Food and beverage brands are facing increasingly frequent regulatory changes that require them to replace ingredients, adapt formulations, and review established products. Sensory validation helps determine before launch whether a reformulation preserves consumer perception, liking, and purchase intent.
In recent years, different markets have introduced restrictions that directly affect ingredients and solutions used across the industry. In Mexico, erythrosine, also known as Red 3 or E-127, is no longer permitted for the affected applications under the new regulation, giving companies 24 months to reformulate and use up existing stock.
In the European Union, eight authorisations for smoke flavouring primary products have not been renewed, with transitional periods allowing affected product categories to be adapted through 2029.
For R&D, Quality, and Regulatory teams, these changes create a challenge that goes beyond compliance: finding an alternative that works technically while preserving the experience consumers associate with the product.
Food regulation is continuously evolving. Ingredients, additives, and technological solutions may be subject to new assessments, restrictions, or changes to their permitted conditions of use.
When this happens, product teams have to revisit formulations that may have been working successfully for years.
The first question is usually technical: which alternative can replace the affected ingredient?
The next question should involve the consumer: what impact will that change have on the way the product is perceived?
The case of erythrosine clearly illustrates what it means to replace an additive that has become part of an established formulation.
The agreement published in Mexico's Official Gazette introduces new restrictions on the use of erythrosine and establishes a 24-month period for affected manufacturers to reformulate their products and use up existing stocks.
For R&D teams, the first step is to identify a technically viable replacement. However, colour plays an important role in the consumer experience. It influences appearance, shapes expectations, and contributes to product recognition.
A product reformulation involving a colour additive can affect, for example:
Comparing the current formulation with different alternatives therefore helps determine which replacement best preserves the experience consumers already associate with the product.
The case of smoke flavouring primary products presents a different scenario. The European Commission decided not to renew the authorisations of eight smoke flavouring primary products. The SFPP Regulation establishes transitional periods to facilitate the adaptation of affected products.
This case includes a particularly important consideration for sensory reformulation. The brand may retain exactly the same technological objective: achieving a specific smoky character. What changes is the solution used to achieve it. An alternative may affect:
As a result, two solutions can fulfil a similar technological function while delivering different sensory experiences.
| Red 3 | Smoke flavourings | |
|---|---|---|
| Market | Mexico | European Union |
| What changes | Colour additive | Authorisation of certain flavourings |
| Potential sensory impact | Colour and appearance | Aroma and smoky profile |
| What needs to be preserved | Product visual identity | Smoky character |
| Key deadline | 24 months | Until July 2029 for certain categories |
| Challenge for brands | Finding a suitable replacement | Maintaining the sensory profile with an alternative solution |
Regulatory changes are driven by factors including new scientific evidence, safety assessments, public health considerations, and evolving food policies.
At the same time, consumers are paying closer attention to product composition, ingredient sourcing, health, and sustainability.
For brands, this creates an environment where reformulation can become necessary at different stages of a product's lifecycle.
Developing a structured methodology for managing these changes can help reduce timelines, compare alternatives more effectively, and protect product acceptance.
An alternative may perform perfectly well in the laboratory and still create a different experience when it reaches consumers.
That is one of the main risks of any product reformulation project: meeting a new regulatory requirement only to discover that consumers like the new recipe less.
A formulation change can affect multiple attributes that influence how consumers evaluate a product:
The relevance of each attribute depends on the product category and positioning. Internal teams may also interpret certain changes differently because they have an in-depth understanding of the original formulation and the technical objectives behind the project.
The smoke flavouring case provides a good illustration. A company may maintain its objective of delivering a specific smoky experience and still obtain a different sensory profile after changing the flavouring solution.
Intensity may change, new notes may emerge, or persistence may vary. The key question is whether consumers notice these changes and, more importantly, whether those changes affect how they evaluate the product. Product sensory validation helps answer these questions before launch.
A regulatory reformulation involves much more than changing a recipe. The process may include:
If consumer validation only takes place at the end of the process, an unfavourable result may require several stages to be repeated.
Integrating sensory evaluation throughout development makes it possible to prioritise the alternatives with the greatest potential before reaching the final stages.
Sensory analysis adds information that technical testing cannot provide on its own: how consumers perceive and evaluate the product.
In a reformulation project, this information can be used to compare alternatives, identify relevant changes, and assess their impact on acceptance.
Discrimination tests determine whether consumers can detect differences between products. In a reformulation project, they can be used to compare:
The first question is straightforward: can consumers detect the change? If they cannot, the brand has relevant evidence to support the decision to move forward. If they can, the next step is to determine how meaningful that difference is.
Detecting a difference does not necessarily mean that consumers will rate the new formulation less favourably. Acceptance testing makes it possible to measure liking and explore variables such as:
This information helps determine whether a sensory difference has a meaningful commercial impact.
R&D expertise is essential when developing alternatives. Consumer feedback provides a complementary perspective.
When both sources of information are integrated into the process, companies can make decisions with a more complete understanding of the product.
Sensory validation provides evidence to select one formulation, reject another, or continue optimising an alternative.
In regulatory projects, this helps identify potential issues while there is still time to address them.
A regulatory requirement can create an opportunity to review a product from a broader perspective.
When a brand needs to modify a formulation, the project can also be used to compare alternatives that may improve cost, availability, composition, or sensory performance. In addition to replacing the affected ingredient, teams can evaluate:
Sensory validation brings the consumer perspective into this comparison, helping prevent decisions based solely on internal criteria.
When a regulation affects an entire category, all companies face similar pressure. The advantage can come from having a structured approach to the challenge.
A structured reformulation process makes it easier to identify alternatives, test prototypes, and understand consumer response before committing to a launch.
The learnings generated can also support future innovation and product development projects.
Sensory validation can be integrated at different stages of the process, from the initial comparison of alternatives to the evaluation of the final formulation before launch.
Sensesbit helps teams design sensory studies, collect consumer data, and turn those results into actionable information for decision-making.
Brands can compare their current formulation with different alternatives and analyse the response of real consumers. Depending on the study objective, teams can measure:
This brings the consumer into the decision-making process before the new formulation reaches the market.
Regulatory changes will continue to shape food and beverage product development. For R&D and Quality teams, the challenge is to adapt quickly while keeping product and brand risk under control.
That is why sensory validation should be part of the reformulation strategy from the earliest stages of the project.
With Sensesbit, teams can evaluate alternatives with real consumers, identify relevant differences, and support formulation decisions with data before launch.