Tag: Food

Beijing’s Cutbacks Shake America’s Soybean Trade
In the heart of the Midwest, where golden fields stretch toward the horizon under a crisp autumn sky, the hum of combines should signal prosperity. Instead, for America’s soybean farmers, harvest season has become a grim countdown to financial ruin. As they reap what the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) projects to be a record 4.2 billion bushel crop this year, their largest buyer—China—has vanished from the market, leaving silos overflowing and prices plummeting to five-year lows around $9.50 per bushel.
China hasn’t booked any U.S. soybean purchases in months; farmers warn of ‘bloodbath’
The trade war between the United States and China, now in its second year under President Donald Trump’s renewed tariff regime, has turned soybeans into collateral damage. Beijing’s retaliatory 25% tariffs on U.S. agricultural imports have priced American beans out of the Chinese market, where they once commanded over half of the $24.5 billion in annual U.S. soybean exports. From January through August 2025, Chinese imports of U.S. soybeans totaled a mere 200 million bushels—down from nearly 1 billion bushels in the same period of 2024, according to USDA trade data. That’s a 80% plunge, robbing Midwestern farmers of billions in revenue and forcing a scramble for alternative markets that may never fully compensate.
“We’ll see the bottom drop out if we don’t get a deal with China soon,” warns Ron Kindred, a veteran farmer managing 1,700 acres of corn and soybeans in central Illinois. Halfway through his harvest, Kindred has locked in contracts for just 40% of his crop at prices already eroding below $10 per bushel in local elevators. The remaining 60% sits in limbo, a high-stakes bet on a breakthrough in Washington-Beijing negotiations. “There’s no urgency on China’s side, and the farm community’s clock is ticking louder every day,” he adds.
Kindred’s plight echoes across the soybean belt, from Illinois prairies to Iowa’s rolling hills. Rising input costs—fertilizer up 20-30% year-over-year, equipment maintenance strained by inflation, and a glut of both corn and soybeans flooding domestic markets—were squeezing margins even before the trade spat escalated. Now, with China’s boycott, the USDA estimates average losses of up to $64 per acre for Illinois growers alone, the nation’s top soybean-producing state with 6.2 million acres planted this year. University of Illinois Extension economists project total state-level shortfalls could exceed $400 million if export volumes don’t rebound by spring 2026.
Enter the Trump administration’s lifeline: a proposed $10-14 billion farmer aid package, building on December 2024’s $10 billion relief bill. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that President Trump, speaking at the White House on October 6, vowed to “do some farm stuff this week” to cushion the blow. Aides say he’s slated to huddle with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins as early as Friday to finalize funding sources, leaning heavily on the $215 billion in tariff revenues collected during fiscal 2025 (October 2024-September 2025), per U.S. Treasury figures. “The president is deploying every tool in the toolbox to keep our farmers farming,” a USDA spokesman told Reuters.
Yet for many in the heartland, the aid feels like a temporary fix for a structural crisis. Soybean farmers, who backed Trump overwhelmingly in 2024 (with 62% of rural voters in key swing states like Iowa and Wisconsin casting ballots for him, per Edison Research exit polls), are voicing frustration laced with loyalty. “We voted for strong trade deals, not handouts,” says Scott Gaffner, a third-generation farmer in southern Illinois tending 600 acres. His crop, typically destined for Chinese ports, now languishes in on-farm silos as he frets over fixed costs like diesel fuel and seed that have surged 15% since planting. “We’re not just anxious; we’re angry. When the administration’s jetting off to Spain for TikTok talks while our harvest rots, it feels like we’re the last priority.”
Gaffner’s son, Cody, the would-be fourth generation on the land, echoes the generational stakes. “If I return after college, it’ll be with a second job just to make ends meet,” the 22-year-old says. Their story underscores a broader ripple: Rural economies, where agriculture drives 20-25% of GDP in states like Illinois and Iowa, are buckling. Tractor sales at CNH Industrial, a Decatur, Illinois-based giant, plunged 20% in the first half of 2025, CEO Gerrit Marx revealed in an August interview at the Farm Progress Show. “The good news only flows when China places orders,” Marx said, a sentiment that hung heavy over the event in the self-proclaimed “soy capital of the world”—a title now whispered to be shifting south to Brazil.
Dean Buchholz, a DeKalb County, Illinois, peer of Gaffner’s, is already waving the white flag. After decades in the fields, skyrocketing fertilizer bills and sub-$10 soybean futures have convinced him to retire. “I figured I’d farm till they buried me,” the 58-year-old says. “But with debt piling up and health acting up, it’s time to rent out the acres. This trade war’s the final straw.”
Desperate Diplomacy: Chasing Markets in Unlikely Corners
With China—home to the world’s largest hog herd and importer of 61% of global traded soybeans over the past five years, per the American Soybean Association—off the table, U.S. agribusiness is on a global charm offensive. Trade missions to Nigeria, memorandums with Vietnam, and a 50% surge in sales to Bangladesh (up to 400,000 metric tons through July 2025) highlight the scramble. Yet these “base hits,” as Iowa farmer Robb Ewoldt calls them, pale against China’s home-run demand.
Ewoldt, who farms 2,000 acres near Des Moines, jetted to Rome in January to woo a Tunisian poultry giant. “They grilled me: Can we count on steady U.S. supply, or will you switch crops and jack up prices?” he recalls. Tunisia’s imports, while growing, total under 100,000 tons annually—barely a blip. “It helps long-term, but right now, we’re cash-strapped. My operation burns a million bucks a year; without sales, we’re dipping into reserves just to cover debt service.”
Across the Mississippi, Morey Hill has logged thousands of miles this year, from Cambodia’s fish ponds to Morocco’s chicken coops. In Phnom Penh last week, the Iowa grower evangelized to importers about swapping low-protein “fish meal” for U.S. soybean meal, touting yields that could fatten local aquaculture 20-30%. “We’ve got success stories—Vietnam’s up 25% year-over-year to 1.2 million tons,” Hill says. But even aggregated, the EU and Mexico (combined $5 billion in sales) plus risers like Egypt, Thailand, and Malaysia can’t fill the void: Total U.S. soybean exports dipped 8% to 18.9 million metric tons through July, USDA Census Bureau data shows.
Industry lobbies are pulling levers too. The U.S. Soybean Export Council sponsored a June Vietnam mission yielding $1.4 billion in MOUs for ag products, including soy. August brought Latin American buyers to Illinois for farm tours, though exports to Peru and Nicaragua remain negligible. In Nigeria, a modest 64,000 tons shipped last year hasn’t translated to 2025 bookings yet. And Secretary Rollins’ September tweet hailing Taiwan’s “$10 billion” four-year ag commitment? It’s a rebrand of existing $3.8 billion annual flows, not new money, USDA clarifications confirm.
“There’s talk of India, Southeast Asia, North Africa as future markets,” says Ryan Frieders, a 49-year-old Waterman, Illinois, farmer who joined a February trek to Turkey and Saudi Arabia. “But nothing explodes overnight to replace China.” Frieders, facing $8-10 per acre losses per University of Illinois models, plans to bin most of his harvest, gambling on futures prices rebounding above $11 by Q1 2026.
The Shadow of South America and Tariff Games
As U.S. beans languish, Brazil and Argentina feast. China, pivoting since 2018’s first trade war, now sources 80% of its needs from South America. Last month, Argentine President Javier Milei’s temporary export tax suspension lured $500 million in Chinese cargoes, traders at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange report. U.S. beans traded at $0.80-$0.90 per bushel cheaper than Brazilian equivalents for September-October shipment, but Beijing’s 23% tariff tacks on $2 per bushel—enough to divert 5 million metric tons southward.
“The frustration is overwhelming,” says Caleb Ragland, 39, Kentucky farmer and American Soybean Association president. On Truth Social Wednesday, Trump himself griped: “Our Soybean Farmers are hurting because China, for ‘negotiating’ reasons, isn’t buying.” He teased soybeans as a centerpiece in his upcoming summit with Xi Jinping in four weeks. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking Thursday, promised a Tuesday announcement on aid, potentially including a $20 billion swap line for Milei—irking U.S. growers who see it as subsidizing their rivals.
On Friday, soybean futures closed at $9.42 per bushel on the CME, down 2% weekly amid harvest pressure and zero Chinese bookings. Analysts at Zaner Ag Hedge forecast a “bloodbath” if no deal materializes by November: Storage costs could add $0.50 per bushel, while on-farm debt—$450 billion industry-wide, per Farm Credit Administration—balloons.
The trade war’s winners? South American exporters, grinning from bumper crops (Brazil’s output hits 155 million metric tons this year, USDA estimates), and U.S. tariff coffers, flush for bailouts. Losers abound: From Decatur’s processing plants, once buzzing with Chinese-bound shipments, to the 1.2 million farm jobs at risk nationwide, per the American Farm Bureau Federation.
For Kindred, Gaffner, and their ilk, the math is merciless. “We want trade, not aid,” Gaffner insists. “China’s building routes elsewhere; once they’re hooked on Brazil, we might never claw it back. That’s not just my farm—it’s the next generations, the rural towns, the whole engine of America’s breadbasket.”
As combines roll on, the Midwest holds its breath. A Xi-Trump handshake could flood elevators with orders; stalemate risks a cascade of foreclosures and fallow fields. In this high-stakes harvest, soybeans aren’t just seeds—they’re the fragile thread binding U.S. farmers to their future.
October 8, 2025
Coca-Cola Pours Resources Into Solving Beverage Industry Crisis
In an era where artificial intelligence is reshaping industries from finance to entertainment, The Coca-Cola Company is harnessing its power to tackle one of the most pressing crises in the global food supply chain: the impending extinction of oranges. Best known for its fizzy flagship soda that has quenched thirsts for over a century, Coca-Cola is quietly battling a silent killer threatening its juice empire. The beverage behemoth announced this week that it has joined the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Generative AI Impact Consortium as a founding member, launching an ambitious initiative dubbed “Save the Orange” to combat citrus greening disease, or Huanglongbing (HLB). This unexpected foray into AI-driven agricultural innovation underscores not just Coca-Cola’s diversification beyond carbonated drinks but also its strategic imperative to secure a vital ingredient amid a 20-year decline in U.S. orange production.
The move comes at a critical juncture for the $45 billion company, whose portfolio includes powerhouse juice brands like Minute Maid and Simply—household names synonymous with breakfast tables and school lunches. For decades, these labels have dominated the orange juice market, but their core ingredient is under siege. HLB, a bacterial scourge spread by the Asian citrus psyllid insect, has ravaged citrus groves worldwide since its U.S. debut in Florida two decades ago. Infected trees produce bitter, misshapen fruit, stunt in growth, and eventually die, leaving farmers with no cure and billions in losses. Without intervention, experts predict the global orange supply could vanish within 25 years, spelling disaster for juice processors, consumers, and the broader economy.
Coca-Cola’s entry into the MIT consortium marks a pivotal shift, blending its supply chain expertise with cutting-edge AI to accelerate solutions. The consortium, which includes tech titans like OpenAI, semiconductor leader Analog Devices (ADI), India’s Tata Group, South Korea’s SK Telecom, and TWG Global, aims to deploy generative AI for real-world challenges. Coca-Cola’s “Save the Orange” project, developed in partnership with Brazil’s Fundecitrus research lab and biotech firm Invaio Sciences, will leverage AI to simulate data, compress research timelines from years to months, and integrate agritech, biotech, and life sciences. “Citrus greening has impacted farmers for over 15 years; now it’s high time to combine Generative AI with AgriTech, Biotech, and Life Science to accelerate research and innovation,” said Pratik Thakar, Coca-Cola’s Global Vice President and Head of Generative AI, in the announcement.
This isn’t mere philanthropy; it’s a business lifeline. Orange juice remains a cornerstone of Coca-Cola’s non-carbonated portfolio, contributing significantly to its $12.5 billion in second-quarter 2025 net revenues, which rose 1% year-over-year despite a 2% dip in unit case volume. While the company doesn’t break out Minute Maid or Simply sales separately, it highlighted gains in market share for nonalcoholic ready-to-drink beverages, with juice playing a starring role. Globally, the juice, value-added dairy, and plant-based segment saw a 4% volume decline in Q2, offset by growth in Latin America but dragged by Asia Pacific. Yet, through revenue growth management strategies—like introducing affordable single-serve juice options in emerging markets—Coca-Cola added over 130 million transactions year-to-date, demonstrating resilience amid supply pressures.
The HLB crisis has been brewing for years, but its toll on U.S. production is stark. Florida, once the world’s orange powerhouse, has seen output plummet 90% from 2005 to 2023, according to the Farm Bureau, with nearly every tree infected. Nationally, the U.S. now ranks sixth in global orange production, supplying just 5% of the world’s oranges, per USDA data. From 2015 to 2024, domestic output fell at a compound annual rate of 9%, with year-over-year drops averaging 10%. The 2024-2025 season was particularly brutal: Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton battered groves, leading to a 30% harvest shortfall compared to the prior year. Overall, citrus acreage in Florida shrank 55.6% from 2004 to 2023, from 748,555 acres to 332,256 acres, as growers ripped out infected trees. In the past decade alone, HLB has slashed fresh citrus markets by 21% and juice oranges by 72%.
The economic ripple effects are profound. Florida’s citrus industry, which once generated $9 billion annually, has lost billions to HLB, forcing reliance on imports from Brazil, Mexico, and Chile. But recent U.S. tariffs on foreign goods—escalating under the current administration—threaten to inflate costs and exacerbate shortages. Major brands, including Coca-Cola’s, now blend imported juice, but this patchwork solution can’t sustain indefinitely. “The loss of fresh oranges and other citrus is a real possibility, and that would seriously impact our health,” warned Carolyn Slupsky, a biochemist and nutritionist at the University of California, Davis. Beyond nutrition—citrus provides essential vitamin C and fiber—rising juice prices could squeeze consumers already facing inflation in groceries.
Coca-Cola’s “Save the Orange” initiative targets HLB head-on. The disease, first detected in Florida in 2005, clogs the trees’ vascular systems, preventing nutrient flow and yielding lopsided, green-tinged fruit that’s bitter and seedless. No cure exists, but the project will use AI to model disease spread, optimize treatments, and discover new biological defenses. Key partners include Invaio Sciences, whose Trecise treatment—a trunk-injected antibiotic—has shown promise in halting HLB progression and slashing pesticide use by up to 90%. Launched in Florida in 2023, Trecise is expanding to Brazil and Mexico. “We’ve seen firsthand the devastation of this disease, and the proven efficacy of our Trecise treatment in stopping it,” said Amy O’Shea, CEO of Invaio Sciences and CEO Partner at Flagship Pioneering. “Treatments and application technologies will be critical components of a multi-pronged coordinated effort to restore tree health, citrus production, and farmer profitability.”
The consortium’s approach mirrors collaborative “hackathons,” uniting MIT professors in computer science, data science, and public policy with industry experts. Fundecitrus, a Brazilian nonprofit, brings decades of citrus research, emphasizing science-driven innovation. “Through the ‘Save the Orange’ partnership with The Coca-Cola Company, Fundecitrus reaffirms its long-standing commitment to science-driven solutions, transparency, and innovation,” said Executive Director Antonio Juliano Ayres. Early efforts focus on AI-simulated data to fast-track gene editing and resistant tree breeding—techniques like those from USDA researchers identifying HLB-detecting genes from potatoes.
For Coca-Cola, this aligns with broader AI integration across its operations, from R&D to supply chain optimization. “This represents a best-of-the-best combination of industry practicality and academic rigor,” Thakar noted. “It also perfectly complements our commitment to make a difference by using AI in service of humanity.” The company, which employs over 700,000 worldwide through its bottling network, sees AI as a tool for sustainability, echoing initiatives like water replenishment and packaging recycling.
Yet, challenges loom. HLB’s resilience—bacteria hide deep in roots, evading sprays—has led to resistance in psyllids, prompting calls for eco-friendly alternatives. Hurricanes compound the issue, with losses from 2024 storms estimated in the hundreds of millions. Florida’s 21 certified nurseries are propagating HLB-tolerant trees, but scaling takes time. Globally, HLB has hit Brazil and China hard, too, tightening supply.
