Ozempic Is Making People Buy Less Food, Walmart Says | Hacker News Reader

Ozempic Is Making People Buy Less Food, Walmart Says

bloomberg.com

67 pointscachecrab93 comments

>“We definitely do see a slight change compared to the total population, we do see a slight pullback in overall basket,” John Furner, the chief executive officer of Walmart’s sprawling US operation, said in an interview Wednesday. “Just less units, slightly less calories.”

This implies they're looking at how people on GLP-1 analogs are behaving relative to the general population....but how do they know who is on the drugs?

They can probably reasonably infer income, and use that as proxy when doing cohort analysis.

Walmart also has a pharmacy. I'm not an expert on the privacy laws here, but I'd be surprised if they couldn't use that information (even if it's a legally grey area).

You don’t think Walmart’s pharmacy data can be correlated to the same customer’s shopping habits?

No, it can’t

>debit card ending in 6969 purchased Ozempic at pharmacy >debit card ending in 6969 purchased $200 of food, 5% less than they did last month

They don't have to know anything about the specific person to correlate data they likely already have in their POS system.

HIPAA violation

No, I don't think it would be. The last four digits of a CC purchase at a pharmacy won't contain PHI. It will just say "pharmacy." But if you have some data to back that claim up, I'd love to read about it.

They probably have records for each individual (not just last four digits of CC); I don't think it's hipaa violation as long as the records don't contain personally identifying information.

Come on now.

Can’t? Really?

Maaaybe it’s against some law or privacy policy or mandatory annual training.

But do you honestly believe companies follow laws and policies if they think they can get away with not?

And even if you can ignore that corporations are regularly -publicly- wrist-slapped for failings in those areas and still believe they are virtuous, privacy-respecting, law-abiding entities (rofl) … are you ready to argue that no executive or other employee ever, (knowingly or unknowingly) uses data to run a calculation or check a theory against published policy?

The only thing that surprises me about the above scenarios is there’s a human alive who would believe their improbabl3a let alone, as “can’t” would imply, impossible.

I don't think you've worked in the medical industry, or you'd know just how big of a deal HIPAA is.

I've never worked in the medical industry but I know many people who have, who basically told me HIPAA violations are extremely common and only enforced for a fraction of violations that actually occur. My ex used to work in medical insurance (for a very, very big company) and estimated that maybe 3% of HIPAA violations are actually enforced. I used to think HIPAA was a huge deal until she told me story after story of violations that were ignored.

I think HIPAA is the sort of thing where if you hear about it then it's taken seriously, but the overwhelming number of violations are just ignored and you never hear about them. I'd like to be wrong but unfortunately that's the information I've been fed by people more knowledgeable than me.

They do have pharmacies. I'm sure they have a lot of people who do all their shopping there.

That’s a big hipaa violation.

No, but it's probably a HIPAA violation.

They also probably have a pretty good model of what weight loss looks like absent semaglutide. The semaglutide patients probably have a different set of purchasing behaviors from dieters and LAP band surgery patients.

Not if just looking at correlation.

Incorrect

You can’t anonymize the data first?

Nope, it’s not like A/B testing a button color on an ad; it’s medical history

You can anonymize data. If it's not able to identify the real person, it's allowed.

Data which can be tied back to someone's purchase history is by definition not anonymized

It’s HIPAA.

Surveys

Could totally be creepy. But could also totally be a survey. Those are still probably pretty cheap to run on something like Walmart+ delivery customers.

> An increasing number of CEOs and investors are talking about how popular weight-loss drugs might change the economy and business. Earlier this week, the CEO of the maker of Pringles and Cheez-Its said the company is studying their potential impact on dietary behaviors. “Like everything that potentially impacts our business, we’ll look at it, study it and, if necessary, mitigate,” Steve Cahillane, the CEO of Kellanova, said in an interview.

Well that’s just dark.

I didn't know Pringles and Cheez-Its had Darth Vader running the company.

Wait till you see who is running FUNYUNS.

It's death himself.

I think past a certain point, all corporate cultures converge on tobacco company ethics.

"Pringles now with nicotine and menthol!"

"Now with more MOLECULES!"

"Mitigate" could mean "make a product that is appealing to health-conscious consumers".

It could. In the same way that when fossil fuel companies found out their business is destroying the planet they could have pivoted into renewables. But they didn’t.

With profit being the deciding factor it’s anyone’s guess what the people who are in charge of these companies will do to avoid bankruptcy.

I thought this was darker:

> Customers taking weight-loss drugs “tend to spend more with us overall” even as they buy less food, Rainey told CNBC.

At least it's not "if necessary, litigate" ... well not yet.

I'm on Zepbound, and it's clear there's going to be a day when grease, salt, and carbs will no longer run the world in 20 years when these drugs (and the mechanical injector) go off patent.

