Author: jonkingsman

I have spent the past week working on my new book about sugar, delving deeper into the sugar-and-health rabbit hole. Back in 2015, I wrote.

What about the tooth decay – is that still a problem? When I was growing up in the 1960s, I disliked visiting the dentist; I always seemed to end up having a large hole drilled in one of my teeth and having it filled with lead.

When my children were growing up, they seemed to eat more sweets and candies than I ever did, yet all four of them reached adulthood without a single filling. They even looked forward to their visits to the dentist; they could read the latest comics in the waiting room. I attributed this intergenerational change to the fluoride in the tap water. 

Recent research suggests it may not have been the fluoride in the water, but rather that our kids rarely drank sugar-sweetened soft drinks (SSBs).

Other children are less fortunate. Recent NHS England data show that tooth decay is the leading cause of hospital admissions among 5- to 9-year-olds in England, surpassing other common childhood conditions, including acute tonsillitis. The data showed that 21,162 children aged 5 to 9 were admitted to hospital in 2024/2025 due to tooth decay.

Dr Charlotte Eckhardt, Dean of the Faculty of Dental Surgery (FDS) at the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS England), said:

“These figures are a public health emergency. Tooth decay is entirely preventable, yet thousands of children are hospitalised every year for procedures that could have been avoided with simple daily habits and better access to an NHS dentist.”

But is sugar to blame? In a 2018 study, the authors wrote:

Based on data from the 2011-2012 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), there is a positive and statistically significant relationship between added sugar intake (grams/day) and dental caries (defined as the number of decayed, missing, or filled primary and permanent tooth surfaces as proportion of the total number of tooth surfaces in the mouth) for children ages 18 years and younger.

Research published in 2023 confirms a strong link between sugar consumption and dental caries among children. The study found that SSBs contributed significantly.

An earlier review of 6–12-year-olds found that higher intake of dietary free sugars, especially soft drinks, was linked to increased caries incidence in both deciduous and permanent teeth, including an incidence rate ratio of 1.75 when soft drink consumption moved from low to high over two years. The authors explicitly stated that sugar-sweetened beverages contribute to the development of caries.

However, we should not put all the blame on SSBs. A 2023 meta-study found that unhealthy processed foods also contribute to tooth decay. My own dentist told me that potato chips were now the number one tooth public enemy; they stick to your teeth while sugar doesn’t. Even so, drinking sugar-containing soft drinks, sugar-flavoured milk, and fruit juices between meals also keeps the pH level in your mouth high throughout the day, which favours tooth decay.

So, what to do? What should you do as a parent?

I was at least partially correct about the fluoride. In a review, the Oral Health Alliance (yes, that is a thing) writes.

Decades of research demonstrate how preventive oral health practices can help decrease the development of certain oral health conditions, including dental caries, or cavities. Preventive oral healthcare starts good oral hygiene practices, such as brushing with fluoridated toothpaste, drinking fluoridated water, flossing daily, chewing sugar free gum, and avoiding excess sugar and fermentable carbohydrates, and not smoking. Prevention also includes addressing socio-economic and racial/ethnic inequalities that impact access to oral healthcare and education.

Moving on, I wrote the following in 2015,

Although tooth decay is a recognised and genuine issue, child hyperactivity is not. Here, the medical profession owes an apology to all children raised during the 1980s and 1990s who had to endure sugar-rationed birthday parties. We now understand that sugar does not cause hyperactivity; being a child causes hyperactivity. Until a child is old enough to “hang out,” they will only have two speeds: “flat out” or “stop.” 

A 2019 meta-study confirmed that view, finding that sugar had no significant effect on children’s behaviour. I tried to explain that to my two daughters-in-law, but failed to convince them. It seems my grandchildren will continue to have low-sugar birthday parties. (It won’t do them any harm!)

© Commodity Conversations® 2026

It has now been ten years since I published my first book, The Sugar Casino, a brain dump after 37 years in the sugar industry. I am currently updating it, but I worry I might once again fall into the rabbit hole of sugar and health. While sugar and health are not my area of expertise, I cannot update the book without addressing the subject.

Fortunately, there has been excellent scientific research on the topic over the past decade, leading to greater clarity and less hype.

Ten years ago, when I wrote my book, I was concerned that the body might process sugar in liquid form—whether in a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) or fruit juice—differently from sugar in solid foods. Without scientific proof, I wrote:

When you eat an apple, it takes time for your stomach to break down the fibre in the apple to extract the fructose; when you drink a sugar-containing soft drink, that work has already been done for you. Some argue that the “rush” of fructose in a soft drink may overload your liver and encourage it to turn it into fat.

There is another issue with calorific soft drinks: some researchers have questioned whether the mind registers the calories in liquids.  For most of human existence, nearly all calories came from solid food. Only in recent history have humans obtained significant calories from liquids. Therefore, it would not be surprising if the human brain is not hardwired to recognise this new phenomenon of calorie-containing liquids. 

You can try a simple test at home. One 8-oz (250-ml) glass of apple juice contains approximately 175 calories from three to four apples. This evening, before dinner, drink a glass of apple juice and see if it reduces your appetite. You will find it won’t.

Tomorrow evening, eat three and a half apples before sitting down at the dinner table. Even though you have consumed the same number of calories as the previous evening, you will find that you are far less hungry. Your stomach will feel full, giving you a sensation of “satiety” that will result in you eating less for dinner.

Note that both HFCS and table sugar are similar; they contain approximately the same amounts of glucose and fructose. Glucose is absorbed directly into the bloodstream (activating the brain’s reward system), but fructose must first be processed by the liver. If the liver receives too much fructose at once, it converts some of it into fat. 

It appears I was at least partly right. In the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis of its kind (1), researchers from Brigham Young University, collaborating with researchers from German institutions, found that the type and source of sugar may be more significant than previously believed. They state:

Researchers analysed data from over half a million people across multiple continents, revealing a surprising twist: sugar consumed through beverages—like soda and even fruit juice—was consistently linked to a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Meanwhile, other sugar sources showed no such link and, in some cases, were even associated with a lower risk.

Another study (2), also published this year, raised similar concerns. The authors wrote:

Because of their liquid form, Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs) are rapidly consumed and digested, resulting in lower satiety, higher caloric intake, and weight gain. 