Investors view Coca-Cola’s pivot positively. Shares of KO rose 1.2% following the announcement, buoyed by Q2 results showing 5% organic revenue growth and 4% comparable EPS increase, despite volume headwinds from weather and tough comps. Analysts praise the proactive stance: “As a leading provider of fruit juice worldwide, we have a unique perspective on the critical issue of citrus greening,” said Christina Ruggiero, Coca-Cola’s President of Global Nutrition. The company stands with farmers, collaborating on viable solutions.
Ultimately, “Save the Orange” could redefine corporate responsibility in agribusiness. By merging AI with agriculture, Coca-Cola isn’t just protecting its bottom line—it’s safeguarding a staple of American diets and economies. As Thakar put it, this “demands a unique level of partnership” to avert catastrophe. Whether it succeeds, the initiative signals a future where tech giants and beverage icons unite against existential threats, one orange at a time.
September 12, 2025
PepsiCo Sales Grow Again Thanks to Weak Dollar. But There’s More to Worry About
PepsiCo Inc. (NASDAQ: PEP) shares climbed Thursday after the global food and beverage giant reported better-than-expected quarterly earnings, fueled in part by favorable currency movements. However, despite the upbeat report and a slight upward revision to its full-year outlook, analysts and investors are eyeing deeper concerns that could cloud the company’s future growth trajectory.
For the second quarter of 2025, PepsiCo reported revenue of $22.4 billion, up 4.1% year-over-year, and adjusted earnings per share (EPS) of $2.18, beating the Wall Street consensus estimate of $2.09. The company credited a combination of strong international demand for its snack brands and a weaker U.S. dollar, which boosted overseas sales when converted back to dollars.
“The continued strength of our international markets, coupled with productivity initiatives and pricing discipline, helped us deliver another quarter of solid performance,” said PepsiCo CEO Ramon Laguarta in a statement.
The dollar’s recent softness—down nearly 3.4% against a basket of major currencies since April—played a significant role in lifting PepsiCo’s earnings, as more than 40% of its revenue comes from international operations.
Shares of PepsiCo rose 2.8% Thursday, closing at $184.67, marking the stock’s best single-day gain since March.
Full-Year Outlook Tweaked, but Not Significantly
PepsiCo modestly raised its full-year EPS guidance to a range of $8.15 to $8.25, up from the previous forecast of $8.10 to $8.20. The company also reaffirmed its revenue growth target of 4% to 6% on an organic basis.
Still, executives struck a cautious tone on consumer spending and rising input costs.
“We continue to see some softness in North American consumer purchasing behavior, particularly in value channels,” said CFO Hugh Johnston during Thursday’s earnings call. “Promotional sensitivity has returned, and the competitive landscape is intensifying.”
Growth Drivers: Snacks Outperform, Beverages Face Headwinds
PepsiCo’s Frito-Lay North America division posted another strong quarter, with 7% organic revenue growth, driven by demand for brands like Lay’s, Doritos, and Cheetos. Convenience foods remain a consistent winner for the company, especially amid evolving consumer snacking habits post-pandemic.
The beverage segment, however, was more mixed. While international beverage sales grew, North American volumes declined slightly, even as pricing remained firm. Sparkling water and energy drink brands like Bubly and Rockstar faced increasing competition from niche startups and premium-priced entrants.
Quaker Foods, often seen as a bellwether for shifting breakfast habits, delivered flat sales, with only modest gains in oatmeal and ready-to-eat cereals.
What the Market Is Watching: Inflation, Promotions, and Consumer Fatigue
PepsiCo, like many consumer staples companies, faces several emerging pressures:
- Inflation: While commodity prices such as corn, aluminum, and oil have come off their 2022–23 highs, they remain above historical averages. This continues to affect packaging, transportation, and ingredient costs.
- Consumer Fatigue: After two years of price hikes across its product lineup, consumers are increasingly shifting toward private-label brands or waiting for discounts. Retail scanner data from NielsenIQ shows that promotional volume in food and beverage is at its highest level since 2019.
- Geopolitical Exposure: With significant operations in Europe, Latin America, and Asia, PepsiCo remains vulnerable to geopolitical instability and regulatory challenges in emerging markets. The company exited its Russian operations in 2023 but still faces volatility in markets like Brazil and India.
Wall Street’s Take: Defensive but Priced for Perfection
Despite Thursday’s rally, some analysts remain cautious. PepsiCo is currently trading at a forward price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 25.3, above the S&P 500 average and at a premium to key competitors like Coca-Cola (KO) and Mondelez (MDLZ).
“PepsiCo remains a defensive play with reliable cash flow and global scale,” said Sarah Dawson, senior consumer goods analyst at Morgan & Helms. “But with valuations stretched, the market will need to see consistent execution and improved margin trends to justify further upside.”
Of the 25 analysts covering the stock, 14 rate it a “Buy,” 9 say “Hold,” and 2 recommend “Sell.” The average 12-month price target is $190, according to FactSet.
PepsiCo’s second-quarter results offered reassurance to investors, with sales growth buoyed by a weaker dollar and ongoing global demand for snacks. But behind the earnings beat lies a more complicated story: sluggish North American volumes, rising promotional pressures, and questions about pricing power.
As inflation moderates and consumers grow more cost-conscious, PepsiCo will need to prove that its brand strength and operational discipline can sustain growth in a shifting economic environment. The short-term looks stable—but the road ahead may not be as smooth.
