturally Sweetened” resonate with today’s time-pressed shoppers, making complex nutritional benefits easier to understand.

Using Storytelling to Connect Labels with Brand Values

FOP labelling isn’t just about compliance – it’s a chance to tell a story. By linking labels to a brand’s mission, values, and health commitments, companies can create deeper consumer connections.

Educating Consumers: Packaging and campaigns can explain FOP labels’ significance, empowering shoppers. For instance, highlighting efforts to reduce sugar can build trust while reinforcing a brand’s dedication to public health.
Connecting to Broader Themes: Aligning FOP compliance with larger narratives like sustainability or community health can foster emotional connections. Oatly, for example, has tied its transparency efforts to environmental advocacy, earning loyalty from eco-conscious buyers.
Tailoring Messaging: Personalised storytelling that addresses the unique health concerns of Millennials, Gen Z, or families makes brands feel relevant and relatable, strengthening alignment with their target audiences.

When done right, FOP labels can become a cornerstone of brand storytelling, merging compliance with authenticity.

Challenges for the Industry

The FDA’s new labelling rules place food brands at a pivotal moment. Compliance is non-negotiable, but for products with less favourable nutritional profiles, maintaining creative freedom and the market appeal becomes a steep challenge. Striking the right balance between regulatory adherence and brand identity will be crucial.

The Tension Between Compliance and Creative Freedom

FOP labelling requires brands to surrender valuable packaging space to standardised information on saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars. For indulgence-focused products, this shift is especially challenging, as packaging that once evoked luxury or cravings must now make room for health metrics that could dissuade buyers. This tension demands innovative solutions to integrate compliance without diluting brand identity.

Risks for Brands with Unfavorable Nutrition Profiles

For brands with high levels of added sugars, sodium, or saturated fats, FOP labeling poses significant risks.

Erosion of Trust: Clear labels flagging “high” nutrient levels could undermine consumer confidence, particularly for brands already viewed as less transparent. Lost trust often redirects buyers to healthier competitors, compounding the challenge.
Regulatory and Public Scrutiny: Poor nutrition ratings may invite criticism from advocacy groups or regulators. In Chile, for instance, sugary beverage manufacturers faced declining sales and reputational hits after the introduction of mandatory warning labels.

Addressing Challenges with Research-Driven Strategies

Proactive brands can navigate FOP challenges by leveraging data-driven strategies that align compliance with consumer expectations.

Package Testing: Use A/B testing to assess design options that integrate FOP labels without sacrificing brand identity. Eye-tracking studies can ensure critical branding elements remain visible alongside required information.
Product Reformulation: Reformulate products flagged as “high” in sugar, sodium, or fat. Market research can guide these changes by gauging their impact on taste perception and repurchase intent.
Transparent Marketing: Build trust through campaigns that highlight efforts to improve nutritional profiles and educate consumers about balanced eating. Transparency fosters loyalty in a health-conscious marketplace.
Segmented Messaging: Focus on market segments less swayed by FOP labels, such as indulgence-seeking consumers. Tailored messaging can emphasise flavour or premium ingredients over health metrics.

By tackling these challenges with research-backed strategies, brands can adapt to the FOP landscape without losing their identity. Quick, thoughtful action will enable companies to comply with regulations while positioning themselves as trusted, innovative leaders in a marketplace increasingly defined by health-conscious consumers.

Building Long-Term Consumer Trust

The FDA’s FOP labeling rules offer more than a compliance challenge – they’re a chance for brands to deepen connections with health-conscious consumers. Food brands can transform FOP labels into a foundation for lasting trust and loyalty by prioritising transparency and authenticity.

FOP Labeling as a Trust-Building Tool

FOP labels directly address consumer demands for transparency, providing health-conscious shoppers with the tools to make informed decisions. These labels can strengthen trust and highlight a commitment to well-being when integrated into broader brand narratives.

Communicating Values: Transparent nutritional information signals accountability, fostering a perception of honesty that builds lasting loyalty.
Engaging Consumers: FOP labels can inspire conversations, from social campaigns on nutrition to highlighting reformulation efforts. These touchpoints deepen relationships and position brands as advocates for healthier lifestyles.

