TL;DR:
Mintel BFY Eating Trends 2025 reveals that 65% of US consumers rate nutrition facts and ingredient lists as very or extremely important in purchase decisions, while 58% say the same about on-pack claims. At the same time, 37% wish the US had stricter food production regulations and 28% are already wary due to food and beverage recalls. For F&B manufacturers, this creates a dual pressure: consumers are scrutinizing every label with informed skepticism, and the regulatory environment is tightening in response. Compliance can no longer be a post-development checkpoint — it must be a design input from the first formulation decision.
Consumer trust in food labeling has been eroding for years, and Mintel's 2025 data quantifies the damage. 28% of US consumers say food and beverage recalls have made them wary of food safety. 37% wish the US had stricter regulations for food production. And 69% believe governments should do more to promote health in communities. These are not fringe opinions — they represent a mainstream consumer base that has learned to read labels with skepticism rather than trust.
The skepticism is rational. High-profile recalls, misleading 'natural' claims that were challenged by regulators, and ingredient controversies have taught consumers that what appears on the front of a package does not always survive scrutiny of the back. When a snack bar claims 'no artificial preservatives' but its ingredient list includes citric acid derived from Aspergillus niger fermentation, the consumer is right to ask: is that 'artificial' or 'natural'? The answer depends on which market, which regulation, and which retailer standard applies — and the consumer knows that.
For F&B manufacturers, this trust deficit changes the calculus of every product claim. 40% of consumers define 'better for you' as containing no additives or preservatives. Every claim that appears on a product — 'no artificial ingredients,' 'naturally low in sugar,' 'clean label' — is now a promise that consumers actively verify. And when they find a discrepancy between the claim and the ingredient list, the consequence is not just lost trust with one consumer. In an environment where 39% of health-active consumers are choosing products specifically because of BFY claims, a misleading claim costs shelf position with the exact consumer segment driving category growth.
A labeling error is never just a labeling error. It is a cascade that touches every part of a food manufacturer's business — and the costs compound at each stage.
The immediate cost is operational: production halt, product hold, potentially product destruction. For a manufacturer running multiple SKUs across multiple markets, a single ingredient mislabeling can affect thousands of units already in the supply chain. The recall itself triggers retailer notification, shelf pulls, and — depending on the severity — public disclosure.
The second-order cost is commercial. Mintel's data shows that 65% of consumers rate nutrition facts as very or extremely important and 58% say the same about on-pack claims. These consumers are not passive — they are actively evaluating products on the basis of label accuracy. A recall or a challenged claim does not just cost the units destroyed. It costs the credibility of every other claim on every other product in the portfolio. In a market where 40% of consumers say cost of living has made maintaining healthy behaviors difficult, a consumer who loses trust in a brand's health claims does not forgive — they switch to private label, where 63% already perceive store brands as just as healthy as name brands.
The third-order cost is regulatory. 37% of consumers want stricter food production regulations, and regulators are responding. The FDA is tightening enforcement on nutrient content claims and 'healthy' label definitions. The EU continues to expand Regulation 1924/2006 guidance. The UK is diverging post-Brexit with its own claim standards. Every enforcement action against a competitor raises the compliance bar for every manufacturer in the category. The question is not whether stricter enforcement is coming — it is whether your compliance infrastructure can absorb it when it arrives.
In most F&B organizations, compliance is treated as a gate at the end of the product development process — a review step that happens after formulation, after labeling design, after the product is nearly shelf-ready. This is where labeling errors are born.
Consider a concrete example: a manufacturer wants to claim 'naturally low in sugar' on a breakfast cereal sold in the US, the EU, and the UK. That single claim creates three distinct compliance requirements. Under FDA food labeling guidance, 'low sugar' means no more than 5g per reference amount. Under EU nutrition and health claims regulation (Regulation 1924/2006), a 'low sugars' claim requires no more than 5g per 100g for foods. Under UK food safety and labeling standards, the threshold currently mirrors the EU but is subject to divergent guidance as the UK develops its own post-Brexit framework.