High doses of rapidly digested fructose directly activate hepatic fat synthesis, leading to ectopic fat deposition and metabolic dysfunction in liver and muscle. SSBs may also replace other healthier foods in the diet, contributing to harm through their absence.

In 2023, the British Medical Journal published an umbrella review (3) of dietary sugar consumption and health, highlighting the role that SSBs play:

Generally, sugar-sweetened beverages are the largest source of added sugars, including carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks, fruit drinks, and sports and energy drinks. Previous surveys have shown that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is declining in many developed countries, although consumption levels remain high. However, the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is still increasing in many developing countries, which may be attributed to their increased availability, accompanied by economic development.

The message is resonating, particularly among younger generations. In a narrative review of the impact of free sugar on human health (4), the authors state:

The turn of the century witnessed a modest decline in added sugar intake. A report by the US Department of Agriculture noted a 14% reduction in added sugars and sweeteners between 1999 and 2014 [76]. Trends from the US 2001 to 2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) highlighted this reduction, albeit observed only in younger adults (aged 19–50 years) from a mean of 96.6 g to 72.3 g per day, including a reduction in SSBs from 49.7% of daily sugar intake to 37.7% [79].

A similar reduction in sugar was observed in Australia and New Zealand between 1995 and 2011, with the proportion of dietary energy from free sugars declining from 12.5% to 10.9%. The greatest contributor to this decline was again observed in children and young adults.

As a bit of fun, I included a sugar-trader’s diet in my 2105 book (5), writing:

A friend of my wife recently completed a “juice week” during which she consumed only vegetable and fruit juice for seven days. She did it to detox her body and lose weight. My wife asked her whether she had lost weight, and she replied that she hadn’t, but she did feel better and enjoyed the challenge of not consuming anything that hadn’t been blended. 

There are two issues with this. The first is that blending fruit may lead to consuming more fruit without feeling full. The second is that the liver might struggle to process all the fructose received at once, potentially converting some of it into fat. 

If you eat the fruit whole rather than blending it first, you will not only eat less of it but also allow the fructose to be absorbed more slowly into the body, giving your liver more time to process it. (You should notice the use of the word “may”; this remains a controversial topic.) Therefore, liquifying fruit into smoothies or juice means you will consume more calories and less fibre. Instead of juicing the fruit, eat it whole.

However, I also added:

My grandmother used to say, “A little bit of what you fancy does you good; that is my first rule of healthy eating.” 

Or, as Oscar Wilde once famously said, “Moderation in all things, including moderation.”

References

1 Brigham Young University, 2025: Differential risk from sugar in drinks vs solid food.

2 Lara-Castor et al., Nature Medicine, 2025: Burden of disease analysis related to SSBs.

3 BMJ Umbrella Review, 2023: Sugar’s association with 45 adverse health outcomes.

4 Gillespie KM et al., 2023: Narrative review of free sugar impact.

5 Yeah, you’re right. I won’t include a sugar trader’s diet in my new book.

(C) Commodity Conversations 2025

In a previous blog post, Pedro Nonay discussed how regional champions are taking market share from traditional grain trading companies.

One of my readers kindly shared a link to a case study by Marcos Fava Neves, Dean of Harven Agribusiness University in Ribeiro Preto. It concerns AMAGGI, a notable regional player in Brazil.

I am embarrassed to admit that I only included a brief paragraph about AMAGGI in my 2019 book, Out of the Shadows – The New Merchants of Grain.

I try in my books and blogs to present a positive picture of our sector and the companies that operate within it, but without falling into what I call “Public Relations Fluff.” It is a difficult balance to strike.

Some reviewers have criticised my books for depicting an overly optimistic view of the sector. Nevertheless, I make no apologies. There are more than enough books that present a critically negative portrayal of the agricultural commodity trade. I hope my books help balance out some of those negative accounts.

Having given that disclaimer, this is what I would write about AMAGGI if I were to update my book now.

And, I must admit, the company is a prime example of a regional champion.

A Brief History

AMAGGI traces its origins to 1977, when André Maggi established Sementes Maggi in Paraná, Brazil, initially concentrating on seed production. The company’s expansion into Mato Grosso marked a strategic shift towards large-scale soybean farming. This move reflected the Cerrado’s growing potential and set the stage for Brazil’s rural transformation.

By acquiring substantial farmland and investing in storage and logistics, AMAGGI facilitated significant productivity improvements and played a key role in the development of towns such as Sapezal. AMAGGI subsequently diversified into energy, logistics, and international trading, establishing offices in China, Paraguay, and Europe over the following decades.

Following André Maggi’s death in 2001, his son, Blairo Maggi, assumed leadership of the company. He also gained national recognition as a governor of Mato Grosso and Brazil’s Minister of Agriculture.

AMAGGI’s growth mirrors the wider Brazilian agribusiness trend towards vertical integration, asset-heavy logistics, and internationalisation.

Market Share and Competition

Today, AMAGGI ranks among the world’s largest private soybean producers, managing over 360,000 hectares of farmland and trading nearly 20 million tonnes of grains and fibres annually, primarily soy, corn, and cotton. It cultivates more than 1.5 million tonnes of soybeans each year on its own farms.

Annual sales consistently surpass US$9 billion, positioning AMAGGI among the world’s top-tier players. AMAGGI’s market share in Brazilian soybean exports is smaller than that of global multinationals but remains significant among domestically owned companies. In recent years, AMAGGI has exported approximately 9% of Brazilian soy, a figure comparable to Louis Dreyfus but lower than Cargill’s 16%, Bunge’s 12%, and ADM’s 11%.

AMAGGI’s main competitors all operate soy processing plants and extensive regional supply chains in Brazil. These multinationals compete both in sourcing and logistics across the country, particularly in Mato Grosso, the nation’s top grain-producing state.

Domestically, competitors such as Raízen (bioenergy), Lavoro (input distribution), and Comerc Energia (energy solutions) challenge AMAGGI’s diversified business model. However, AMAGGI remains unique for its deeply integrated approach, combining agribusiness, logistics, and energy under a single corporate structure.

AMAGGI’s share of global soy and grain flows is significant and increasing, generally estimated at 4–5% of the world’s soy trade and a similar proportion for total grains based on traded volume.

AMAGGI’s vertical integration, emphasis on Brazilian origination, and rapid volume expansion have enhanced its global significance. Still, the worldwide soy and grain sector remains highly fragmented, with no single company holding double-digit market share.