The Importance of Authenticity and Avoiding “Healthwashing”

Transparency must go hand-in-hand with authenticity to avoid alienating consumers. Overstating or misrepresenting a product’s health benefits – a tactic known as “healthwashing” – can erode trust and harm a brand’s reputation.

Aligning Marketing with Reality: Claims like “low sugar” must match FOP labels. Discrepancies between marketing and nutritional facts can confuse consumers and undermine confidence.
Real Change Over Optics: Savvy consumers recognise superficial claims. Brands that genuinely reformulate products or invest in sustainable practices will outshine competitors relying on shallow narratives.

Brands That Have Used Transparency to Build Loyalty

Transparency has helped many brands stand out in competitive markets, proving that authenticity builds trust and loyalty:

KIND Snacks: By displaying clear, front-of-package ingredient lists, KIND has cultivated a loyal following of health-conscious consumers who value simplicity and transparency.
Nestlé: Faced with Chile’s mandatory FOP warning labels, Nestlé reformulated products to reduce sugar content and launched campaigns to explain these changes, reinforcing its commitment to public health.

Chobani: With transparent sourcing and straightforward messaging, Chobani has earned a reputation for authenticity, resonating with consumers seeking honest, nutritious options.

Insights from Global Market Research

As the US moves toward implementing new nutrition labelling, lessons from global markets like Australia, the UK, and Chile provide a roadmap for navigating the shift. These countries’ experiences highlight both the challenges and opportunities that transparency brings to the food industry.

Australia’s Health Star Rating system demonstrates how simple, visual indicators can influence consumer preferences toward healthier options. However, its voluntary nature has led to inconsistent participation, particularly among less healthy brands. For US companies, this underscores the need for universal compliance to maintain trust and ensure meaningful impact.

The UK’s traffic light labelling system, featuring colour-coded indicators, has significantly shaped purchasing decisions, especially among families and younger shoppers. It has also spurred reformulation efforts, with brands lowering sugar and salt to avoid red labels. Transparency, as this system shows, not only informs consumers but also drives industry-wide changes. For US brands, adopting proactive reformulation strategies early could mitigate the reputational risks associated with unfavourable FOP labels.

Chile’s bold implementation of mandatory warning labels demonstrates how regulation can act as a catalyst for product innovation. The stark black-and-white warnings have led to a reduction in sales of high-sugar and high-salt products, but they’ve also opened the door for brands to introduce reformulated or alternative product lines. In a market where simplicity often equals clarity, US companies might consider how to balance compliance with consumer education to avoid potential misinterpretation of labels.

Market research is essential for navigating the complexities of FOP labelling. Tools like eye-tracking studies, A/B testing, and sentiment analysis help brands create labels that meet regulatory requirements while resonating with consumers. Package testing ensures that new labels align with broader brand messaging, maintaining trust during the transition.

For US brands, FOP labelling is an opportunity, not a constraint. By leveraging global best practices and investing in market research, companies can meet consumer demands for transparency while maintaining a competitive edge. The reward is clear: an empowered consumer base and a food industry rooted in trust and accountability.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

Behind the oat milk in your latte lies a billion-dollar revolution. Data is now shaping everything we consume, from coffee beans to compostable cups, as brands race to redefine food for a tech-driven world.

Across the globe, food and beverage companies are no longer relying on gut instinct to shape their strategies. Every decision—from flavour profiles and packaging to sourcing and distribution—is informed by data, allowing brands to respond to trends, reduce waste, and innovate at unprecedented speeds. But behind every bite or sip lies an intricate web of insights, where numbers tell stories that shape the future of food.

The Role of Market Research in Innovation

The future of food isn’t just a matter of taste; it’s a high-stakes battle to predict consumer desires in real time. Market research has moved from gut instinct to a data-powered engine, driving decisions that can make or break billion-dollar brands.

Case Study: Oatly – Redefining Plant-Based Dairy

Image Credit: US Campaign

Background: In Sweden in the 1990s, Oatly became a niche producer of oat-based dairy alternatives. For years, the company’s growth was steady but unspectacular as it competed against established players in the plant-based market, including almond and soy milk producers. By the 2010s, as climate awareness grew, so did demand for sustainable food options—and Oatly seized the moment.