If I could invest in a 20 year short in the fast/junk food companies, I would easily do so.

GLP-1 gene therapy is approaching human trials. Bug fixing a human vulnerability big business exploited.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38495653

Want dark? NEVER EAT PRINGLES/DEHYDRATED POTATES (mashed etc).

Sorry for the caps but its deserved.

Dehydrated potatoes aren't graded. Read on for gross information.

I recently had the pleasure of doing HVAC/controls for potato/onion storages in Washington state.

Some storages are so gross I couldn't believe it was legal. Dead and living animals/rodents and nests etc. Mold and bacteria, rancid water pools, truly disgusting. I'm still trying to figure out what to do with the videos I took. Some of the climacell water tanks (some the size of pools) hadnt been cleaned in years and had so many dead frogs and whatnot they were literally bubbling cesspools. And had been running that 'water' over the climacell pads to then be blown all over the storage, products, and people working in them.

And that wasn't the bad part.

The bad part was seeing piles of rotted and disintegrating potatoes go to dehydration machines to become pringles, dehydrated mashed potatoes, etc. They don't throw away the piles that go bad. They let them sit and stew until they've a full load and truck em out.

The trucks would literally have black horrible smelling slime spilling out all sides of the trailer, the weighing station was beyond disgusting.

Sure, heat will kill the bacteria, mold, fungi etc, and they will all be bleached- but once you've seen it, it's life changing. I shop mostly at farmers markets now for my veggies/fruits. After seeing potato and onion storages, processing plants and whatnot, the things foos companies can legally do is fucking frightening. I used to love Pringles.

As of late, I have started to look at the ingredients of many of the foods I consume, here in India, and it deeply saddens me that most consumers stuff themselves with such ultra-processed chemical laden, taste and mind altering foods.

I had to struggle a bit, but I have been able to wean off my kid from these foods and started making a lot of them at home.

My next target is to get a cold press machine and make the oils used for cooking at home too.

Why does it make you sad?

because ultra processed foods are objectively bad for us?

Because ultra-processed foods have become a major consumer market and people are taking them in huge quantities.

https://badgut.org/information-centre/health-nutrition/ultra...

    pop and fruit drinks
    sweetened yogurt
    sweet or savoury packaged snacks (e.g., cookies)
    candies and cake mixes
    mass-produced packaged breads and buns
    margarines and spreads
    breakfast cereals
    cereal and energy bars
    energy drinks
    instant soups, sauces, and noodles
    poultry and fish nuggets, hot dogs
    many ready-to-heat products: pre-prepared pies, pasta, and pizza dishes

It's somehow Ozempic and not the always rising, already high prices for everything required for daily life?

They are correlating it with Ozempic purchases according to TFA

Ozempic purchases happen to also be correlated with rising prices, though.

Presumably they're looking at comparable shoppers before and after one starts Ozempic during the same time period. Or are you implying people are starting Ozempic to avoid buying food?

How is Walmart obtaining data on when individual people start taking Ozempic? That seems like quite a HIPAA violation.

I’d suspect it has something to do with signing up for an Ozempic discount card (which many people did / still do). Pretty sure they’re allowed to sell that data (their privacy policy seems to allow as much).

> Or are you implying people are starting Ozempic to avoid buying food?

I read a recent article that said it cost $1,000/mo. So doubtful this would be a good strategy to save money.

Also that consumers are increasingly aware of how atrocious the American diet is and want to eat food that's made out of food, not just endlessly processed nutrient-void corn covered in fucking sugar.

Is this speculation or you live seen large shifts in consumer sentiment that coincide with Ozempic?

Maybe I'm overly paranoid, but this article reads like an ad for Ozempic: "It's so good retailers are seeing noticeable fewer food purchases!"

Ozempic is like $800 a month, do the people spending that also go to Walmart?

Yes

1. Health insurance caps the annual price to a few thousand dollars, which is worth the money for most people for the health and social advantages

2. Wealthy suburban families shop at Wal-Mart quite a lot

I'm love Walmart, great prices and return policy. Way less sketchy crap like Amazon has.

I wish Walmart didn't ruin their catalog with third party like Amazon did

Many people who are taking ozempic are not doing it with a prescription. That would not generally be covered by insurance.

Edit: I meant off-label, not without a prescription. Same treatment by insurance.

... But if you're doing it illegally, you can pay way less money than you would for prescription Ozempic.

There is a booming black market for bootleg Chinese Semaglutide (and Tirzepatide, and Retatrutide, and etc)

Correct - Every health "spa" in the US sells it for 30% of what the name brand is.

If only that were the case. $800/mo, with coupon, because insurance says no.

there's plenty of people who buy groceries at wal-mart not by choice, but because wal-mart is the only grocery store in their suburb.