Strategic Direction and Future Plans

AMAGGI’s recent strategic initiatives emphasise a dual focus on sustainability and vertical integration. The company has invested heavily in logistics to enhance grain export capacity, expanded energy generation (notably hydro and biodiesel), and actively pursued digitisation and environmental management platforms, such as ORIGINAR, a technology platform launched by Amaggi to monitor its grain supply chain.

Sustainability partnerships, such as those with reNature, underscore AMAGGI’s commitment to leading in regenerative agriculture and climate-aligned supply chains.

Looking ahead, AMAGGI anticipates further international expansion, harnessing technology for supply chain management, and exploiting Brazil’s growing reputation in sustainable commodity exports. While competition in global agri-trade may increase, the company’s integrated model, substantial asset base, and focus on sustainability should keep it at the forefront of the Latin American agribusiness story.

PS. Please let me know if you feel that I should highlight other regional champions.

PPS, Zero Carbon Analytics recently published a report on soy production in the Cerrado and how land clearance is reducing rainfall and adversely affecting yields. It’s worth reading.

© Commodity Conversations® 2025

As Pedro Nonay explained on a panel during the recent Commodities Show in Geneva, there has been a quiet revolution in grain trading over the past decade: the world of neat, global flows dominated by a few multinationals is giving way to a more fragmented landscape where regional champions and state-backed firms control an increasing share of the trade.

From ABCD To ABCCD++

For most of the modern era, global grain flows were dominated by a small number of international firms that combined origination, logistics, risk management, and relationships under a single global umbrella. That model has not vanished, but it has been weakened by specialised regional players who understand their local basins better than anyone else.

This shift is not accidental; it reflects politics, sanctions, food security concerns, and a broader rewiring of globalisation into a more bipolar transactional system. Grain trading, as it often does, is simply expressing in physical flows what is already true in geopolitics.​

Wheat As The Front Line

Wheat is where this fragmentation is most visible. Russia now accounts for close to 30 per cent of world wheat exports, yet international players are largely excluded from that flow, with state-linked or domestic houses acting as the key conduits.

The result is a two-tier market: on one side, global traders who still dominate in many origins and destinations; on the other, a growing cadre of regional champions that manage specific corridors and price relationships. The more politics intrude, the more those regional specialists gain relative power vs the old global model.​

Three Tiers Of Players

The emerging business structure can be organised into three tiers: global, state, and regional. The large multinationals are consolidating, becoming fewer and bigger, seeking scale in capital, risk, data and logistics to defend their global relevance.​

Alongside them sit state players, whose mandates blend economics, politics, and food security: Demetra/Solaris in Russia, COFCO in China, Olam in its Gulf-linked incarnation, and sovereign-backed stakes in traditional houses such as ADQ’s investment in Louis Dreyfus.

Then there are companies with a strong local presence that have been expanding their CIF trading, including Cefetra in Europe, Invictus and AlGhurair in the Middle East and Africa, and Enerfo in Asia.

We should also mention that there are long-established local companies with crushing operations at origins such as Argentina and Brazil, and destinations such as China or Algeria.

Then there is the third bloc: regional champions that connect local producers and consumers to this more polarised global system, often with sharper local knowledge and greater political agility.

Why Regional Champions Are Winning Share

Several forces are steering volume towards regional specialists. First, the world is transitioning from an era of multilateralism and rules-based trade to what Pedro terms a “bi-decade” that is bipolar, biglobal, bilateral, and binary, where being aligned—or at least acceptable—to a specific camp is as important as price.

Secondly, the grain trade is becoming more ‘weaponised”, with export embargoes, sanctions, and government-to-government deals changing who can ship to whom and under what conditions. In this environment, agile, locally trusted operators often hold an advantage over global corporations that are more constrained by regulation, reputation, and financing arrangements.

Logistics Revolution And The Local Edge

At the same time, logistics are undergoing their own revolution, propelled by climate-related changes such as a potentially more navigable Arctic, as well as shifting investments in ports, railways, and storage facilities along new trade routes. Regional leaders are often best placed near these assets to capitalise on emerging bottlenecks or arbitrage opportunities as routes evolve.

Their competitive advantage is rarely just freight; it is culture, relationships, and the ability to operate with respect for local norms rather than with an imperial mindset. In a world where money no longer buys everything, value systems and mutual trust can be as decisive as balance sheet strength.

Competition, Ethics And Behaviour

Fragmentation has not only altered who trades but also how they behave. The more the system divides into blocs and corridors, the more inconsistent standards become regarding transparency, ESG, and even fundamental business ethics.

This creates a competitive environment where some actors must adhere to strict public-market and Western compliance standards. In contrast, others operate under more flexible or alternative rules, supported by state interests or oligarchic capital. For regional champions, the challenge and opportunity lie in manoeuvring between these worlds without compromising long-term credibility.

From Free Trade To G2G

The core question here is whether the grain trade is returning to a government-dominated model similar to the 1970s. The comparison is fitting, but the outcomes differ: today’s world is highly interconnected, data-driven, and technologically mediated, so state power now appears more through partnerships, stakes, regulations, and informal pressure rather than solely via centralised state boards.

The debate is increasingly focused on “free trade versus government-to-government trade,” and regional champions often sit in the middle, acting as executors or partners in deals where states set the framework and private companies handle the risk and logistics.

How The Majors Need To Adapt

For global companies, competing in this environment requires more humility and collaboration. The era of imposing universal templates on every region has ended; respect and regionalisation now become strategic necessities rather than mere marketing catchphrases.

Future winners among the majors will probably be those who can work together with state entities and regional champions, align values where possible, and accept that control is less important than access. In a fragmented world, connectivity—being the trusted link between very different systems—may be the ultimate defence.

Hedge Funds and Energy Companies Eye Physical Trading

Alongside regional and national players, hedge funds using advanced analytics are broadening their focus from proprietary agricultural trading to physical markets, as demonstrated by Hartree’s acquisition of ED&F Man and Viterra’s cotton team. Energy trading giants like Vitol are also exploring physical trading but often remain focused on proprietary activities. The merging of data, digital tools, and real-time analytics is speeding up these developments, giving new entrants an advantage. These firms are actively recruiting talent from traditional agricultural traders and will continue to do so.