Two things were happening simultaneously. First, consumers were now increasingly choosing plant-based products not only for dietary reasons but also to combat climate change. Second, millennials and Gen Z were drawn to brands that authentically communicated transparency and environmental values.

Approach: Oatly developed a data-driven marketing strategy that positioned it as an environmentally conscious disruptor. Campaigns like “Wow No Cow” focused on the environmental benefits of oat milk compared to dairy, while product packaging included simple, bold messaging and clear data about carbon savings. The company also used predictive analytics to forecast demand spikes in specific regions, ensuring its supply chain could scale without delays.

Outcomes: Oatly became synonymous with sustainability in the plant-based category. In the third quarter of 2024, Oatly reported revenue of $208 million, marking a 10% growth from the previous quarter. This contributed to a trailing twelve-month revenue of $813 million, reflecting a 5% year-over-year increase.

Anticipating Trends with Advanced Research Methods

Oatly’s success illustrates how data, when paired with the right tools, can reveal opportunities others miss. Companies today are going beyond traditional surveys, turning to social listening, AI-driven consumer sentiment analysis, and predictive trend modelling to anticipate what consumers will want before they even know it themselves.

Take the rise of functional beverages, for example. Tools like AI algorithms analyze health trends, social media keywords, and regional purchasing behaviours to forecast demand for drinks infused with adaptogens or probiotics. Companies using these methods can reduce development timelines by months, bringing products to market at just the right moment.

Sustainability as an Innovation Driver

Sustainability isn’t just a moral imperative—it’s a consumer demand. Market research shows that eco-consciousness is a key purchase driver across demographics, forcing brands to innovate responsibly.

For forward-thinking companies, this means embedding sustainability into every level of product development. From sourcing ingredients using blockchain for traceability to designing packaging optimised for recyclability, the most innovative brands align environmental goals with consumer expectations.

Optimising the Supply Chain with Data

Behind every perfectly timed product delivery or consistently stocked supermarket shelf lies a complex, data-driven supply chain. In the food and beverage industry, where freshness is paramount, and waste can mean millions in losses, supply chain optimisation has become a critical area for innovation. Advanced tools like predictive analytics, artificial intelligence, and digital twins are transforming how brands manage logistics, reduce costs, and meet evolving consumer expectations.

Case Study: Tesco – Using AI to Reduce Waste and Improve Availability

Image Credit: The Grocer

Background: Tesco, one of the UK’s largest supermarket chains, faced significant challenges with inventory management. Food waste was a major issue, with overstocked items expiring before being sold, while understocked items led to missed sales and disappointed customers.

Strategy: Tesco implemented a machine learning system to forecast demand more accurately. The system analyzed historical sales data, regional consumption patterns, and even external factors like weather and holidays to provide store managers with precise inventory recommendations.

Approach: The company introduced AI-powered tools to monitor real-time inventory levels and automatically adjust supply orders. For example, during heatwaves, the system increased deliveries of barbecue items and ice cream to areas with expected spikes in demand. Tesco also used digital twins, virtual simulations of its supply chain, to test the impact of various logistical changes without disrupting real-world operations.

Outcomes: Tesco achieved a 45% reduction in food waste across its operations, measured against a 2016/17 baseline. At the same time, on-shelf availability improved significantly, enhancing customer satisfaction and loyalty. By pairing advanced analytics with operational adjustments, Tesco demonstrated how a smart supply chain can benefit both profitability and sustainability. The company has set an ambitious target to halve food waste by 2025, five years ahead of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 12.3.

Advanced Tools Driving Supply Chain Transformation

Predictive Analytics for Demand Planning:
By incorporating data from weather patterns, social events, and consumer behaviour, brands can forecast demand more precisely than ever. For instance, beverage companies use predictive models to adjust production for seasonal trends, such as spiked demand for bottled water during summer heatwaves.
Digital Twins for Scenario Simulation:
Digital twins allow companies to create a virtual replica of their supply chain, enabling them to test new strategies before implementing them. This helps brands identify potential bottlenecks, improve route planning, and maximise efficiency.
Blockchain for Traceability:
Transparency is becoming a key consumer demand, especially in the food industry. Blockchain technology ensures every step of the supply chain—from sourcing to delivery—is documented and verifiable, boosting trust and accountability.

