Weight-loss jabs ‘could be hitting supermarket food sales' as 4% of households now take them
The growing popularity of weight loss jabs could be affecting shopping habits in UK supermarkets, a leading research group has said, as 4 per cent of households are now using them.
The amount of groceries bought by shoppers fell over the past four weeks, the first year-on-year decline in 2025, data analysts Kantar said.
Overall grocery volumes fell by 0.4 per cent in this period, as grocery price inflation, which hit 4.7 per cent this month, reached its highest level since March 2024.
But inflated prices are not the only factor that could be influencing changing shopping habits, with Kantar speculating that the surge in uptake of weight loss jabs across the country could also be playing a part.
'Overall grocery volumes fell slightly by 0.4 per cent over the last four weeks, the first year-on-year decline this year. A small part of this fall could also be down to changing health priorities such as the growing use of GLP-1 weight loss drugs,' Fraser McKevvit, the head of retail and consumer insight at Kantar said.
'Supermarkets and grocery brands are entering new territory as weight loss drugs become more popular, with four in 100 households in Great Britain now including at least one GLP-1 user.
'That's almost twice as many as last year, so while it's still pretty low, it's definitely a trend that the industry should keep an eye on as these drugs have the potential to steer choices at the till.
'Four in five of the users we surveyed say they plan to eat fewer chocolates and crisps, and nearly three quarters intend to cut back on biscuits.'
Despite a drop in the volume of groceries bought by UK shoppers, footfall hit a five-year high over the four weeks to 15 June, and take-home grocery sales grew by 4.1 per cent compared with last year.
It appears that the recent bout of warm weather has also influenced the nation's shopping habits, as consumers bought 2,400 packs of strawberries every minute in the last four weeks. Sales of mangoes and blueberries also climbed by 27 per cent and 10 per cent each.
However, a rise in frequency was balanced out by a drop in average trip spend, which fell back by three pence to £23.89.
On Monday, a mass rollout of weight loss injections began across the NHS, with GPs able to prescribe Mounjaro for the first time.
The drug, also known as tirzepatide and manufactured by Lilly, is an antidiabetic medication that works by lowering blood sugar levels and slowing down the digestion of food.
From Monday, GPs will be able to offer Mounjaro to severely obese individuals who also suffer from a range of other health complications.
Under the previous system, patients could only access such treatments through specialised weight loss services.
This major initiative is expected to reach approximately 220,000 people across England over the next three years, targeting those identified as having the "greatest need" for intervention.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
37 minutes ago
- Times
In buyers' market art is in the sale, just look at Brighton (not United)
The key to poker is understanding the value of what is in your hand. In the winter transfer window of 2023, when Chelsea offered £55million for Moisés Caicedo, Brighton & Hove Albion said 'no'. They said the same again when Arsenal followed with a £60million bid, and still no when they raised it to £70million. From the outside, there was consternation. Danny Murphy told talkSPORT Brighton's stance was 'ridiculous' and 'for £70million I would have driven Caicedo there'. But when the summer window opened and Chelsea returned with offers of £60million, then £70million and then £80million, Brighton's answers remained emphatic: no, no, and no again. It was another no when Manchester United entered the running and no when Chelsea suddenly raised the ante and went all the way to the £100million mark. At last, when Liverpool mooted £111million, Brighton accepted a bid — and yet still there were cards to play. Chelsea returned to the table with £115million and finally, in August 2023, Caicedo was on his way. Though not before Brighton, who had paid only £4million for the Ecuadorian midfielder 18 months previously, managed to insert a sell-on clause, guaranteeing a healthy slice of any transfer fee Chelsea get for Caicedo in future, into the deal. Brighton's owner, Tony Bloom, was known as 'The Lizard' during his professional poker career and there may be no one better in the game for the cold-blooded execution of player sales. There are a thousand books and courses on the art of selling but it is the most undervalued, unperfected element in English clubs' transfer operations; the overlooked secret of player trading. Bloom and Brighton are outliers. According to a senior figure in the recruitment department of a top Premier League club: 'Everyone invests loads and loads of money on scouting, talent ID, data, coaching, blah, blah, but very little on the sales side of things. There is no strategy. What's the plan when clubs want to sell a player? Sit there saying, 'I hope someone comes in for him.' ' The situation is made all the more curious by the fact that in