What It Means For The Next Generation

For young people entering grain trading, the rise of regional champions and state players may appear to create a more crowded landscape, but it also provides many more entry points. Careers are no longer confined to a few global desks; they can begin in specialised regional firms, logistics companies, state-linked businesses, or even data and AI providers integrated into this ecosystem.

The common denominator remains the same: curiosity, analytical rigour, common sense, and the ability to raise the periscope and view markets from multiple angles rather than from a single silo. In a world of asymmetry—in demography, competitiveness, energy, and power—those who understand how regional realities connect to global flows will be the true champions of the next grain-trading era.

PS, I interviewed Pedro this time last year for my book Commodity Conversations – An Introduction to Trading Agricultural Commodities. You can read an extract of the interview here.

© Commodity Conversations ® 2025

A master’s student recently asked me for advice. She had applied for a trading position at a major oil-trading firm but had been turned down.

She was sharp, articulate, and clearly passionate about markets. If I still ran my company, I would have hired her immediately. So why didn’t they?

My guess — and it was only a guess — was that the interviewer didn’t think she was “tough” enough.

Oil trading has that reputation. Sometimes you negotiate contracts in places where business norms, political environments, and expectations are very different. The work can feel intense, unpredictable, and occasionally confrontational.

But “toughness” in trading looks very different from the cliché.

Because the truth is: markets will knock down everyone.

Even when your analysis is solid, you can lose money. You can be right and still be forced out of a position. The key isn’t bravado; it’s the ability to reset, learn, and get back into the ring. A kind of emotional agility.

Rocky Balboa with spreadsheets.

As the student told me about some of the challenges she’d overcome in her life, it was apparent she had exactly the resilience the job required. Gender has nothing to do with it. Resilience is universal.

After our conversation, I found myself reflecting on my own assumptions.

Interviewers make life-changing decisions based on ten-minute conversations — and our brains love shortcuts.

But here’s what I’ve learned after decades in markets:

1. You can be both tough and kind.

Some of the best traders I know are empathetic, generous mentors. They’re steady under pressure, not loud.

2. Physical trading isn’t about confrontation.

The best trades are built on collaboration, transparency, and long-term relationships — not “winning” at someone else’s expense.

When I traded derivatives, I never tried to “beat” the market. I treated it like a conversation partner. When I moved into physical trading, I realised some people thrive in high-pressure negotiations — and some don’t. I eventually found my place as a broker, where analysis and relationships mattered more than brinkmanship.

And let’s be honest: trading isn’t the only job that demands toughness. Teachers, doctors, founders, artists, engineers — everyone gets knocked down. Everyone has to get up again.

So yes, you need resilience to trade. But resilience isn’t aggression. It isn’t volume. It isn’t swagger.

At the recent Commodities Show in Geneva, I asked a friend — one of the best traders I know — whether toughness is essential. He paused for a long time.

Then he smiled and said, “You need to be as hard as nails.”

Maybe. Or maybe there’s more than one way to be tough.

What do you think?

© Commodity Conversations® 2025

I recently published a blog about trends and threats in the commodity business. Climate change is one of the threats. This week, I reached out to Steve Wateridge to ask how it is affecting the two crops he follows—cocoa and coffee. I asked first about cocoa.

Climate change is often blamed for everything. There’s a lobby dedicated to amplifying the threat of climate change and pointing to any weather anomaly as evidence of it. You hear about it all the time. It is sometimes justified, but not always.

Cocoa and coffee prices have hit record highs in the last 18 months. I will discuss coffee later, but the record-high cocoa prices were caused less by climate change and more by a severe El Niño, along with long-term structural issues such as ageing trees and swollen shoot disease.

The disease is caused by the Cacao Swollen Shoot Virus (CSSV), which is transmitted from infected to healthy cacao trees by different mealybug species. It is one of the most economically damaging viruses affecting cacao production, as CSSV reduces yields over time and will eventually cause trees to die. The disease has had a significant impact on cacao production in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire in recent years.

The disease spreads slowly, but as yields decline, the farmer gives up and replants. The problem is, if they replant without realising they’ve got the virus, the new trees will become infected as well. This has been ongoing for 20 years. I first became aware of CSSV in Côte d’Ivoire in 2008, and it has since worsened, yet the government has not taken action to control its spread. The disease is the leading cause of recent poor crop yields in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana.

Cocoa prices have remained too low for too long. Governments have not taken the disease seriously, possibly because it is mainly smallholders who produce cocoa. There are no big plantations. The Ivorians may not have been aware of the way the disease was spreading, but the Ghanaians have known about it. It was a significant factor in their crop’s collapse in the 1970s, but the government lacks the funds to address it.

It’s truly coming home to roost. The worrying thing is that nothing significant is being done to change it. Cocoa production in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana will continue to decline until this issue is addressed.

But isn’t climate change at least partly responsible?

Climate change has not been a significant issue. I don’t see any convincing evidence that the climate in West Africa has changed enough to cause a substantial decline in crop yields. We are observing record crops in Cameroon, Nigeria, DR Congo, and Uganda. In South America, record crops are also being harvested in Ecuador and Peru.

Why has the CSSV issue not been addressed previously? And with these record-high cocoa prices, will producers and governments now have the funds to tackle it?

Why has it not been addressed before? You would need to ask the governments of Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. Either they were unaware of it, or they ignored it.

Once a tree becomes infected, it must be cut down, the infected tissue burned, left for 12 months, and then replanted. There has been no such programme in place. From 2010 to 2020, cocoa production in Côte d’Ivoire expanded significantly, and to a lesser extent in Ghana’s western region, driven by increased area, deforestation, and new plantings. This increase offset the adverse effects of swollen shoot disease.

Côte d’Ivoire production nearly doubled during that period, even as the disease was spreading. Yields began to decline once these new trees reached maturity, and the disease became even more evident, accelerating that decline.

Despite the prices we’ve seen over the last 18 months, there are no real efforts to tackle the issue in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. This means prices will need to remain higher for longer to encourage production elsewhere and reduce demand.

The question becomes, “What price level achieves that?

Over the last 12 months, we found that a cocoa price of $10,000 per tonne is too high. It destroys too much demand and incentivises too much supply outside Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana.

It doesn’t mean we have to revert to $2,000 or $3,000 per tonne. That would be too low. A price around $5,000 or $6,000 per tonne should establish a balance between supply and demand, with short-term stock replenishment.

You mentioned that other West African producers are experiencing record crops. What are they doing differently that Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana are not doing right?

