Why low-friction reformulation is now a strategic imperative for food producers

For much of the past decade, reformulation has been framed as a question of innovation.

• New ingredients.

• New processes.

• New claims.

In practice, however, reformulation rarely fails because food producers lack ambition. It fails because it introduces too much friction into systems that are already under pressure.

Today’s manufacturers are balancing cost volatility, labour constraints, Scope 3 emissions targets, retailer scrutiny, and increasingly conservative capital environments - all while maintaining taste, texture, safety, and margin. In that context, the most valuable ingredient innovations are not those that promise transformation, but those that enable change without disruption.

Low-friction reformulation is no longer a “nice to have”. It is becoming a strategic requirement.

The hidden cost of reformulation friction

Every reformulation introduces risk - but not all risks are equal.

High-friction reformulation typically brings some combination of:

• changes to existing processing lines

• new allergen or regulatory complexity

• uncertain supply at scale

• unproven sensory performance

• additional approval cycles with retailers

Each one compounds internal cost and slows decision-making. Even when the sustainability case is strong, these frictions often stall progress long before products reach shelf.

This is why many reformulation programmes quietly revert to incremental tweaks, rather than the step-changes that sustainability, resilience, and cost pressures increasingly demand.

Why the industry’s constraints have changed

What’s different now is not consumer intent — it’s operating reality.

Food producers are operating in an environment where:

• · ingredient volatility is structural, not cyclical

• · labour availability is constraining agricultural and processing inputs

• · Scope 3 accountability is shifting from aspiration to audit

• · capital discipline matters more than speed

In this environment, reformulation strategies that rely on novel biology, bespoke infrastructure, or fragile supply chains are harder to justify - even if they are technically impressive. The winning strategies are those that reduce risk while delivering change.

Low-friction reformulation: what it actually means

Low-friction reformulation is not about avoiding innovation. It is about designing innovation around existing food systems, rather than asking food systems to adapt around innovation.

In practical terms, it means ingredients that:

• integrate into existing manufacturing processes with minimal modification

• behave predictably across standard unit operations (hydration, cooking, freezing, extrusion, etc.)

• arrive with procurement-grade documentation: traceability, allergen clarity, country of origin, and certification

• are available at meaningful scale from reliable, regionally anchored supply

• reduce environmental impact without introducing consumer unfamiliarity

This is not a compromise position. It is a deliberate strategy to unlock adoption at speed.

Why system-level thinking matters more than ingredient novelty

One of the consistent lessons across food innovation is that isolated optimisation creates downstream problems.

A low-carbon ingredient that requires a fragile supply chain creates operational risk.

A cost-effective input that introduces new allergens increases approval friction.

A novel protein that excites R&D but stalls in procurement delivers no impact at scale.

By contrast, system-level approaches - where harvest, processing, supply assurance, and compliance are considered together - reduce friction before it appears.

This is why integration upstream matters. When ingredients are designed from the outset to align with how food is actually grown, processed, audited, and sold, reformulation becomes a commercial decision, not a speculative one.

Reformulation without consumer trade-offs

Crucially, low-friction reformulation also reduces consumer risk.

Many sustainability-led innovations ask consumers to change behaviour: accept unfamiliar ingredients, tolerate different textures, or pay a premium for virtue.

Low-friction approaches avoid that trap.

When reformulation focuses on familiar crops, familiar formats, and behind-the-scenes improvements - such as better utilisation of existing agricultural outputs - the consumer experience remains stable, even as the system improves.

That alignment matters. The fastest-scaling changes in food are rarely the most visible ones.

The strategic upside for food producers

For producers, the benefits of low-friction reformulation compound:

• Faster internal alignment between technical, procurement, and commercial teams

• Shorter approval cycles with retailers and brand partners

• Lower execution risk at scale

• Credible Scope 3 reductions tied to operational change, not offsets

• Optionality to reformulate further without rebuilding infrastructure

In an environment where resilience is as important as differentiation, these advantages matter.

Closing thought: progress that fits the system

The food system does not need more disruption for its own sake. It needs progress that fits.

Low-friction reformulation recognises a simple truth: the fastest way to change the food system is not to fight its constraints, but to design within them — and quietly remove them over time.

For food producers under pressure to deliver cost control, sustainability, and reliability simultaneously, that approach is not conservative.

It is pragmatic.

It is scalable.

And increasingly, it is the only way change actually happens.

Read more here.