July 18, 2025
Starbucks mandates four-day office return for employees, while CEO Brian Niccol keeps his remote work privilege
Starbucks will increase its return to work mandate for corporate employees to four days a week — even as CEO Brian Niccol is allowed to work remotely from his California home after getting hired last year.
The new policy, outlined in a companywide message from Niccol, will require corporate employees and managers to be on-site Monday through Thursday at the company’s Seattle and Toronto offices as well as at its North American regional hubs, beginning in January.
“To give partners time to adjust, this expectation will begin with the new fiscal year,” Niccol wrote in the memo.
“We’ll share more details before October, including our plans to ensure everyone has an assigned dedicated desk.”
The shift from three to four required days in the office marks the latest escalation in Starbucks’ broader “Back to Starbucks” turnaround strategy helmed by Niccol, whose main residence is in Newport Beach, Calif.
The company says Niccol’s “default” is to reside in Seattle when he isn’t traveling to the company’s coffeehouses worldwide.
When asked if Niccol works from his California residence, the company declined to comment.
The java giant also is expanding its relocation mandate, requiring all managers at its corporate locations to move to Seattle, Toronto or cities that host regional offices within the next 12 months — a policy that builds on a previous directive for vice presidents and above.
When Niccol was named CEO last year, Starbucks allowed him to remain in Newport Beach.
The company pays for a dedicated remote office near his home, provides a personal assistant and allows him to use a corporate jet to commute to Seattle, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Niccol was awarded roughly $96 million in total compensation after his first four months as Starbucks CEO, with about 94% of that coming from stock awards and an additional $5 million sign-on bonus, the filing showed.
His pay package also included more than $400,000 in perks such as housing, jet travel and security expenses. His annualized pay is estimated at $113 million, placing him among the highest-paid CEOs in the country.
Before tapping the former Chipotle boss, Starbucks was grappling with significant turmoil, including four CEOs in five years, declining sales, profit drops and operational inefficiencies like overcomplicated menus and slow service.
The company also faced labor unrest, legal challenges, and brand identity confusion, while external pressures such as inflation and rising competition further strained performance and investor confidence.
Starbucks has stated that while Niccol is permitted to work remotely, he is expected to spend a significant amount of time at the Seattle corporate headquarters and at company locations around the world.
A company spokesperson previously said that “Brian’s primary office and a majority of his time will be spent in our Seattle Support Centre or out visiting partners and customers in our stores, roasteries, roasting facilities and offices around the world.”
“His schedule will exceed the hybrid work guidelines and workplace expectations we have for all partners,” the spokesperson said.
In his message, Niccol emphasized that human connection remains a foundational value for Starbucks.
“We are reestablishing our in-office culture because we do our best work when we’re together,” he wrote.
“We share ideas more effectively, creatively solve hard problems, and move much faster.”
He acknowledged that not all employees would welcome the policy.
“We’ve listened and thought carefully,” he wrote. “But as a company built on human connection, and given the scale of the turnaround ahead, we believe this is the right path for Starbucks.”
Starbucks said it will offer a one-time voluntary exit package for employees who refuse to comply with the new policy.
“If you decide you want to leave Starbucks for any reason, we respect that,” Niccol wrote.
“To support those who decide to ‘opt out,’ we’re offering a one-time voluntary exit program with a cash payment for partners who make this choice.”
The internal changes come amid wider scrutiny over executive remote work arrangements.
A recent study by researchers at Boston College and Arizona State University, as cited in the Star Tribune, found that companies led by CEOs who live far from their corporate headquarters often see lower employee satisfaction and weaker financial performance.
The report, which examined nearly 1,000 firms between 2010 and 2019, concluded that so-called “fly-in CEOs” tend to be less informed about day-to-day operations and more focused on short-term gains.
The study noted that about 18% of companies surveyed had CEOs residing far from headquarters.
Geographic trends showed that remote CEOs were more common in colder, landlocked central US states. Despite its climate, Minnesota, for example, had one of the lowest rates of remote CEOs among its Fortune 500 firms.
Starbucks, for its part, maintains that its office return policy is necessary to drive collaboration and accelerate business recovery.
“As we work to turn the business around, all these things matter more than ever,” Niccol said in his memo.
“We’re driving significant change across the company while staying true to our core values.”
July 17, 2025
Teens’ Social Media Feeds Are Flooded With Junk Food Ads
Junk food ads are flooding your teenager’s social media feeds and it’s influencing what they choose to eat. (Jene Young/The NewYorkBudgets)
Social media’s harmful impact on the mental health of children and teenagers is well documented.
Now, new research suggests that the widespread marketing of unhealthy food and drinks on social media is influencing the food choices of young people and potentially impacting their physical health.
A University of Oxford team found “strong and consistent evidence” that digital marketing of unhealthy foods and drinks is widespread on social media, and that it influences children and teenagers.
And a recent study led by the University of Queensland found that problematic and excessive social media use is linked to young teens’ increased consumption of sweets and sugar, as well as the tendency to skip breakfast.
So, what is going on with social media and children’s diet? And what are the links?
Teens regularly exposed to junk food ads
Australian GP Isabel Hanson, from the research team behind the Oxford study, says that when young people see junk food being marketed on platforms like Instagram, YouTube or TikTok, it affects what they want to eat.
“My co-authors and I reviewed studies from around the world and saw a clear pattern: kids and teens are regularly exposed to marketing for foods high in sugar, salt and fat, often without realising it,” she says.
The marketing of unhealthy foods to children is unregulated, except for those in South Australia, which has banned the advertising of junk food on public transport. (Pexels/Pixabay)
One of those studies found Australian children aged 13 to 17 are exposed to 17 food ads each hour, with an average of almost 170 per week.