They pass higher prices on to the farmers. Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana have state marketing boards that sell forward. Since they sold at lower prices, they haven’t been able to give farmers the higher market prices. Now, farmers in both countries are receiving $5,000 per tonne.

When the price was at $12,000 per tonne, farmers in Cameroon and Nigeria received $10,000 per tonne. They have responded with better farm care, disease-spraying, improved husbandry, and new plantings. The new trees won’t produce fruit for another couple of years, but all of this helps.

The state marketing boards impose a tax on farmers in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. They pass on 60-70% of the world price, while in Ecuador, Cameroon, and Nigeria, farmers receive 80-90% of the world price. Unfortunately, the proceeds from that taxation haven’t been invested in the cocoa sector. Instead, they have been used for other purposes.

How has consumption been impacted?

When prices ranged between $2,000 and $3,000 per tonne, we became accustomed to cocoa consumption increasing by 2 to 3 per cent per year.

However, if your two leading producing countries are in decline, you need significantly higher prices to boost cocoa output elsewhere and to slow demand growth. We’ve seen unprecedented demand destruction in cocoa. We’ve lost 10 per cent over the past two years due to high prices.

It’s not just about passing higher prices to consumers, leading them to eat less chocolate. You’re seeing manufacturers reduce cocoa content in their products. The classic example was just this week, when McVitie’s in the UK replaced cocoa butter in its Penguins and Club biscuits with cheaper vegetable fat. They can no longer say,  If you like a lot of chocolate in your biscuit, join our Club, because it’s not real chocolate; it’s chocolate-flavour.

You mentioned that vegetable oils are replacing cocoa butter. Does this alter the taste of the finished biscuit?

When I entered the cocoa industry in the 1980s, I worked at Rowntree’s. Cocoa butter is a delicate vegetable fat in terms of its cooling curve —the temperature at which it melts and so on. It wasn’t easy to replicate. At that time, there were alternatives, but they often felt waxy. You could tell the difference between real chocolate with cocoa butter and cocoa liquor, and the chocolate coatings, which contained cocoa liquor or powder and vegetable fat.

The technology has improved so much that it’s difficult to tell the difference. I’ve tried the new recipe for Penguin biscuits. I didn’t know that it was only chocolate flavouring. They’ve replaced cocoa butter with a great substitute. I couldn’t tell the difference.

It makes it easier for these substitutions to occur. There’s reputational risk. They have had to change the slogan for Club biscuits, and it has attracted significant media attention, even though consumers can’t tell the difference.

Well, that’s all I’ve got on cocoa. Do you have enough energy left to talk about coffee and climate change?

Absolutely! Climate change is significantly impacting coffee production.

Over the past 40 years, the coffee market has generally operated with oversupply at or near production costs, punctuated by price spikes during adverse weather conditions. Brazil is the world’s largest coffee producer, but it is susceptible to periodic droughts and frosts that affect production. These events cause price increases, which tend to limit demand growth and encourage increased production elsewhere. When the weather returns to normal, Brazil produces a large crop, leading to another period of oversupply, which drives prices back to the cost of production. Typically, this cycle takes about 18 months to two years to complete.

The main change is that the current issues in coffee, which have led to record-high prices recently, basically began about five years ago. It was during 2021-22 when a major weather-related deficit occurred, caused by drought and frost in Brazil. Since then, the Brazilian crop has continued to underperform consistently.

I firmly believe that climate change is responsible. We have the evidence. Look at the last five years in Espirito Santo and Minas Gerais. The weather has been drier, on average, than it was over the previous ten years, and those ten years were drier than the ten years before them. It’s also been hotter, on average, than the last ten years, which were hotter than the ten years before that.

Climatologists attribute it directly to deforestation—not only in the Amazon but also in the Atlantic forest. Whatever the cause, the conditions in Espirito Santo and Minas Gerais are now less than ideal for coffee growing. It doesn’t mean you can’t grow coffee, but it does mean the crops consistently underperform their potential.

That’s why we need prices to remain high to curb demand growth. We’re not observing anything like the demand destruction we see in cocoa.

Coffee demand tends to be more resilient. It is uncommon for global coffee demand to decline, even with record-high prices. What we see is a stabilisation in demand growth. The long-term trend indicates that coffee consumption grows at about 1.5% annually. If it doesn’t grow for seven years, that leads to a 10.5% decrease in demand. Prices have been very good for farmers, and we are continually increasing production capacity through better farm management and expanding cultivation areas. What we are not observing is that capacity being fulfilled. It is certainly not in Brazil.

We’ve also experienced a severe El Niño that has impacted coffee production in Asia. Severe El Niños are often linked with drought in Indonesia and Vietnam, resulting in poor crop yields. Additionally, there have been disease issues in Central America and Colombia.

What we need to bring prices down is for Brazil to reach its full potential. If that happens, there will be a significant surplus, and prices will drop to the level of production costs.

What about Vietnam? Has climate change affected coffee production there, too?

I don’t see much evidence of that. The problems in Vietnam over the past few years have been mainly due to a severe El Niño, which brought the rainy season to an early end and delayed its start in April and May. This increases pressure on irrigation. The robusta crop depends on irrigation.

Guy Hogge once told me that coffee production in Central America was moving to higher altitudes and had already increased by about 500 metres because of climate change. Is that true?

I don’t know as much about Central America as Brazil, Vietnam, and Colombia, as these are the leading coffee producers. However, Central America’s production hasn’t increased in the last five or ten years. They’ve had disease issues and labour shortages caused by migration to the US. I wouldn’t like to say if climate is also a problem there.

However, climate change in Brazil is a significant factor. It’s a real game-changer. I’m no longer sure what a typical weather pattern for crops in Brazil is, since we don’t seem to experience normal weather year after year.

Is the coffee sector taking climate change seriously?

That’s a tough question. Brazilian farmers are aware of it, but are they taking it seriously? There was a severe drought in Espirito Santo in 2016-2017, and the farmers invested heavily in irrigation and water storage. Previously, many farms irrigated from rivers, but the state government ended that practice, affecting crops. So now, many more farms have their own storage capacity.

I’m unsure whether that’s enough to lessen the impacts of climate change. It is helping, but the crops still underperform. However, prices will eventually fix the issue. They always do.

Slightly off topic, how is the US’s 50% tariff on Brazilian coffee imports impacting the market?