this age of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) and inflated fees — which must be funded somehow — an ability to raise money through sales has never been more important. So many Premier League clubs, in this window, find their plans dependent on how effectively, and lucratively, they can offload players. United are the most obvious example, but Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester City, Aston Villa and many others need to offload players. It doesn't excite fans, who focus on the shiny new stars arriving, but getting rid of the right ones, at the right prices, can be as crucial as signing well. United, in straightened times and in the straitjacket of PSR, are trying to fund a squad makeover to fit Ruben Amorim's style. Having spent £62.5million on Matheus Cunha and had two bids — the latest for £55million plus £7.5million in add-ons — rejected for Bryan Mbeumo, they want a striker, wingback, midfielder and goalkeeper but whether they recruit in all those positions will depend on what funds they can realise from offloading their unwanted players, such as Alejandro Garnacho, Marcus Rashford, Antony and Jadon Sancho. All bar Garnacho are on wages that severely restrict which clubs can afford them, and United's new director of football, Jason Wilcox, has the added headache of Amorim and/or those players themselves making clear it is time for them to leave United, taking away any chance of hard-balling would-be buyers. Arsenal are close to announcing deals for Martín Zubimendi, Christian Norgaard and Kepa Arrizabalaga and are working on the signing of Cristhian Mosquera from Valencia — all for sensible fees. Yet Mikel Arteta's main requirement is a new striker, and with targets Viktor Gyokeres and Benjamin Sesko priced in excess of £60million, the club are looking to raise about £50million from sales. They would listen to offers for Oleksandr Zinchenko, Jakub Kiwior, Reiss Nelson and perhaps even Gabriel Martinelli. With their income slashed by failing to reach the Champions League, Aston Villa are looking to reduce player costs by £80million this summer. They have sold cleverly in the past — getting €188million (£160million) for Jhon Durán, Moussa Diaby and Douglas Luiz last season — and will have to sell smartly again, ideally starting before the PSR 2024-25 accounting deadline of midnight Monday. Pep Guardiola has threatened to quit if City don't reduce the size of his squad, and Jack Grealish is the most eye-catching item in their shop window. Guardiola may benefit from having a new sporting director, Hugo Viana, whose experience (gained at Sporting Lisbon) is within a player-trading model as opposed to the departing Txiki Begiristain, one of the best sporting directors of all time but who has only worked at dominant clubs in periods where there was little emphasis on sales. After the £40million signing of Milos Kerkez pushed their summer spending beyond £200million, Liverpool are not finished recruiting but need to balance their expenditure with more sales on top of the £24million already received for Caoimhin Kelleher, Nat Phillips and Trent Alexander-Arnold. Jarell Quansah is expected to join Bayer Leverkusen for £35million after the European Under-21 Championship and Tyler Morton, also excelling at the tournament, is another asset they will seek to realise. Talks are continuing with Napoli over a deal to sell Darwin Núñez, while Federico Chiesa, who interests several Serie A clubs, is also likely to be sold. Ideally, with Kerkez aboard, the Liverpool would raise funds by disposing of a left back. Andrew Robertson is considering interest from Atletico Madrid but may stay for the final year of his contract, though, and Kostas Tsimikas is happy in a back-up role. A 'Greek Scouser' who describes Liverpool as 'the Broadway of football' may be hard to shift. The importance of sales was laid out at the end of the previous summer transfer window by the online football finance expert Swiss Ramble. From 2022-24, Brighton's gross spending on players (£411million) exceeded that of Liverpool, Newcastle United, Villa and — by a significant margin — the outlays of supposed peer clubs such as Brentford, Fulham and Crystal Palace. But their net spend? It was just £20million. They had traded their squad upwards — readying it to finish a club-record eighth in 2024-25 — for less than £7million per season, thanks to sales. The analysis showed Chelsea and City to have been by far the period's biggest sellers. The massive recruitment programmes undergone by both would have been impossible without recouping through player disposals. The pressure on Arsenal, United, Tottenham Hotspur and Newcastle was also clear in the figures. Those clubs' relatively low sales left them with big net spends. Arsenal's gross outlay on players was only £50million more than City's over a five-year period, but their net spend was £480million more. The problems that stores up perhaps explain why City can now spend with abandon to help Guardiola rebuild while Arteta is still waiting for his striker. Everton were the only club to make a transfer profit from 2020-24, showing how selling was fundamental to the club's very survival during the