A Year in Reformulation, Part 1

It’s a given that reformulation has always been part of the food industry. But this past year. CuliNEX explored the idea that reformulation’s evolution means it now sits at the center of brand, risk, and growth strategy.
We hosted four webinars throughout the year to delve into this topic. Time and again an important theme surfaced: reformulation is no longer driven by a single trigger. It’s being shaped by overlapping pressures: supply chain volatility, regulatory scrutiny, evolving consumer physiology, and rising expectations for both performance and profitability.

Taken together, these conversations reveal how dramatically the reformulation landscape has shifted—and why brands that still treat reformulation as a reactive exercise are increasingly exposed.

Supply Chain Volatility Turned Reformulation Into Risk Management

The year began with a blunt reality check. Brands are reformulating not because they want to—but because they have to.

Ingredient availability, geopolitical instability, tariffs, and climate-driven agricultural disruption have made long-standing formulations fragile. In July’s discussion, reformulation was framed less as innovation and more as resilience.
As one panelist put it:

“Sometimes you can make changes without ever touching the formula and just improve the process along the way.”

This was a pivotal insight. Too often, reformulation conversations start at the bench. But the July webinar emphasized stepping back first—examining yield loss, throughput constraints, packaging inefficiencies, and sourcing concentration. Many brands are discovering that their greatest cost and risk drivers live outside the formula itself.

The takeaway was clear: reformulation has become a form of operational insurance. Brands that proactively simplify ingredient decks, identify alternate sources early, and reduce unnecessary complexity are better positioned to weather disruptions than those reacting under pressure.

Regulatory Pressure Demands Nuance, Not Knee-Jerk Reformulation

If July highlighted external fragility, August focused on internal decision-making under regulatory pressure.

With heightened scrutiny around ingredients—particularly colors, additives, and labeling—many brands feel compelled to reformulate quickly. But the August discussion pushed back against reactionary behavior.

One moment captured the tension perfectly:

“As long as there isn’t a scientifically credible safety concern, we shouldn’t just be driving everybody down a pathway when it’s not necessary.”

Rather than framing regulation as a binary pass/fail exercise, the webinar emphasized choice, evidence, and brand strategy. The example of brands that removed ingredients only to reintroduce them later underscored a hard lesson: reformulation that ignores consumer expectations and product performance can backfire.

Regulatory success, the panel agreed, is not about meeting the minimum standard. It’s about integrating regulatory strategy into product development early—so brands can reformulate with confidence, protect trust, and avoid costly reversals. 

The GLP-1 Effect Changed the Rules of Product Design

By September, the conversation expanded beyond regulation and supply chain to something even more disruptive: changing human physiology. 

GLP-1 medications are altering appetite, taste perception, and eating behavior—and reformulation strategies must adapt accordingly. The September webinar explored how traditional approaches to protein, texture, and portion size are being challenged. 

One statement resonated strongly: 

“Texture tends to be the area where we have the least progressive tools.” 

While flavor masking has advanced, texture remains a stubborn hurdle—especially in high-protein systems. Chalkiness, grittiness, astringency, and mouthfeel issues are magnified for consumers who are eating less and experiencing altered taste perception. 

The discussion also introduced an important reframing: success for GLP-1 consumers may depend on lower-volume, nutrient-dense foods that deliver satisfaction without heaviness.

As another quote captured:

“Foods actually don’t taste good for some of these users.”  

Reformulation, in this context, is no longer about maximizing indulgence or even flavor —it’s about optimizing an experience under new physiological constraints.

Reformulation Isn’t a Project—It’s a Capability

The final webinar of the year brought everything together with a focus on ROI.

Rather than asking whether reformulation is worth it, the November discussion asked how to do it well. The answer consistently pointed back to clarity and alignment. 

One comment summed it up: 

“You don’t want to start reformulating without really knowing what’s driving cost.” 

Too many teams jump into formulation changes without a clear understanding of COGS, BOM drivers, yield loss, or process inefficiencies. When reformulation is grounded in data—and supported by cross-functional collaboration—it becomes far more strategic and far less disruptive.

The November conversation reinforced a critical shift: ROI from reformulation doesn’t only come from cost reduction. It can come from expanded distribution, cleaner labels that unlock new retailers, improved performance, or increased volume.

The Bigger Picture

Across all four webinars, one conclusion stands out: Reformulation is no longer a response. It’s a strategy. 

Brands that succeed will be those that approach reformulation holistically—integrating supply chain resilience, regulatory nuance, consumer insight, and commercial objectives into a single, aligned effort. That shift is no longer optional. It’s the cost of staying competitive.