The coffee market experienced significant deficits in 2021/22 and 2022/23, leading to a drawdown of stocks.

Although the market was no longer in deficit in 2023/24 or 2024/25, we didn’t generate a surplus or rebuild stocks. We still face a tight stock situation. However, stocks should be replenished if we achieve a decent surplus in 2025/26 and 2026/27.

The 50% tariff has come amid a very tight stock situation in consumer countries. As a result, US roasters have tried to secure as much coffee as possible from outside Brazil, because Brazil is just too expensive. You know, usually the most significant flow of coffee in the world in July, August, and September is from Brazil to the US. It hasn’t necessarily stopped, but it’s undoubtedly been curtailed.

They are even shipping certified stocks from Europe to the US. The tariffs don’t affect global supply because the Brazilian crop remains available. But because Brazilian farmers have recently made substantial profits due to high prices, they are not panicking into selling their coffee cheaply or flooding markets outside the US. They believe this will be a temporary problem and are holding onto their coffee.

So, with the Brazilians holding on to their coffee, the US is attracting everything from outside Brazil, and the supply situation is only tightening.

What could cocoa learn from coffee regarding climate change and its associated risks? Should cocoa be worried about climate change?

There is no conclusive evidence that the climate is changing significantly in cocoa-producing regions.

If it becomes an issue, it will only worsen problems caused by the disease and the ageing tree stock. Prices will increase to a level that encourages farmers to invest more in cocoa, while discouraging people from consuming so much. That’s how markets operate.

Thank you, Steve, for your time and input.

© Commodity Conversations® 2025

William W. Wilson is a University Distinguished Professor and CHS Endowed Chair in Risk and Trading   at North Dakota State University in the Department of  Agribusiness and Applied Economics. His focus is risk and strategy as applied to agriculture and agribusiness, with a particular focus on procurement, transportation, logistics, international marketing, and competition. He teaches classes in commodity trading, risk, and agribusiness strategy. Bill recently published a paper, ‘Dynamic Changes in the Structure and Concentration of the International Grain and Oilseed Trading Industry.[1]

Good morning, Bill, and welcome to Commodity Conversations. My first question: What’s your assessment as to the level of concentration among commodity trading companies? Is the business environment competitive?

Our results suggest that the industry is highly competitive. In fact, in academic terms, we’d define the sector as competitively fierce.

Generally, the market share of the four largest firms (CR4) is around 30per cent, though this varies by commodity and country. The aggregate figures for FOB and CNF shipments are 32 per cent and 27 per cent, respectively. The statistics for C&F shipments averaged 33 per cent during the first three years of our study, but fell to 27 per cent in 2023. In all cases except for US exports, FOB shipments are less concentrated than CNF shipments.

The four firms with the largest market share for FOB shipments are Cargill, COFCO, ADM, and LDC, while the leaders for CNF shipments are COFCO, Bunge, ADM, and Cargill. There is a distinction in market leaders between FOB and CNF shipments.

In your paper, you refer to cluster analysis. What is it?

Cluster analysis is a statistical tool we use in big data analytics. We use it to identify which firms are most closely associated with each other. In our case, we attempted to cluster the trading firms based on the number of shipments they make, the number of origins and destinations they serve, and the commodities they trade. We identified three clusters.

The first consists of seven firms. In addition to the ABCD group, it includes COFCO, Viterra, and CHS (ABCCCDV). These firms account for 45per cent of global FOB shipments, which is significantly lower than the percentages reported in earlier studies. These results are fundamental to understanding the structure of the international grain trading industry. Rather than suggesting one segment called ABCD, there is a cluster comprising seven firms with similar characteristics.

Our second cluster is a large group of smaller firms with similar structural characteristics but typically have few origins or destinations. We refer to these firms as ‘the competitive fringe’.

Our third cluster comprises many small firms that handle commodities other than wheat, corn, or soybeans.

Your analysis reveals that seven firms, comprising the ABCD+ group of seven trading companies (ABCD + COFCO, Viterra, and CHS), account for 45 per cent of global FOBS shipments. In 2024, EY and others prepared a discussion paper for the EU’s Agriculture Committee that concluded the four ABCD companies “handle around 50–60 per cent of the worldwide trade in essential COPSs (Cereals, Oilseeds, Protein crops and Sugar), and 70–80 per cent if you include CIL (COFCO International) and Viterra.” Why do your figures differ from theirs? 

EY published their study when we were finishing ours.

The first thing to say is that the ABCD companies are not the four largest firms in the sector. COFCO is one of the largest. EY focused specifically on ABCD.

There are a few other distinctions. One is that they used all cereals, oils, proteins, and sugar. We omitted sugar and several of the others, including barley, sorghum, durum, other softs, including cotton pulses, cocoa, tapioca.

The second is that they use the expression ‘relevant information’ to describe their data sources, but don’t define it. They do say they look at how much grain was handled by each firm, but don’t define ‘handled’. ‘Handled’ does not necessarily mean ‘exported’.

In our data, we utilise what we call Seaborn Commodity Shipments, which track shipments from specific origins to specific destinations. We separate FOB from C&F.

I point that out because it’s likely that there’s a large amount of non-seaborn shipments of grain that result in exports. For example, there’s a significant movement between Canada, the US, and Mexico, as well as Ukraine to Poland and Romania, as well as intra-EU trade, which is all conducted by train or barge.

For example, ADM may originate 100 metric tons of soybeans from a farmer, process 50 metric tons, and sell 50 metric tons in the export market. They then rail the soybean meal into the domestic market. Taken together, it would mean they handled 240 metric tons, when the original volume was 100 metric tons. I suspect there’s some double counting in EY’s data when they use the word ‘handled’.

In my book, The New Merchants of Grain, published in 2019, I wrote that the top seven companies accounted for ‘about 50 per cent’ of the world trade in grains and oilseeds. Is the sector becoming more competitive?

Yes, it is – and significantly so.

I have traced every published study on this topic from the 1970s, starting with one by Richard Caves from Harvard in 1974, which suggested concentration ratios of 80 to 90 per cent. Over the years, it moderated back to 70 to 50 per cent.

In our study, we covered the period from 2020 to 2023. In the first year, the concentration ratio was 33per cent. By the last year, it had fallen to 27 per cent.