“This exposure shapes their preferences, increases their desire for those foods, and can lead to higher consumption.”
It’s something she sees play out in her work as a GP.
“Young people who grow up in environments filled with lots of screen time, social media, and exposure to advertising often have poorer diets and can struggle with their weight,” she says.
“Of course, there are lots of factors at play, but [social media] is one we can do something about.”
‘Harder to resist’
Asad Khan led the University of Queensland study that reviewed the data of 223,000 adolescents aged 13 to 14 from 41 countries.
The study found the mindless use of social media often leads to mindless eating — and sometimes mindlessly not eating.
Teens skipping breakfast is particularly problematic, according to Professor Khan, although he concedes the study only examined the amount of time teens spent on social media and not the type of content they consumed, making the link between the two difficult to plot.
Professor Asad Khan believes social media companies should “take some responsibility” for the proliferation of junk food ads on social media. (University of Queensland)
“What we found is that the mindless [and excessive] use of social media, is more problematic. And that kind of mindless use is leading towards the over consumption of sweet, sugary drinks and skipping breakfast,” he tells ABC Australian Radio.
So why do these ads for junk food on social media impact the diet of children and teens as much as they do?
Dr Hanson says these ads are designed to be appealing, and young people are generally more susceptible to this type of marketing.
“They are colourful, fun, often linked to trends or popular people, and that has a real effect on young people’s choices.”
“Young people are smart and savvy in many ways. They can spot trends quickly, navigate digital spaces with ease, and often know more about online platforms than adults do.
“But the brain continues to develop until we are in our mid-twenties, particularly the areas responsible for impulse control, decision-making and assessing risk.
“That means children and teenagers can be more influenced by social approval and less likely to pause and reflect on where a message is coming from, especially when it’s wrapped up in entertaining or peer-driven content.”
Social media advertising often doesn’t look like traditional advertising, which makes it harder to spot and easier to absorb.
And the social media algorithm, peers and influencers also play a huge part in how young people interact with food ads.
“Social media platforms are built to keep users engaged. Once a young person interacts with food content, they’re likely to see more of it,” Dr Hanson says.
“At the same time, young people are heavily influenced by what their peers are watching, liking or sharing, so if a snack or drink is popular in their online circles, it can spread quickly.”
As for the influencers spruiking junk food, they are seen as relatable and trustworthy by young people.
“When influencers promote a food or drink, even subtly, it carries a lot of weight.
“Our review showed that this kind of marketing is especially effective because it doesn’t feel like marketing. That makes it harder to recognise, and harder to resist.”
Food for good mental health
An adolescent’s relationship with food can be a complicated one.
A major global study led by Australian’s ABC estimate that 50 per cent of children and young people (aged 5-24 years) in Australia will be overweight or obese by 2050.
Rates of obesity among children and young people have tripled over the past three decades, the study found.
Add the impacts of social media, courtesy of junk food ads, influencers and time-consuming scrolling, and things can become even murkier.
Sugary and highly processed foods can lead to a range of chronic diseases if over-consumed, says paediatric dietitian Miriam Raleigh.
Miriam Raleigh is a paediatric dietitian and the founder of Child Nutrition, a group of dietitians specialising in children’s food services.
Having a variety of foods from all core food groups is essential for a child’s body and brain, she says.
“We know that a diet rich in wholefoods — not those found in packets — is important for good mental health. Foods are more than vitamins and minerals, they also contain phytochemicals and antioxidants which feed our body, mind and gut.
“Having a broad range of foods allows our gut microbiome to contain a diverse range of different beneficial bacteria that is thought to have a direct link to mental health.”
Sugary foods and highly processed foods contain little nutritional value for children and teens’ growing bodies,” Raleigh says.
Holding social media companies accountable
Dr Hanson would like to see more government regulation around junk food marketing on social media rather than the voluntary industry codes that “don’t hold up in the digital space” that are currently in place.
Policies that help reduce children’s exposure to digital junk food marketing are needed and social media companies need to do more to protect young users, she argues.
“Education and social media literacy might help a bit, but let’s be honest — it’s the same for adults. When you are constantly flooded with advertising for unhealthy food, it makes you want it,” she says.
“These are highly skilled marketers using proven techniques to influence behaviour. Expecting young people to resist that, day after day, isn’t realistic.”
When asked about the federal government’s response to the issue, a spokesperson from the health department said the government has provided more than $500,000 for the University of Wollongong to deliver a feasibility study to examine the current landscape of unhealthy food marketing to children.
The feasibility study will provide a better understanding of the options available for consideration by all governments and is expected to be finalised in the second half of 2025.
May 24, 2025
Krispy Kreme is pausing the expansion of its doughnut sales at McDonald’s
Krispy Kreme’s partnership with McDonald’s to sell its doughnuts at all of the burger chain’s US restaurants didn’t turn out as sweet as it thought.
The doughnut chain announced in its earnings release Thursday that it is “reassessing the deployment” of the rollout, temporarily stopping at 2,400 locations. The deal was intended to expand the reach of Krispy Kreme, which has far fewer locations than McDonald’s and relies on grocery and convenience stores for most of its sales.
The stock slumped 25% after the opening bell on Thursday.
Last year, Krispy Kreme and McDonald’s announced the unique arrangement, with the intention of the sweet treats being sold at all of McDonald’s roughly 13,000 US restaurants by the end of 2026.
Krispy Kreme said the hiatus will help the chain “achieve a profitable business model for all parties” and no additional McDonald’s will be added to the partnership in the second quarter of this year.
“Krispy Kreme continues to believe in the long-term opportunity of profitable growth through the US nationwide expansion including McDonald’s,” the company said.
Krispy Kreme first began testing the partnership in Kentucky in 2022 and gradually rolled it out to other states. McDonald’s said last year that the “consumer excitement and demand exceeded expectations” prompting the partnership to expand.
However, the economics of fast food has changed in the past year with both chains struggling. McDonald’s recently registered its worst quarter since the height of Covid-19 as customers rein in their spending.
Meanwhile, Krispy Kreme (DNUT) has seen its stock lose 73% of its value over the past year. The chain also announced Thursday it will discontinue paying out dividends to its shareholders, saving about $6 million per quarter.
“Our ability to become a bigger Krispy Kreme requires that we become better, and we are taking swift and decisive action to pay down debt, de-leverage the balance sheet and drive sustainable, profitable growth,” said Krispy Kreme CEO Josh Charlesworth.
May 9, 2025
WeightWatchers has filed for bankruptcy
WeightWatchers, the 62-year-old program that revolutionized dieting for millions of people around the world, has filed for bankruptcy.
The company announced Tuesday it has entered Chapter 11, which “will bolster its financial position, increase investment flexibility in its strategic growth initiatives, and better serve its millions of members around the world.”
The company, now known as WW International, has struggled with about $1.5 billion in debt and has failed to keep pace with more convenient weight loss options, including GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, over counting points and calories.
During the bankruptcy process, its massive amount of debt will be eliminated, and it expects to emerge in about 40 days as a publicly traded company. Operations for its members will continue as normal, it said.
“The decisive actions we’re taking today, with the overwhelming support of our lenders and noteholders, will give us the flexibility to accelerate innovation, reinvest in our members, and lead with authority in a rapidly evolving weight management landscape,” said CEO Tara Comonte in a release.
WW International has a had rough few years after a turnaround plan from its former CEO, Sima Sistani, failed. She was forced out of her position in September 2024 after a two-and-a-half-year stint.
Sistani bought a telehealth platform that connected patients with doctors who can prescribe weight-loss and diabetes drugs, representing a radical change for a service that made its name for in-person meetings and portion control. But the pivot didn’t work, and the stock has plummeted.
Sistani was replaced by Comonte, a former chief financial officer at fast food chain Shake Shack. Its most recent earnings release in February revealed a 12% decline in members and that its $100 million in interest payments on debt is a “a significant ongoing burden for the company.”
WW took another hit last year when star investor Oprah Winfrey announced she was leaving the company’s board after nearly a decade holding that position and donated all of her stock to a museum.
The former talk show host credited the program for help losing 40 pounds in 2016 but later revealed that she had also used an unnamed weight loss drug to lose more.
WW’s history
The company was founded in 1963 by Jean Nidetch, a self-described “overweight housewife obsessed with cookies” who was fed up with fad diets and pills.
She began hosting weekly meetings at her home with friends to discuss their difficulties with dieting and exercise. “Compulsive eating is an emotional problem,” Nidetch told Time magazine in 1972, “and we use an emotional approach to its solution.”
Founder and director of Weight Watchers Inc. Jean Nidetch in 1965. (Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images)
Abiding by her philosophy — “It’s choice, not chance, that determines your destiny” —Nidetch lost more than 70 pounds and kept it off.
Part of its success can be attributed to its points system, where one number represents each food and drink’s calories, saturated fat, sugar and protein. The company had 3.3 million subscribers at the end of 2024.
WW’s shares have devolved into a penny stock, a far cry from when it was trading at its peak at around $100 in 2018.
May 7, 2025
The well-known pasta brand, Chef Boyardee, was acquired by a private equity firm for $600 million
Chicago, May 2025 – Conagra Brands has agreed to sell its Chef Boyardee canned pasta business to private equity firm Pinnacle Partners for $600 million in cash. The deal – expected to close in Q1 of fiscal 2026 – transfers an iconic, 97-year-old brand out of Conagra’s portfolio after about 25 years of ownership. Conagra confirmed the transaction covers Chef Boyardee’s shelf-stable operations and Milton, Pa. manufacturing plant (about 820,000 sq. ft. with 500 employees), while Conagra will retain the rights to license the frozen skillet meals line.
Conagra CEO Sean Connolly said the divestiture is “another milestone in reshaping the Conagra Brands portfolio for better long-term growth”. He emphasized that Conagra is doubling down on faster-growing categories – chiefly frozen foods (e.g. Birds Eye, Healthy Choice) and snacks (Slim Jim, popcorn) – and moving away from older, shelf-stable commodities. The sale comes on the heels of Conagra offloading other legacy brands (like Peter Pan peanut butter and Wesson cooking oil) and acquiring higher-margin niche players (e.g. Fatty’s premium meats), as it refocuses on “modern consumer brands” and pays down debt. Connolly noted that divesting Chef Boyardee would slightly dilute near-term EPS (roughly 4% in FY2025) but would allow debt reduction and sharper capital allocation toward growth businesses.