stricken final years of Farhad Moshiri's ownership. But selling is not just about how much you make, it's about which goods you are willing to part with, and though City raised £499million by offloading players from 2022-24 it was a period where they parted with talents including Cole Palmer, Morgan Rogers, Liam Delap, James Trafford and Julián Alvarez. None look like wise disposals now. There are different ways of measuring how 'good' a player sale is. One is to compare at the price achieved to market value and, using Transfermarkt's calculations, the best business of last summer included Newcastle realising £22.2million more than market value when selling Elliot Anderson to Nottingham Forest, Bournemouth achieving £20.8million more when selling Dominic Solanke to Tottenham and Wolves extracting £13.2million more for Max Kilman than the market said he was worth. However, another way is to look at the value of the player sold a year down the line. The blossoming of Anderson at Forest suggests Newcastle actually undervalued him. On the other hand the Kilman deal looks even better from Wolves' point of view — 12 months on he is now worth £19.2million less than West Ham paid for him. City selling Alvarez to Atletico Madrid for £64million seems a bad deal by both measures. The price was £13million below the Argentina forward's market value at the time and now it is £21.4million below his market value — albeit add-ons included in the deal may allow City to recoup up to £17million. United fare dreadfully in the analysis. They have made 14 significant sales in the past three seasons, 11 of whom now valued higher than the fees received for them, with Scott McTominay, Anthony Elanga and Álvaro Carreras worth a combined £63million more. To value players, Brighton use the unique information provided by Jamestown Analytics, an offshoot of Bloom's betting data company, Starlizard. They stick to those valuations and ignore distractions: back in January 2023, Caicedo agitated to go, even posting a plea to leave on Instagram. Brighton did not go to war with their asset but calmly asked him to stay away from training until the transfer window closed and then extended his contract, to further increase his value. Only selling when a replacement has been signed or lined up is also the Brighton way. Marc Cucurella was replaced by Pervis Estupiñán, Robert Sánchez by Bart Verbruggen and Leandro Trossard by João Pedro. Caicedo himself was the replacement for Yves Bissouma and on the same day he signed for Chelsea, Brighton entered talks with Lille for his replacement, Carlos Baleba. Now Baleba, 21, is projected to be a future £100million sale but a club who made gentle inquiries came away with the impression that Brighton are unlikely to let him go until next season, because his replacement has not been identified yet. Liverpool's headaches are eased by having Michael Edwards and Richard Hughes to oversee trading. Hughes sold well at Bournemouth and squeezing €10million from Real Madrid for the last month of Alexander-Arnold's contract was remarkable even by Edwards's standards. During the building phase of the modern Liverpool, as sporting director Edwards raised £396million from sales from 2014-17 — enabling the recruitment of Virgil van Dijk, Mo Salah, Sadio Mané, Roberto Firmino, Joël Matip, Gini Wijnaldum, Adam Lallana, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, Joe Gomez and Robertson on a pretty much obscene £58million net spend. There were many coups, like persuading Bournemouth to spend a club record £15million on Jordon Ibe, and Leicester £12.5million on Danny Ward, but none beat getting Barcelona to not just lavish £142million on Philippe Coutinho but agree a clause meaning they would pay a €100million (then £89million) premium in addition to any transfer fee if they signed a Liverpool player over the next 2½ seasons. It would prove the deterrent to Barça targeting Salah and Van Dijk. Selling, like buying in the transfer market, depends on relationships with clubs, agents and players; on planning ahead and having the right handle on valuations. 'It's not rocket science,' said the senior recruiter. 'I just think it's a cultural psyche because nearly everyone in England sees winning as points but a handful of clubs like Brighton rightly see winning as selling.' His suggestion is that clubs should have player sales specialists and, the moment a player signs, already have a plan for when they might be sold and involve that player and their agent in the process. A former sporting director, now working as an agent, agrees the issue is cultural. 'Managers in England often don't want to sell because there is a mindset of holding on to your assets. Fans get pissed off when you sell someone good and clubs have egos — for example Man United don't want to sell to Real Madrid and feel they are further down the food chain.' He remembers taking a player to a club in Serie A, where selling is embedded in a culture of player trading. As his client was signing the contract and they were posing for pictures he felt a hand on his shoulder. It was the sporting director. 'Now your job is to get English clubs to watch him,' the guy said, 'so we can sell.'