In an interview for my recent book, Commodity Conversations, Ivo Sarjanovic estimated the combined market capitalisation of the top eight ABCD+ agricommodity companies to be around $150 billion. To put that into perspective, Chevron has a market cap of roughly $250 billion, Nestlé around $230 billion, and PepsiCo approximately $200 billion. In my book, The New Merchants of Grain, I described the seven biggest agricultural traders as ‘Seven Dwarfs.’ Why do they come in for so much media attention and public criticism even though they are relatively small?

Grain trading companies suffer a disproportionate share of negativity compared to other major commodity companies. I hadn’t thought about it before, but I suppose it’s because it involves food and agriculture. Every country must deal with food and agriculture in some way or another. It’s an important topic that covers food price inflation, shortages, and food security, and most countries intervene in some way, more so than in other sectors.

Agricultural commodity trading companies must operate within these government guardrails while maintaining their social licence to operate.

Will the competitive fringe of companies continue to take market share from the ABCD+ group?

Yes. In general, there’s a tendency for all industries to evolve towards a few large firms and a large competitive fringe. Our study found that the competitive fringe is big in agricommodity trading. We identified 38 firms in the competitive fringe. They are niche players that have emerged in various ways, focusing on specific commodities, origins, or destinations.

They are not part of the ABCD+ group, but they are viable and significant companies that compete in the ABCD world.

Soren Schroder, a former CEO of Bunge, once told me that ‘There are too many companies trying to do the same thing with a small margin.’ Do you agree?

It is a challenge. This is an industry with substantial economies of scale, easy entry, and subject to volatile demand; consequently, there are many firms. The answer to your question is, yes, we probably have too many operating on small margins, but given the importance of volatility, which affects margins, that’s just a fact of life.

I wrote a separate paper, focusing on Egypt, where I attempted to document all the countries in the world that use an auction-type mechanism – tenders- to select suppliers. Before Russia invaded Ukraine, Egypt had more than 20 firms offering tonnage every time they had a tender. Now, that’s highly competitive, but it’s the reality of a commodity-type business.

How will Bunge’s acquisition of Viterra affect competition, and how was it received among US, Canadian and Australian farmers?

There was minor criticism, if any, of the proposed merger. I don’t recall any in the US. There was a bit of controversy in Europe, which was ultimately settled. Ditto for Canada and China. All relevant countries have now approved the merger.

I recently reran our data to examine that question. Before the merger, the CR4 – the four-firm concentration ratio – was 27 per cent with the top firms in the C&F market being COFCO, Bunge, ADM, Cargill, Viterra, and Dreyfus, in that order. Post-merger, the CR4 goes to 33 per cent, which, by definition, is more concentrated. The top firms now are Bunge, COFCO, ADM, and Cargill. If two firms merge, you can expect a higher four-firm concentration ratio, but it’s still not excessive.

This calculation presumes that buyers will not change their behaviour. However, some buyers will diversify to the competitive fringe and conduct less business than they did with Bunge and Viterra separately. It’s a natural transition in many industries that observe a merger.

Security has replaced sustainability as the buzzword in the agricultural trade and prompted state actors, such as COFCO, to enter the sector. SALIC (Saudi Agricultural and Livestock Investment Company) has bought Olam Agri, and ADQ (Abu Dhabi Development Holding Company) has an indirect 45 per cent stake in LDC. Will these investments make the countries more food secure?

There’s no doubt that food security is essential nowadays, and rightly so. As to your question whether these amalgamations between private and public entities result in greater food security, it all depends on how they organise and structure their business.

Having a venture between two entities will result in the importing country having more information, which will likely make them more assertive in trading and more strategic in their operations. That’s a good thing, but it doesn’t necessarily solve the food security problem.

Food insecurity has various causes, including climate change, weather-induced production shortfalls, and logistical bottlenecks. Having a public-private partnership doesn’t solve these issues.

My response to this, and the advice I offer to importers and major processors I consult with, is stock holding. You may not like it, because everyone grew up with a JIT (just-in-time) attitude, which is to not carry stocks. However, stocks play an essential role and are the cleanest way to mitigate the risks related to food security.

The quantitative analysis I have conducted suggests that an importer should likely maintain around 20per cent of their expected annual demand in stock. In the US domestic market, participants should hold stocks of approximately 15per cent. Both of those numbers are higher than conventionally taught.

My point is that these private-public relationships can mitigate the risk of food insecurity, but only if they adopt a more overt strategy of stockholding.

What about owning farmland? I recall that the Chinese were purchasing farmland and other agricultural assets in exporting countries, but it didn’t make them more food secure. You can still have localised poor weather or export bans.

Or wars. Owning a farm in Ukraine doesn’t mean that you can export your crops – and that’s if you can even harvest them. Owning assets doesn’t necessarily mitigate problems of food security. I think the only solution is a stockholding strategy.

Holding stocks in the destination country reduces political risk and makes those stocks more easily financeable.

Will this trend continue? Will more state companies get involved in agricultural commodity trading?

It is not a clear trend just because we have three or four entities evolving in this way.

Before 1996, we had extensive state trading enterprises worldwide, but they have largely disappeared. Now there’s pressure to put some back together. I suspect many countries are evaluating this and trying to figure out what to do.

However, it’s essential not to overlook that the pressures on food security are primarily driven by climate change, weather, and logistical bottlenecks. In the 2023/24 crop season alone, we experienced reduced flows through the Mississippi and Danube Rivers due to drought. And we had problems in the Red Sea – all in one year.

Additionally, we face geopolitical pressures that result in tariffs or other forms of trade intervention. The issue of food security is paramount, and governments are under pressure to do something.

The recent unofficial Chinese embargo on U.S. soybean purchases has demonstrated that China wields significant influence over private importers. Does China need COFCO to achieve its objectives?

COFCO is technically a State Trading Enterprise (STE). It is similar in structure to the AWB (Australian Wheat Board) or the CWB (Canadian Wheat Board) of the old days, which had  government-backed credit guarantees. These bodies could direct trades that might not otherwise necessarily have been the optimal trades based on the market at that time.

The Chinese government could achieve its goals by collaborating with the private sector. However, to do that, they would need an intensive regulatory regimen to monitor all the different traders. It’s easier to do that via a single entity.

Russia now controls grain exports in the same way as it controls fossil fuel exports. Why have they done this, and will it be beneficial/efficient to the sector?