I normally buy at the local store within walking distance, but $80 at Wal-Mart costs me 120-150 at the local store.

I’ve been living in Quartzsite, AZ, for the last 3 months, and we don’t even have a Walmart. The closest one is a 45-minute drive away.

It's covered for actual diabetics

It’s also covered for actual obese as well.

That's new under Wegovy

We govt and ozempic are the same drug, semaglutide, made by the same manufacturer, Novo Nordisk.

Wegovy is not new, it was approved by the FDA for weight loss in 2021. And Ozempic was used off label for weight loss for many years before then.

So Ozempic is approved for use by the obese for weight loss.

They should see this as a good thing (which it is).

Instead of seeing it as "Oh, noes, people are buying less junk food" they could see it as an opportunity to sell customers on more upscale goods with the cost savings. Instead of junk filled with soy and corn filler they can now buy smaller portions but with genuine ingredients without any fillers.

Take it as an opportunity to upsell a healthier lifestyle with tastier ingredients.

And I thought the reason are the skyrocketing prices due to inflation and greedflation.

https://archive.is/O0zr5

Anyone here taking Ozempic? Care to share your experience?

When the supply is steady... yes, I bought waaaaay less food.

Given how much less junk food you eat, it's very cost effective

I don't take it but my wife does. I saw a reduction in our spending almost immediately because she's bringing home less from the grocery store and no longer interested in eating out. I've saving money even after our out of pocket costs (insurance covers none of this for us) and I have a happier wife.

Not Ozempic, but same class drug. I am extremely lucky to have zero side effects, not everyone does, so understand what you could be in for. My experience isn't your experience. TANSTAAFL.

That said...pre-diabetic symptoms (genetic predisposition included) gone based on blood sugar readings. Lost a life-changing amount of weight over several months (i.e. it's not a 'loose 20 lbs in a week' weight loss drug unless you're using it in an very unhealthy way). Subjectively, cravings heavily reduced. Doc says blood work going in the right direction. So I can say cautiously it's a net win.

I need it as an actual diabetic but it's hard to get

Wife was taking Wegovy. In the same class but specifically meant for weight-loss. She felt sick most the time on it, but it does work.

Taking compounded tirzepatide ($6000/yr for 15 mg/wk) and lost ~120 lbs. Ironically, sugar tastes a lot stronger, and food generally tastes better, but I don't want as much. Haven't seen any other changes or improvements.

Wait a sec. Didn’t they say this a few months ago and then walk it back?

The article is from October 2023. If you or someone else has a link to a more recent article where they take it back, I would be happy to read it as well!

Ever since retail execs blamed their lack of profits on widespread shoplifting then walked that claim back with absolutely zero consequence I’ve worked on the assumption that they say absolutely anything they need to if it boosts short term stockholder gains.

or this is bs like the retail store "crime wave" and people are buying less food because food is more expensive... who's to say?

Are the sales of smaller size clothing increasing?

Buy less food but $1000/month for the meds

There's an annoying paywall I don't care to ty to get around but the fact that your grocer can correlate you to your drug use is the real worrisome part here.

Walmart runs a pharmacy, and most people use the same payment cards to check out for food and for pharmacy purchases (and also happily offer up loyalty cards and other tracking identifiers).

Walmart is also one of the largest users of facial recognition technology.

Why would it be surprising or worrisome that the people you buy something from know what you bought from them?

The degree to which Walmart enthusiastically links things via payment cards has me considering going back to cash when I shop there. The first time I saw a series of in-store purchases unexpectedly show up in my walmart.com account history, I was not particularly happy.

I think the Apple Card has privacy from stores built-in.

> one of the largest users of facial recognition technology

> Why would it be surprising or worrisome

...Are you serious? An unstoppable megacorp that continues to horizontally expand across a number of markets using some of the most invasive possible surveillance and tracking methods to correlate tons of tons of personal behavioral data of hundreds of millions of normal citizens, and you can't find the slightest thing worrisome about it?

There’s a difference between them having a record of your purchase and them accessing that record for business analysis reasons. If Walmart operated a medical clinic, would you comfortable with their corporate data scientists accessing your health records?

I’m: not comfortable with merchants knowing what I purchase.

The merchants have a right to know what they sell; it is the same data.

You can (and should) always pay cash anyway. Then they know what is sold, but not to whom.

They can know what they sell. I just don’t think the default should let them know who they sell to.

This story has 100% of the markers of public relations and a planted story.

Take a step back: Do you actually believe this? Really? Really? It just reads like it’s fake.

The data is simply not believable. It is designed to get headlines and focus on Ozempic to get people to buy it.

This is propaganda. Planted and designed by pharm industry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com