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
PM snubs call to axe powerful No10 chief Morgan McSweeney after welfare backlash
THE PM'S powerful chief of staff Morgan McSweeney is 'not going anywhere' No10 declared - despite calls for him to be sacked over the welfare fiasco. Keir Starmer is battling to shore up his grip on power after being forced to massively water down benefits cuts in the latest screeching U-turn. 4 4 4 Rebel Labour MPs blame Mr McSweeney for the row and had demanded the PM sack the senior aide as part of a 'regime change' in No10. One rumour circulating among a small and well connected group of Labour figures suggested Mr McSweeney was fed up with No10 and wanted to leave. He was planning to return to Labour HQ to lead the party's campaigns and elections team - heading up the fight to beat Reform in 2029, according to a source close to No10. But last night Downing Street insisted the PM's Svengali is going nowhere. A No10 source said: 'Tittle tattle about a change to chief of staff is uninformed nonsense. 'He isn't going anywhere.' Ministers are confident they will get their benefits legislation over the line on Tuesday after 126 Labour MPs tried to derail plans. But they are braced for a significant rebellion with lefty MPs plotting a fresh bid to try and kill the bill. 'It's a mutinous atmosphere,' one Labour MP said. 'There could be 70 of us still against this legislation.' 4 One Government insider said: 'MPs are furious because they feel like they weren't being listened to. The question is, can No10 put that anger back in the box?' The climbdown over benefits and a U-turn on winter fuel means Chancellor Rachel Reeves must find £4.5billion. A Labour MP fumed: 'We can't keep making these U-turns every time we make a big decision. It's so expensive.' Helen Whately Shadow Pensions Secretary Every day it becomes clearer that this is a government without a plan and without any idea about how to run the country. Welfare is one of the most important challenges facing Britain. But still, Keir Starmer has no answers. The chickens of his deeply incompetent time in office are coming home to roost. He is being held hostage in Number 10 by the Parliamentary Labour Party. Having been forced into yet another humiliating U-turn, it is clear he is no longer in control. His authority is completely shot. That's because socialist Labour MPs don't believe in lower spending. Ever since Labour took office, they have been itching to spend more. From day one, they handed out billion-pound bungs to the union barons who bankroll their party. But that is not what the situation requires. After the pandemic, there has been a drastic expansion of people dependent on the welfare state, and it is set to reach boiling point. With 2,000 people being signed off work for good a day, spending on sickness benefits is set to rise to £100 billion by 2030. We cannot afford to support a country the size of Panama on benefits. But even so, this week's omnishambles makes clear Labour MPs are not comfortable with the tighter spending this desperate situation requires. Labour's changes would have seen this dented by £5 billion. It sounds like a lot, but in the context of £100 billion it is a drop in the ocean. We need our government to be a lot more ambitious on welfare spending, not less. What we need is a focus on getting young people into work. Labour has made that harder too, by destroying jobs and opportunities for people across the country. If they can't even deliver this paltry plan paltry for savings from a spiralling welfare bill, we don't have a chance. Britain deserves better. Diane Abbott said Sir Keir should be more like Tony Blair and take the left seriously. In a sign of more rows to come, she told BBC Radio 4: 'Starmer and his people thought they could dismiss Labour MPs, well they know differently now.' In a speech to Welsh Labour on Saturday the PM said fixing the 'broken' welfare system must be done in a 'Labour way'.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
This 10-year plan may be the last chance to save the NHS
The 10-year plan for the National Health Service that Sir Keir Starmer is expected to publish in the next few days is likely to be a somewhat incoherent document. From the advance publicity, it would seem to have a lot of disconnected ideas in it, some good, some not so good and some irrelevant. The government hopes that weight-loss drugs will offer the hope of a big advance against obesity-related illnesses – but this comes after new figures raised concerns about their safety. If large language models can speed up the development of new pharmaceuticals, so much the better. But we remain sceptical about whether supermarkets ought to be recruited into policing their customers' calorie intakes. What will decide the success or failure of the NHS over the next decade, however, will be the design of the structural reforms to the service. Wes Streeting, the health and social care secretary, has made a good start in two respects. He has welcomed private-sector providers to help deliver NHS services free at the point of need, and he has taken an axe to the central bureaucracy of NHS England. The test for the 10-year plan will be the extent to which it brings in further changes to incentives throughout the NHS so that it becomes responsive to patients. Sir Jim Mackey, the new chief executive of the NHS, says many of the right things. 'It feels like we've built mechanisms to keep the public away because it's an inconvenience,' he says in his first interview since taking up the post three months ago. He says of the current NHS: 'It takes forever. It costs a fortune. We need to 'de-layer it' because it's expensive, it slows decision-making down, it de-powers people who need to make decisions.' The sentiment is right, but again, some of his ideas seem better than others. We are not convinced that using patient satisfaction surveys to decide how much money NHS trusts receive is going to work. The evidence of reform under the last Labour government was that the mere existence of competition from private-sector providers had a dramatic effect on the performance of NHS units. Already, there are the very early signs that the extra resources put into the NHS are bearing fruit, less than 12 months after the change of government. Luke Tryl, the opinion pollster for More in Common, reported on BBC's Newsnight on Friday that people in focus groups are starting to report positive experiences of the NHS for the first time since the pandemic. 'If there is a bright spot for the government, it's the NHS,' he said. One of the biggest challenges for Sir Jim and Mr Streeting, however, is more political than structural. They have to send the starkest message to doctors: please do not go on strike; take responsibility; show leadership; it is up to you to make the NHS work, because if it cannot be turned round this time, then it probably is the end of this model of healthcare. Sir Jim appears to understand this. He says that his 'big worry' is that if the NHS cannot deliver a service that is better at listening to patients – the particular example he gave was maternity care – 'we'll lose the population; if we lose the population, we've lost the NHS; for me, it's straightforward: the two things are completely dependent on each other.' He is absolutely right. Universal healthcare free at the point of need is a noble idea, but it desperately needs Labour's reforms to work if it is to survive.