The Russian government is attempting to establish and replicate a model similar to its oil industry, where operations are concentrated in a single entity, Rosneft. That is, exploration, drilling, distribution within the country, and exporting. They have had considerable success with that model. They’re trying to accomplish the same with grains and oilseeds.

Following the 2014 takeover of Crimea and the first round of U.S. sanctions, we initially had 20 to 30 Russian trading companies; we have since evolved to just a few, which are heavily concentrated on domestic handling and exporting. The Russian government has also taken over management of private farms, although – and I may be wrong – they’ve not taken over ownership of those farms.

Will it be beneficial? I’m not sure I can answer that for certain. Agriculture is a complex field, and there are numerous risks to manage and control.

Will traditional agriculture commodity trading companies face financial stress due to an environment of low volatility, high stocks, reduced global flows, increased government intervention, and new local/regional players in different parts of the world?

I think you hit all the buzzwords there, and the answer to your question is ‘yes’.

Traders are heavily dependent on volatility. They make good, attractive returns when markets are volatile. There are several reasons for that, but when markets become less volatile, their earnings tend to decrease. And we’re already beginning to see this, at least in the Americas, with companies announcing reduced profits and layoffs.

How should the ABCD+ ag trading companies react – what strategies should they employ?

First, they must exploit economies of scale. Their costs decrease as they grow larger, which gives them an advantage relative to smaller players.

Second, supply chain management has become increasingly important. You must be efficient in managing the supply chain.

The third one is data analytics, and I use the word ‘analytics’ because I don’t want to say data. Early studies by Richard Cave showed that larger firms had an advantage because they had access to information that other firms didn’t have. Information is now universally and simultaneously available at low cost. Everyone has data; the challenge is to analyse it better than your competitors.

The fourth one is optionality. Successful firms must be masters of optionality. In grains and oilseeds, it means the ability to shift origins and destinations – a global book.

And lastly, managing risk and financial management will become increasingly important.

To varying degrees, governments are now active in a) trading, b) tariff policy, and c) biofuels policies, and an increasing percentage of trading company results now depend on government policies. Do you agree?

I agree that governments are increasingly intervening in the trade of agricommodities.

Biofuels are particularly important now in the Americas, Brazil, Europe and India. Agricultural commodity firms must be involved with biofuels in some capacity. They are a reality of life, and it’s just something that companies must live with.

How will technology, data and AI shape the profile of trading companies?

AI doesn’t change what you do; it enables you to make better decisions faster and quickly. In that context, it could be interpreted as a game-changer. We already see AI used in railcar loading and export terminal operations.

There are tremendous opportunities to utilise AI in supply chain management, particularly in managing inventories and maintaining a certain level of inventory at every point in the supply chain.

Every company is looking to utilise AI to make more accurate predictions about future prices or freight rates.

What should readers take away from this wide-ranging interview?

There are a few main takeaways, but the most significant one is that the agricultural commodity trading sector is highly competitive, or, in academic terms, ‘competitively fierce.’ We have a substantial and viable competitive fringe in addition to the traditional large commodity companies.

I don’t want to say it’s easy to enter the industry, because it’s not easy to enter any business. However, we’ve seen companies enter and be successful. It doesn’t mean it’s easy, but it means it is possible, and that’s a vital fabric of this industry. Companies have been able to enter and find a way to be successful and persist.

Taken together, the bottom line is that the grain trading industry is far more dynamic and competitive than other studies have previously represented.

Thank you, Bill, for your time and input.

© Commodity Conversations® 2025

[1] Wilson, William W., David W. Bullock, and Isaac Dubovoy. 2025. “Dynamic Changes in the Structure and Concentration of the International Grain and Oilseed Trading Industry.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13524

Trends, Themes and Threats

The agricultural commodity trade is undergoing profound transformations, driven by shifting demographics, technological advancements, and global political dynamics. I recently delivered a talk highlighting some of the most important trends—and the disruptive “trend breakers” poised to reshape the industry. Here are eight of them:

 Population Growth is Slowing

World population growth is declining quickly everywhere—except Africa. An ageing population in most regions consumes less and makes different food choices, while Africa remains the only consumer market forecasted to grow strongly. This change prompts difficult questions: can Africa feed itself, or will it increase global food demand?

Security Supercedes Sustainability

In today’s volatile world, food security is becoming a higher priority than food sustainability. State-backed funds are increasing investments in major trading houses such as Olam, LDC, and AgriBrazil. Simultaneously, new regional, often state-owned, trading companies, such as Savola, are emerging. Established giants—the so-called ABCD+ group—are losing market share to these agile competitors. Meanwhile, China is expanding its investment footprint in the African agricultural sector.

The Climate is Changing

Climate change impacts both food security and sustainability equally. Public opinions remain divided: many stay silent, while sceptics persist. Companies are shifting from greenwashing to “green-hushing”—downplaying or concealing their sustainability efforts instead of promoting them.

Agricultural production is moving geographically. Climate change doesn’t necessarily mean less food, but it does mean that food will be produced in different regions than in the past.

Climate change opens up new trade routes, necessitating the development of new ports and specialised types of ships.

 Misinformation gathers Momentum

Specialists and scientists in important fields are increasingly marginalised by misinformation and the “Dr Google” phenomenon. This shift endangers the credibility of industry knowledge and public discussion.

The AI revolutionises how we work and what we do.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly shaping the sector, aiming to simplify and adapt analysts’ roles. New insights and efficiencies are achievable for those who adopt these tools.

Futures trading will become even more computerised. Computers trade with computers. May the best algorithms win!

Consumer Tastes are Changing

Consumer behaviour varies worldwide. In Western countries, meat consumption is decreasing, while vegetarians and vegans increasingly avoid ultra-processed products that imitate meat.

A growing backlash against ultra-processed foods—now often linked to obesity and bowel cancer—raises a provocative question: could ultra-processed foods become the “new tobacco” of the 1970s?

Geopolitical Tensions in World Trade

Trade is more politicised than ever, as tariffs and embargos like China’s recent soybean move remind us that food is never just food—it’s about power and politics.

The Democratisation of GLP-1 Drugs

The arrival of more affordable pill-form GLP-1 medications could truly be a game changer, making access more democratic and potentially transforming dietary habits worldwide.

These themes and disruptors are reshaping the landscape of global agricultural commodity markets. Remaining attentive to these signals is vital for everyone involved in the trade, from producers and analysts to policymakers and investors.

©Commodity Conversations® 2025