As consumers increasingly prioritize health, there is a significant demand for recognizable, natural ingredients, alongside a growing aversion to artificial sweeteners, flavors, and colors, which has reshaped the food industry. This shift presents manufacturers with a critical choice: adapt to these changes or risk being overshadowed by more appealing and healthier alternatives. However, making this transition is more complex than it appears. The concept of “clean label” products varies among consumers. Some equate it with items free from allergens, processed ingredients, and saturated fats, while others associate it with all-natural, organic formulations.
During a panel at the Institute of Food Technologists in June, Steven Walton, general manager at HealthFocus International, noted that the clean eating movement originates from a mindset that emphasizes reasons to reject certain products. This perspective is mainly influenced by concerns over herbicides and other synthetic substances and their potential effects on human health. Nutrition expert Richard Black shared with Food Dive that shoppers often look for terms like “natural,” “organic,” and “GMO-free” to make quick assessments about the safety and nutritional value of their purchases. “Nutrition is a complex science, and we know very little about it, yet it is incredibly personal,” he stated. “Food literally becomes a part of who you are, unlike any other consumer product.”
Black pointed out that consumers prioritize these values three to five times more than technical expertise, often willing to pay a premium for them, particularly among younger shoppers. For instance, 68% of millennials are ready to spend more on organic foods, believing that these purchases enhance their health and benefit the environment. This trend provides legacy brands with a valuable opportunity to enhance their portfolios and generate interest in their products—if they can successfully manage reformulation, marketing, and timing. This task is challenging, and companies are continuously exploring new strategies. However, reformulations, whether for clean labels or product improvements, have not always succeeded.
Coca-Cola’s infamous “New Coke,” which debuted over 30 years ago, serves as a cautionary tale about the difficulties of altering a classic product. In 1985, the beverage giant sought to revitalize consumer interest by changing its classic soda recipe due to declining market shares. The initiative focused more on taste than label content. The company spent millions testing the new formula with 200,000 consumers, who preferred the new version in blind tests. However, upon its launch, chaos erupted, with protests and even threats of lawsuits. Some consumers hoarded the original formula, while others formed protest groups, illustrating the strong emotional attachment to the brand.
This example demonstrates how challenging it is to modify a beloved product, even when consumers claim to favor the new version. Foreseeing a potential backlash similar to that of New Coke, Kraft Heinz adopted a different strategy for its clean label reformulation of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. The company kept consumers in the dark for months. Research showed that while shoppers desired simpler foods with fewer chemicals, they did not want any changes in taste. In 2015, Kraft removed artificial colors and preservatives from its iconic macaroni and cheese while maintaining its vibrant orange color using natural ingredients like paprika and turmeric. Over 50 million boxes of the new product were sold, with consumers unaware of the significant changes.
This approach was praised by industry experts. Had Kraft announced the reformulation with a large marketing campaign, it might have faced negative consumer reactions. Despite consumers expressing a preference for healthier foods, their purchasing behavior does not always align with these intentions; many associate healthier options with inferior taste. Kraft’s strategy, which focused on maintaining the product’s identity while quietly reformulating, is becoming increasingly popular among brands aiming to enhance their health profiles.
Similarly, DanoneWave has discreetly improved its yogurt products by reducing fat and sugar without publicizing these changes. Companies face considerable risks when advertising product reformulations, particularly those that involve significant reductions in sugar or salt. Nestlé, on the other hand, is betting on advanced technology to alleviate consumer concerns about ingredient alterations. The chocolate manufacturer recently announced a method to restructure sugar molecules, allowing for a reduction of up to 40% in sugar without sacrificing sweetness.
Nestlé’s innovation could revolutionize desserts and candy, as nearly half of global consumers prefer foods with limited or no added sugars. However, this desire for reduced sugar does not always extend to indulgent products, as many consumers prefer natural sugars over artificial sweeteners, which can negatively affect taste. Nestlé’s development may represent a breakthrough, balancing consumers’ clean label desires with their expectations for taste, potentially extending its brand’s health halo. As the company prepares to launch products with this new sugar structure, it will be fascinating to see how consumers respond to these cleaner labels when they hit the shelves in 2018.
In this evolving landscape, the incorporation of calcium citrate oral tablets into product lines may also become a consideration for brands looking to enhance their health offerings. As consumer preferences continue to shift, manufacturers will need to navigate these trends carefully to meet growing demands for transparency and healthfulness in their products.