Adapting Supply Chains for Sustainability

Modern supply chains aren’t just optimised for efficiency—they’re designed to align with environmental goals. By integrating sustainable practices, brands can reduce their carbon footprints while meeting the expectations of eco-conscious consumers.

Example: HelloFresh – Just-in-Time Inventory Management
Meal kit delivery service HelloFresh uses real-time data to align ingredient sourcing with consumer orders. By predicting demand accurately and only ordering what’s needed, the company minimises food waste and reduces its reliance on large inventories. This approach has allowed HelloFresh to operate more sustainably while cutting costs.

As the food and beverage industry grapples with global challenges like climate change and supply chain disruptions, brands that embrace advanced technologies are emerging as leaders. From Tesco’s AI-powered systems to HelloFresh’s precision sourcing, the message is clear: data isn’t just a tool—it’s the backbone of a modern, resilient supply chain.

Reducing Waste Through Precision

Food waste is one of the most pressing challenges facing the food and beverage industry. One-third of the world’s food is wasted—an environmental and economic catastrophe.

Brands are now turning to AI-driven analytics, smart packaging, and circular economy models to reduce waste at every stage—from production to consumption.

Case Study: HelloFresh – Leveraging Data to Cut Food Waste

Image Credit: Hello Fresh

Background: As a meal kit delivery company, HelloFresh operates in a space where precision is critical. Every ingredient must be perfectly portioned to avoid waste while maintaining freshness and quality. Traditional supply chains often struggle with surplus inventory and spoilage, but HelloFresh aimed to rewrite the playbook with data-driven efficiency.

Strategy: HelloFresh built its operations around just-in-time inventory management. The company analyzed customer order trends, seasonal preferences, and historical purchasing data to forecast how much produce, meat, and other ingredients to source.

Approach: By integrating real-time data into its supply chain, HelloFresh could adjust orders dynamically. For example, if a new recipe gained unexpected popularity, the system would rapidly adjust sourcing schedules, ensuring that ingredients arrived fresh without overstocking. HelloFresh also partnered with local suppliers to shorten lead times and reduce transportation emissions.

Outcomes: By aligning ingredient sourcing with customer orders, HelloFresh has significantly reduced food waste compared to traditional grocery stores. While specific percentages vary, the company’s model inherently leads to less waste due to its pre-portioned ingredients and demand-driven procurement. This achievement improved operational efficiency and became a key selling point for environmentally conscious consumers, reinforcing the brand’s image as a sustainability leader.

Smart Packaging: Extending Shelf Life and Reducing Spoilage

Packaging is another area where waste reduction can have a significant impact. Innovations like IoT-enabled sensors and temperature-sensitive labels are helping brands monitor product freshness and reduce unnecessary disposal.

Example: Mimica – Smart Labels for Freshness Monitoring
Mimica, a UK-based startup, developed smart labels that change texture to indicate a product’s freshness based on temperature exposure. Unlike traditional expiration dates, which often lead to premature disposal, Mimica’s labels provide consumers with accurate, real-time information about spoilage. In pilot programs, using Mimica’s labels reduced dairy product waste by 63%, opening doors for wider adoption across other perishable goods.

The Role of Advanced Technologies in Waste Reduction

AI-Driven Forecasting:
Predictive analytics helps brands forecast demand accurately, preventing overproduction and spoilage. Example: Tesco’s AI-powered systems optimise inventory to reduce store waste.
Digital Twins for Supply Chain Simulation:
Virtual models allow brands to test new supply chain strategies, identifying inefficiencies before they occur.
IoT-Enabled Sensors:
Smart packaging equipped with IoT sensors provides real-time updates on temperature and freshness, enabling better inventory decisions.

