Americans Have Soured on Junk Food. Don’t Worry, Food Companies Have a Plan.

Say it with me now: Time to pivot!

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Selling fast food in the Fast Food Nation ain’t what it used to be. Between 2002 and 2016, KFC’s US footprint shrank from 5,472 locations to 4,270.

But in Ghana, the fried-chicken giant’s popularity is soaring. (Here’s a great 2014 piece by Alex Park on how the Gates Foundation helped KFC’s push into Africa.) The company, The New York Times reports, is winning customers with an aggressive marketing campaign “designed to appeal to a first generation of middle-class consumers looking for new experiences,” with appeals from “hustlers and influencers” who “rose from the streets and climbed the social ladder.”

It’s a common pitch from Western fast-food companies in the Global South: home-cooked traditional fare represents old ways, while branded fast food means modernity and affluence. Here’s The Times:

“People march their sons and daughters to buy KFC and buy pizza and they like to show them what we can afford,” said Matilda Laar, who lectures about family and consumer sciences at the University of Ghana. KFC isn’t just food, she said. “It’s social status.”

In short, the US market for junk food remains profitable, but publicly traded companies like Yum! Brands, KFC’s parent, crave steady growth. And for that, they must look beyond the United States. Today, just 20 percent of KFC’s outposts are located in the United States, while 60 percent are located in so-called “emerging markets”—low- to middle-income countries like Ghana, with growing middle classes on the hunt for novel foods.

The same trend is afoot in the kind of processed food you find at the center of the supermarket. Back in June, Nestlé put its candy division—think Butterfinger, Crunch, and Baby Ruth bars—up for sale, because “demand for sweets has fallen off in the United States,” as The Times put it. 

While it retrenches in the United States, the Swiss candy giant—the world’s largest packaged-food conglomerate—is pushing hard into emerging markets with the same gusto as KFC. Last month, New York Times reporters Andrew Jacobs and Matt Richtel took a deep dive into Nestlé’s long effort to conquer Brazil. The company has dispatched a team of 7,000 saleswomen from urban slums out to the countryside, to “expand its reach into a quarter-million households in Brazil’s farthest-flung corners,” Jacobs and Ritchell report. The items they’re pushing include the sweet snacks much like the ones Nestlé is backing away from in the United States, as well as Mucilon, a sugary porridge for infants.  

The reason Big Food is casting its gaze away from the country that first fell in love with corporate fare is simple: In industrialized economies like the United States and Europe, overall demand for food grows slowly, at about the same rate as population. And that’s not fast enough for investors who demand brisk profit growth every quarter. Worse still, there are signs that US kids are now eating less of the stuff as parents become more health-conscious.  

But in places like Brazil and China (which boasts 5,324 KFC outlets—more than 1,000 more than we have in the United States), widely available junk food is relatively new, and the class of people who can afford it—and be convinced it’s a status symbol—is growing fast.

Of course, as highly marketed junk food swarms these regions, US-style diet-related maladies take root. In Brazil, for example, the obesity rate has nearly doubled over the past decade, the Times reports. And while Nestlé touts its effort to fortify its products with vitamins and reduce sugar, the Times quotes one of the company’s rural vendors who notes that what sells best are “virtually all sugar-sweetened items like Kit-Kats; Nestlé Greek Red Berry, a 3.5-ounce cup of yogurt with 17 grams of sugar; and Chandelle Pacoca, a peanut-flavored pudding in a container the same size as the yogurt that has 20 grams of sugar—nearly the entire World Health Organization’s recommended daily limit.”

But there are still segments of the US food market that giants like Nestlé covet: the very ones that have developed as a reaction against their trademark bland, industrialized fare. In sharp contrast to fast food and candy bars, “artisanal” foods and beverages are growing in popularity.

Take coffee. Nestlé is by far the globe’s largest coffee roaster, with a jaw-dropping nearly 23 percent share of the global retail coffee market. But in the United States, sales of its Nescafé instant coffee and even its Nespresso pods are starting to slump.

And so last month, just weeks after putting its US candy business on the chopping block, Nestlé plunked down a reported $425 million for a 68 percent stake in ultra-hipster coffee roaster/chain Blue Bottle. By Nestlé standards, Blue Bottle is a rounding error in terms of size—it operates just 42 shops.

The lure, of course, is growth. As the Financial Times recently noted, the kids like to drink coffee out. “According to a National Coffee Association survey, 15 per cent of millennials aged 18 to 34 had their last cup of coffee in a café and 32 per cent had an espresso based drink the day before the survey, the highest share for any age group,” the FT reports. The paper adds that US specialty coffee shops generated $23 billion in sales in 2016, and are expected to reach $28 billion by 2021.

A banker for JPMorgan Chase, which advised Nestlé on the deal, put it this way to the FT: “Blue Bottle is like an artist studio where you go for specialist coffee; walk into any store and you’re likely to feel a real downtown vibe … Nestlé lacked in its portfolio something with this kind of unique profile, which is premium and for aficionados.”

And thus Big Food is emerging as a two-headed beast: one that will sell you a $5 pour-over coffee, fussed over by a mustachioed barista in the United States, or a cheap pouch of sugary pudding abroad. It remains to be seen, of course, whether Blue Bottle can maintain its fanatical attention to quality and detail under Nestlé’s profit-minded gaze. Or whether hipsters will still flock to cafes that are majority-owned by the company most famous for sugary instant chocolate milk.  

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate