From Recipe Tweaks to Reformulation as an Operating Model

Reformulation has long been part of food manufacturing. Companies have adjusted recipes in response to regulation, consumer expectations, ingredient economics, supply disruption, and evolving guidance. Today, more requirements can bind simultaneously, vary across customers and jurisdictions, and arrive with fixed cutover dates and higher proof expectations. Definitions of “acceptable” vary by retailer, channel, and claim set. Under these conditions, reformulation can no longer be managed as isolated product work. It must be run as a coordinated, repeatable operating capability.

By Ozan Ozaskinli, Okan Akgun, Sercan Aldatmaz, Jordy Lemus and Eda Kocakarin

We would like to thank the following contributors for sharing their perspectives, providing thoughtful feedback, and supporting the development of this white paper.

Their insights and practical input materially strengthened the content and helped ensure it reflects real-world experience.

David Thomas, PhD, former Chief Research & Development Officer

Charlie Chappell, Global Growth & Innovation Leader

Susan Bond, Chief Regulatory Strategist, The B2B Builder

Carrie Schroeder, Growth Strategist, The B2B Builder

We are grateful for their time and support. The authors are solely responsible for the content of this paper, including any errors or omissions.

Executive Summary

Reformulation has long been part of food manufacturing. Companies have adjusted recipes in response to regulation, consumer expectations, ingredient economics, supply disruption, and evolving guidance. Today, more requirements can bind simultaneously, vary across customers and jurisdictions, and arrive with fixed cutover dates and higher proof expectations. Definitions of “acceptable” vary by retailer, channel, and claim set. Under these conditions, reformulation can no longer be managed as isolated product work. It must be run as a coordinated, repeatable operating capability.

The commercial impact is immediate. Our analysis shows these changes are expected to put roughly 15–40% of SKUs under reformulation pressure over a five-year horizon in many large portfolios. Inside organizations, this pressure exposes the real bottleneck: alignment and decision closure. Reformulation cuts across R&D, procurement, quality, regulatory, operations, and commercial teams, each carrying different risks and incentives. When decisions are delayed, feasible options narrow quickly as time windows close and capacity fills. Based on comprehensive literature review, ongoing unit production costs typically increase in the 3–15% range (with certain categories reaching up to 30% depending on the product and extent of change), execution delays of six to twelve months, or forced tradeoffs that weaken margins, disrupt operations, or risk shelf access. The cost is not only the cost of change, but the cost of being cornered into suboptimal paths.

The solution is to build a repeatable operating model that can absorb continuous change. This means treating reformulation as a portfolio discipline that balances value creation, risk management, and execution across the product base instead of reacting SKU by SKU under deadline pressure. Companies need a clear way to identify where reformulation can strengthen consumer value or brand position, where it puts margins or operations at risk, and where tradeoffs must be made early.

This model begins by translating external and internal signals into clear portfolio implications. Consumer expectations, customer-specific standards, and the regulatory pipeline must be mapped into concrete SKU exposure, timing, and decision requirements. These pressures then need to be assessed against internal realities, including margin structure, R&D and plant capacity, and supplier resilience. The result is a practical fact base for determining what must change, what is feasible, and where the economics justify action.

Companies must then stress-test reformulation options across the value chain before committing. A technically workable substitute is not enough; viable solutions must also clear sourcing constraints, preserve manufacturability, protect margin, and sustain customer acceptance. This requires an integrated assessment across procurement, operations, R&D, regulatory, and commercial teams so decisions reflect real operating conditions, not lab-only assumptions.

Sustainable reformulation depends on disciplined prioritization and execution. Companies need a product-level framework that separates growth opportunities from neutral changes and downside-risk items, then converts those choices into a sequenced three- to five-year roadmap.

Reformulation must sit firmly on the C-level agenda, with clear ownership from senior leadership. When backed by strong governance, defined decision rights, and visible milestones from trials through launch, it becomes a managed enterprise capability rather than a recurring source of disruption.

“Reformulation as an operating capability is most effective when it is treated as an enterprise directive, not a back-room technical exercise. Without clear C-suite sponsorship and broad cross-functional leadership, initiatives stall under competing priorities and resource bottlenecks. When successfully managed as a structured, program, reformulation can protect compliance, unlock productivity, and deliver sustainable value.”

— David Thomas, PhD, former Chief Research & Development Officer