Staying Competitive in an Evolving Market

Agility and innovation are critical to staying relevant in the food and beverage sector. Brands must anticipate consumer preferences, adapt to market disruptions, and align with global trends like sustainability and health-consciousness. Advanced tools like AI-driven predictive analytics, blockchain for transparency, and rapid prototyping enable companies to stay ahead of the curve and build deeper connections with their audiences.

Case Study: Tony’s Chocolonely – Transparency as a Competitive Edge

Image Credit: Latana

Background: In 2005, Tony’s Chocolonely set out to create a slave-free chocolate industry. Competing against well-established brands, the Dutch company needed to differentiate itself while raising awareness of unethical practices in cocoa production.

Strategy: Tony’s positioned itself as the industry’s most transparent player by implementing blockchain technology to track its cocoa supply chain. The company responded to consumer attitudes toward ethical sourcing and tailored its messaging to resonate with socially conscious shoppers.

Approach:

Tony’s introduced blockchain to verify that every cocoa bean used in its products was sourced ethically, free from child labor or exploitation.
The company used its packaging as a storytelling medium, with unevenly divided chocolate pieces symbolising inequality in the supply chain.
Consumer attitudes guided targeted campaigns that educated consumers on systemic issues in cocoa farming while offering a solution through their purchase choices.

Outcomes: Tony’s achieved strong sales growth in Europe and North America, fueled by its commitment to transparency and ethical sourcing. Beyond financial success, the brand influenced industry giants to adopt more responsible practices, demonstrating that social impact can drive competitive advantage.

Rapid Prototyping and Testing

In an industry where trends emerge and fade quickly, speed-to-market is critical. Advanced analytics and consumer feedback loops now allow brands to develop, test, and refine products faster than ever.

Example: Impossible Foods – Iterating with Data

Impossible Foods, known for its plant-based meat, refines its products using real-time consumer feedback and sensory analysis. Before launching its Impossible Chicken Nuggets, the company conducted multiple rounds of testing with focus groups and food service partners, analyzing taste, texture, and cooking performance. This iterative process allowed Impossible Foods to introduce a product that met consumer expectations and culinary standards.

Leveraging Predictive Analytics for Future Readiness

Predictive analytics helps brands anticipate market shifts, ensuring they stay competitive. By analyzing factors like weather, economic conditions, and purchasing trends, companies can make proactive decisions about inventory, production, and marketing.

Example: Coca-Cola – Predicting Demand in Functional Beverages

Coca-Cola used predictive analytics to enter the functional beverage market, identifying emerging demand for products with probiotics and immunity-boosting ingredients. This approach allowed the company to launch products like Coca-Cola Plus with fibre and expand its portfolio to address consumer health trends. By aligning with data-driven insights, Coca-Cola secured its position in a rapidly growing category.

Blockchain and the Future of Consumer Trust

Blockchain is becoming an essential tool for brands to ensure transparency and authenticity in their supply chains. Consumers increasingly demand proof of ethical sourcing, sustainability, and product integrity.

For companies like Tony’s Chocolonely, blockchain not only verifies claims but also builds consumer trust by providing accessible, immutable records.
In the seafood industry, blockchain is being used to certify sustainable fishing practices, providing real-time traceability from ocean to plate.

The Future of Food Lies in Innovation and Data

Staying competitive in the food and beverage market isn’t just about responding to trends; it’s about anticipating them. Advanced technologies like AI, blockchain, and predictive analytics are no longer optional; they’re the foundation for navigating disruptions, building trust, and leading the industry forward.

Data is reshaping every facet of the food industry, from product innovation and supply chains to waste reduction and sustainability. Brands that put data at the centre of their strategies are redefining precision and adaptability, delivering products that align with shifting consumer values like eco-consciousness and health.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Climate change, supply chain volatility, and evolving consumer expectations are rewriting the rules of competition. Brands like Tony’s Chocolonely and Impossible Foods are proving that innovation isn’t just a survival tool—it’s a pathway to leadership.

The future of food isn’t just on your plate; it’s in the data shaping what’s on it. For companies ready to embrace this power, the rewards are limitless. For those who hesitate, irrelevance is the risk they can’t afford to take.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.