A Century of Chef Boyardee: From Immigrant Kitchen to Canned Meals
Chef Boyardee traces its origins to 1928, when Italian-born chef Hector “Ettore” Boiardi began canning his restaurant pasta sauces in Cleveland, Ohio. After the brand rapidly grew through mid-century (including serving US troops in WWII), it eventually changed hands to American Home Foods and was acquired by Conagra in 2000 as part of a $2.9 billion deal. In its heyday, the Chef Boyardee business generated roughly $800–850 million in annual retail sales (around 2001). However, consumer preferences have shifted sharply since then. The brand’s net sales have fallen steadily: about $450 million of Conagra’s FY2024 sales came from Chef Boyardee products (roughly $480 million in 2023), down from roughly $740 million in 2015. (Conagra never breaks out brand-level figures, but industry research confirms Chef Boyardee’s market share and volume have declined as shoppers moved away from canned meals.)
The shrinking demand for canned pasta reflects broader health and lifestyle trends. Health-conscious consumers are increasingly wary of high sodium and artificial ingredients found in many shelf-stable foods. Markets for legacy convenience items like canned spaghetti and ravioli have contracted – analysts estimate the U.S. canned pasta category is around $2.1 billion today and may shrink at roughly a 2% annual rate through 2030. As one industry analyst noted, “the problem has been the category – consumer tastes have shifted away from shelf-stable options”. Even large canned-food peers have seen stagnation; for example, Campbell Soup reported a mid-single-digit drop in U.S. soup sales in early 2024 (volumes down ~5% year-over-year), underscoring tough market dynamics for comfort-food staples.
Conagra executives pointed to sharp differences in profitability between Chef Boyardee and their core growth lines. On the company’s investor call, Connolly noted that the canned-pasta business runs at “low-single-digit” or mid-single-digit operating margins (roughly 8%), versus nearly 18% margins in the Frozen Meals segment. By exiting a lower-margin business, Conagra can streamline its cost structure. (Indeed, Conagra’s recent performance hinges on maximizing margins through pricing and trimming unprofitable promotions.) In short, Connolly argued the sale “builds a more focused company” centered on higher-margin categories.
Wall Street took the deal in stride. J.P. Morgan analysts applauded the $600M price, noting it implies a healthy multiple (roughly 9x Chef Boyardee’s EBITDA) that reflects the brand’s still-steady cash flows. Meanwhile, UBS warned privately that turning around a legacy food brand often prompts aggressive cost-cutting under private-equity ownership. (Indeed, other PE-owned food firms like Hostess and Planters initially improved margins but have sometimes slashed R&D and marketing, raising concerns about long-term brand health.) Rabobank analysts added context by pointing out that Chef Boyardee’s struggles are emblematic of the broader decline in shelf-stable foods, and that offloading such businesses has been a recurring trend across consumer staples. Overall, investors view the deal as a fairly clean break: Conagra gets $600M cash to plug debt holes, and Hometown (Pinnacle’s Brynwood-backed vehicle) bets it can revitalize the pasta line for niche markets.
Pinnacle Partners (through its Hometown Food Co.) is no stranger to heritage food brands. Its strategy will likely emphasize reinvestment and optimization, rather than gutting Chef Boyardee. Hometown’s CEO Tom Polke and Brynwood’s chairman Henk Hartong stressed that this is Brynwood’s largest deal ever, intended to “reinvigorate the Chef Boyardee brand”. Plans reportedly include modernizing recipes (lower-sodium and cleaner-label versions), expanding into new formats (e.g. bowl meals or value-priced multipacks), and stepping up marketing that plays on nostalgia and convenience. The Milton plant’s capacity and geographic reach (already supplying dollar stores and grocery chains) provides a foundation for any reformulation or line-extension. In short, Pinnacle/Hometown will aim to “leverage the iconic heritage” of Chef Boyardee, updating the brand for today’s shoppers while optimizing the supply chain, rather than dismantling it outright.
However, private equity turns can be a mixed bag. Some past PE deals in packaged foods have delivered quick profits at the cost of brand equity – carving costs out of back-office operations, ingredients, or labor. Hostess Brands (Twinkies) and Kraft Heinz’s Planters (acquired by Hormel) both underwent controversial cost cuts under PE owners. Critics of such deals caution that short-termism can come at the expense of innovation or product quality. Pinnacle will need to balance lean operations with investment in the brand’s future; otherwise, the risk is “pulling out as much cash as possible on the way down” if growth stalls.
By shedding Chef Boyardee, Conagra concentrates its portfolio. Analysts estimate roughly 60% of Conagra’s remaining sales will be in frozen meals and snacks after the deal. In the frozen-snacks category, Conagra faces fierce competition – global giants like Nestlé and Kraft Heinz hold strong market positions and scale. Morningstar’s Erin Lash observes that Conagra’s “lack of moat” in commoditized foods means it must keep innovating to drive growth, and its new focus areas are no exception. On one hand, the frozen food segment has strong tailwinds (at-home convenience, plus a wave of “better-for-you” frozen innovations, including some Conagra GLP-1-friendly products); on the other hand, any market slip-ups could leave Conagra exposed to rival pricing and distribution power. Conagra’s stock has risen modestly (about +8% year-to-date) but still lags the broader S&P 500 gain of +14%. Going forward, investors will watch how Conagra reinvests the Chef Boyardee proceeds: accelerating frozen/snacks growth and innovation will be critical to justify the divestiture.
Data Appendix (U.S. / Conagra):
- Chef Boyardee sales: $480M in 2023 (vs. $740M in 2015)
- Canned Pasta Market: ~$2.1B (2023) ➔ projected -2% CAGR to 2030
- Conagra stock (CAG): +8% YTD (S&P 500: +14%)
- PE food deal activity: ~$23B (2023, ~18% YoY decline)
- Campbell Soup (US Soup): –5% Q1 2024 (year-on-year)
May 5, 2025