Food manufacturers rethink labels as consumer scrutiny grows

Subscribe to our free newsletter today to keep up to date with the latest food industry news.

For decades, food labels have balanced regulatory compliance with consumer information. Scientific terminology provides precision and consistency across manufacturing, food science and regulation. Many shoppers, however, increasingly associate unfamiliar ingredient names with heavily processed foods.

Nestlé believes the language itself has become part of the problem. The company is urging US regulators to allow more familiar ingredient descriptions, arguing that names such as “ascorbic acid” create unnecessary concern when “vitamin C” communicates the same ingredient in language consumers already understand.

The proposal reflects a wider shift across the food industry. Manufacturers are reformulating recipes, removing artificial colors, shortening ingredient lists and reconsidering how products are presented on shelves. The objective extends beyond compliance. Companies are trying to strengthen consumer confidence as ingredient lists receive greater scrutiny than ever before.

The challenge is maintaining scientific accuracy while making labels easier to understand. Food manufacturers must satisfy regulatory requirements without overwhelming consumers with terminology that many interpret incorrectly.

Consumers are judging ingredients before they understand them

Ingredient lists have become one of the first places shoppers examine when deciding whether a product appears healthy. Research from the International Food Information Council found that six in 10 Americans usually consider ingredients when buying food. Nearly three in 10 associate unfamiliar, chemical-sounding ingredients with safety concerns, even when those ingredients are vitamins, minerals or naturally occurring compounds.

Reuters cited research from Innova Market Insights showing that about three-quarters of North American consumers reconsider purchases after reading ingredient lists. Familiarity has become a proxy for trust. Consumers often assume that ingredients they recognize are preferable to those described using scientific terminology.

That perception creates a communication challenge rather than a scientific one. Ascorbic acid is vitamin C. Sodium bicarbonate is baking soda. Tocopherols are forms of vitamin E commonly used to preserve freshness. Scientific terminology serves an important regulatory function, yet it can unintentionally reinforce the perception that a product contains synthetic or unnecessary additives.

The clean-label movement has accelerated this trend. Consumers increasingly expect shorter ingredient lists with recognizable names, fewer artificial colors and simpler formulations. Public discussion surrounding ultra-processed foods has also increased attention on packaged products across nearly every grocery category.

Scientific terminology is not misleading, nor do familiar names automatically indicate healthier products. The issue is that consumers often make judgments before understanding the role an ingredient performs.

Plain language could improve understanding without sacrificing precision

Nestlé’s proposal raises an important regulatory question. Should food labels prioritize scientific precision, consumer comprehension or a balance of both?

The company argues that allowing familiar terminology would help consumers make more informed purchasing decisions. Rather than listing “ascorbic acid,” packaging could identify the ingredient as “vitamin C.” Similar changes could make ingredient panels easier to interpret without changing the product itself.

Critics argue that replacing technical terminology entirely could reduce transparency. Scientific nomenclature provides consistency across food manufacturing, regulation and research. Any move toward plain-language labeling should preserve that consistency while making information more accessible.

One possible solution is dual labeling. Ingredients could appear with both their common name and scientific description or functional purpose. A label might read “Vitamin C (ascorbic acid)” or “Baking soda (sodium bicarbonate), leavening agent.” Consumers receive familiar language while regulators and manufacturers retain technical accuracy.

European food labeling already uses functional descriptions in many cases, demonstrating that consumer-friendly communication and scientific precision can coexist. Similar approaches in the US could improve understanding without reducing disclosure standards.

The debate is not about replacing science with marketing language. It is about presenting accurate information in a format consumers can understand.

Manufacturing strategy now extends from formulation to communication

The discussion around ingredient names reflects a broader transformation taking place across food manufacturing.

Nestlé recently announced that it had removed FD&C colors from its US food and beverage portfolio, illustrating how manufacturers are responding to changing regulations and evolving consumer expectations. Reformulation projects of this scale involve procurement, research and development, quality assurance, production and packaging teams.

Replacing ingredients is rarely straightforward. Alternative colorings and preservatives must deliver comparable performance, maintain shelf life, preserve taste and texture and remain commercially viable at industrial scale. Every formulation change can affect supplier relationships, production processes and manufacturing costs.

Communicating those changes has become equally important. Packaging now plays a central role in brand credibility, and consumers increasingly expect ingredient lists to reflect the simplicity they associate with healthier products.

Consumer priorities also demonstrate that cleaner labels are only part of the equation. The International Food Information Council’s latest Food & Health Survey found that taste remains the leading purchase driver, followed by price, healthfulness and convenience. Ingredient transparency therefore complements product quality rather than replacing it.

Nestlé’s proposal highlights an emerging reality for the packaged food sector. Reformulation and communication are becoming closely connected. Manufacturers are judged not only on what they remove from recipes but also on how clearly they explain the ingredients that remain.

As regulators consider whether familiar terminology should appear more prominently on food labels, the industry faces a broader challenge. Consumers want labels that are accurate, understandable and trustworthy. Meeting all three expectations may prove just as important as the next product reformulation.

Source:
Euronext Markets