Now consider what happens when compliance is disconnected from product development. The formulation team develops the recipe. They hand it to the regulatory team for review. The regulatory team identifies that the sugar level passes the FDA threshold but fails the EU threshold at the current formulation. The recipe goes back to R&D. The reformulation changes the nutritional profile, which changes the label, which requires a new regulatory review. Meanwhile, the packaging team has already sent artwork to the printer based on the original formulation.
This is not an edge case — it is the default workflow for any manufacturer selling the same product across regulatory jurisdictions. And it is entirely preventable. When compliance is an input to formulation rather than a gate after it, the regulatory constraints for each target market are visible from the first recipe iteration. The formulation team knows the boundaries before they start, not after they finish. The label reflects the actual formulation in real time. And a claim change in one market does not cascade into weeks of rework across disconnected teams.
Not every PLM for food and beverage product development platform treats compliance as a core function. Many treat it as an adjacent workflow — a separate module, a separate team, a separate timeline. For F&B manufacturers navigating the dual pressure of consumer scrutiny and regulatory tightening, the distinction matters. Here are the questions that separate compliance-integrated PLM from compliance-adjacent PLM:
Does the platform include regulatory intelligence, or just regulatory storage? There is a difference between a system that stores regulation documents and one that actively monitors regulatory changes across markets. Comprehensive compliance coverage requires visibility into 80+ horizontal regulations across national and confederation levels — not a static library that requires manual updates.
Is formulation-to-label traceability automatic, or manual? When a formulation changes, does the label update automatically? Does the nutritional profile recalculate? Do claim validations re-run per market? If any of these steps require manual handoffs between teams, that is where errors enter the workflow.
Can the platform validate claims across multiple regulatory frameworks simultaneously? A 'low sugar' claim that passes FDA review but fails EU Regulation 1924/2006 needs to be flagged before the product enters production — not during a post-production compliance audit. Multi-market claim validation must happen in real time, within the formulation workflow.
Does the system provide real-time regulatory updates? Regulations change. The FDA updates guidance documents. The EU amends annexes. The UK diverges from inherited EU standards. A compliance system that reflects last year's regulations is a compliance liability, not a compliance solution.
These are not abstract evaluation criteria — they are the functional requirements that determine whether a manufacturer can bring a compliant product to market in months or in quarters. As CIMdata research on PLM and brand integrity confirms, the integration of regulatory compliance into product lifecycle management is becoming the critical differentiator for consumer goods companies navigating increasingly complex global markets.
The manufacturers already operating at this level — where compliance is a design input, not a quality gate — include companies like Barilla and Carrefour, who manage complex regulatory requirements across dozens of markets simultaneously. The scale of that challenge is the same scale that Mintel's data says every F&B manufacturer must now be prepared to address: why 72% of consumers prefer naturally low products means every 'naturally low' claim must survive regulatory scrutiny across every market where the product is sold.
Key Takeaway65% of consumers scrutinize nutrition labels and 58% evaluate on-pack claims before purchasing. Regulatory compliance must be built into the product development workflow — not bolted on after formulation. Manufacturers who treat compliance as a design input, not a quality gate, launch faster and launch safer. |
Is compliance built into your product development workflow — or bolted on after?
See how integrated regulatory compliance solutions for food manufacturers connect formulation, labeling, and multi-market claim validation in a single workflow — so your team launches compliant products faster.
With more than 30 years of industry expertise, Trace One partners with over 9,000 brands across food and beverage, cosmetics, and chemicals to accelerate product development and turn regulatory complexity into a competitive advantage. Our AI-powered PLM platform, with regulatory intelligence spanning 170+ countries, supports the entire product manufacturing lifecycle — helping brands bring market-leading products to shelf faster and thrive in new markets. Learn more at traceone.com.