As consumers increasingly prioritize health, the food industry has undergone significant changes driven by a strong demand for recognizable, natural ingredients and a general aversion to artificial sweeteners, flavors, and colors. This shift presents manufacturers with a critical choice: adapt to these new preferences or risk being overshadowed by trendier, healthier alternatives. However, making this transition is more complicated than it seems. The definition of “clean label” varies widely among consumers. For some, it means products that are 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 of HealthFocus International, highlighted that the clean eating movement arises from a mindset focused on rejection, largely influenced by concerns over herbicides and synthetic substances and their effects on human health. Nutrition expert Richard Black noted that consumers often look for terms such as “natural,” “organic,” and “GMO-free” to swiftly assess the safety and nutritional quality of their food choices. “Nutrition is a complex science. We know only a fraction about it, yet it is deeply personal,” he explained. “Food becomes an integral part of who you are. Nothing else matches that connection in consumer products.”
Black also pointed out that consumers value these principles three to five times more than technical expertise, and they are willing to pay a premium for them, particularly younger shoppers. For instance, a significant 68% of millennials are inclined to spend more on organic foods, believing that doing so enhances their health and benefits the environment. This trend offers legacy brands a chance to cultivate a health halo around their offerings and attract consumer interest—provided they manage reformulation, marketing, and timing effectively. However, reformulations involving clean labels or product enhancements have not always succeeded.
A notable example of a failed reformulation is Coca-Cola’s “New Coke,” infamous even three decades post-launch. In summer 1985, the beverage giant altered its classic soda recipe to rekindle consumer interest and address declining market shares. This move was more about altering taste than changing the label. After extensive testing involving 200,000 consumers, who preferred the new version in blind tastings, the company faced chaos upon launching the product. Consumers protested, claiming, “don’t mess with my Coke,” and some even stockpiled the original formula. “What the aftermath revealed is that people favor low-calorie, improved products but resist losing the original standard,” Black said. “When you drink a Pepsi or Coca-Cola, you have specific taste expectations. Any change disrupts that familiarity, and consumers will react negatively.”
Recognizing the power of the Coke brand, the company swiftly reintroduced “Classic” Coke, much to consumer delight. Although this incident preceded the clean label trend, it serves as a cautionary tale about the difficulty of altering a beloved product, even when consumer preference seems to lean toward a new version.
In a different approach, anticipating potential backlash similar to that faced by New Coke, Kraft Heinz quietly reformulated its iconic Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. For months, the company kept consumers unaware of the changes made over three years of research and testing, which indicated a desire for simpler, less chemical-laden foods that families could trust. In 2015, Kraft removed artificial colors and preservatives without altering the product’s beloved taste. The new macaroni and cheese retained its signature vibrant orange color, now derived from natural ingredients like paprika, annatto, and turmeric. Over 50 million boxes of the new product were sold without consumers realizing significant changes had occurred.
“This strategy was incredibly clever. They made the changes without announcing them,” said Lynn Dornblaser, director of innovation and insight at Mintel. A flashy marketing campaign could have spurred negative reactions. While consumers profess a preference for healthier foods, their purchasing behaviors sometimes contradict these claims, as healthy options are often perceived to lack flavor. “Our first guidance was to keep the changes under wraps, which is unusual for an ad agency,” remarked Adam Chasnow, vice president of Crispin Porter & Bogusky, Kraft’s marketing partner. “We wanted to emphasize that everything remained the same.”
Kraft officially disclosed the formula changes in March 2016, using playful print and television ads that stated, “We’d invite you to try it, but you already have.” The company also encouraged fans to share their experiences with the hashtag didntnotice for a chance to win giveaways. This subtle reformulation approach reflects a growing trend among companies aiming to enhance their products’ health profiles.
Similarly, DanoneWave discreetly improved its yogurt offerings by reducing fat and sugar without publicizing the changes on packaging. However, there are inherent risks in promoting product reformulations, particularly when they involve significant reductions in sugar or salt. Nestlé is betting on innovative technology to mitigate any consumer hesitance regarding ingredient changes. In December, the chocolate giant revealed that it had developed a method to restructure sugar molecules, allowing manufacturers to use up to 40% less sugar without compromising sweetness. “With this new restructured sugar, you essentially achieve the same taste experience while consuming less,” explained Lisa Gibby, vice president of corporate communications at Nestlé S.A.
Sugar is notoriously challenging for manufacturers to reduce, especially in desserts and candies. According to a Euromonitor survey, nearly 47% of global consumers seek foods with limited or no added sugar, a demand reflected in the growing support for soda taxes and interest in startup brands promoting no-added-sugar products. Nonetheless, the desire for reduced sugar doesn’t necessarily apply to indulgent items, as many consumers prefer traditional sugars over artificial sweeteners, which may leave an unpleasant aftertaste. Nestlé’s innovation therefore represents a breakthrough, seemingly finding a balance between consumer demand for clean labels and their expectations for product experience.
As Nestlé prepares to market its cleaner labels when products launch in 2018, it will be fascinating to observe consumer reactions. If the innovation resonates well, this technology could potentially revamp other product categories, extending the brand’s health halo. Moreover, with growing interest in health supplements like calcium citrate 500 mg with vitamin D, incorporating such ingredients into reformulated products could enhance their appeal. Ultimately, as the food industry navigates these changes, the challenge remains to balance consumer expectations with the pursuit of healthier formulations.