As lawmakers intensify efforts to curb diet-related disease, the debate over ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is entering a new phase. The proposed Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act of 2026, introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders, would require warning labels on ultra-processed foods alongside products high in sugar, sodium and saturated fat, while restricting junk food advertising aimed at children.
This article is only available to registered users.
Log In to View the Full Article
As lawmakers intensify efforts to curb diet-related disease, the debate over ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is entering a new phase. The proposed Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act of 2026, introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders, would require warning labels on ultra-processed foods alongside products high in sugar, sodium and saturated fat, while restricting junk food advertising aimed at children.
Yet the science remains far from settled. A new Harvard-led study of more than 200,000 U.S. adults, to be presented at Nutrition 2026, found that overall diet quality—not whether a food is classified as ultra-processed—was the stronger predictor of long-term health, with nutrient-rich diets linked to lower risks of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and premature death even when they included some processed foods. Even so, consumer and regulatory momentum continues to push manufacturers toward simpler formulations and away from the perception of "ultra-processing."
In the following guest column, Pierre Battu, Managing Director, Asia, at OSF Flavors, argues that this shift is creating a reformulation paradox: reducing sugar, salt and fat is relatively straightforward, but recreating the taste and sensory experience consumers expect is becoming one of the food industry's greatest technical challenges. -Editor
The food and beverage industry is entering a more demanding phase. Consumers, regulators and public health bodies are pressing brands to reduce sugar, salt, fat and artificial ingredients, and to step back from the perception of ultra-processed food.
The direction of travel is clear at the policy level: the World Health Organization recommends keeping free sugars below 10% of energy intake, ideally below 5%, and salt below 5 g a day, and its member states have committed to cutting population salt intake by 30% by 2030.
Since more than 70% of dietary salt reaches consumers through processed foods, much of that burden falls on reformulation rather than on individual behavior.
What has not changed is what consumers are willing to give up. They may ask for healthier products, but they still expect pleasure, indulgence, familiarity and repeatable enjoyment.
The evidence here is consistent and, for product developers, sobering. Mintel’s May 2026 Future of Flavors research states that 52% of U.S. consumers consider flavor more important than a clean label. A 2026 global survey by Lumina Intelligence sharpened the point: consumers will accept compromises on convenience and shelf life to avoid ultra-processed foods, but taste and texture remain non-negotiable.
That is the paradox at the heart of reformulation. The task is not simply to make a product nutritionally better. It is to do so while protecting the sensory experience that earns consumer acceptance in the first place.
The hidden cost of removing an ingredient
Most healthier-formulation projects fail not on nutrition but on sensory outcome, because the ingredients being reduced were doing far more sensory work than their labels suggest.
Sugar is the clearest example. It is never only a sweetener. It carries body, balances acidity, rounds out fruit character and shapes mouthfeel. Remove it and a beverage can turn flat, sour or bitter, with a thinner texture, a problem documented repeatedly in the sensory literature on sugar-reduced drinks.
Salt behaves similarly in savory systems, where reducing it weakens not only saltiness but overall savory impact, mouthfeel and satisfaction. Fat is the same story in a different register: cut it from a cocoa beverage and you lose the body, roundness and indulgence that signal a premium product.
Adding ingredients creates its own set of problems. Proteins, fibers, vitamins, minerals, botanicals and plant-based components frequently bring bitterness, astringency, metallic notes, vegetal character, chalkiness or lingering aftertastes.
Plant proteins are the most visible case. Pea, soy and similar isolates are widely described as beany, grassy, bitter and astringent. The beany and green notes come largely from lipid oxidation products such as hexanal, while bitterness and astringency trace back to saponins and polyphenols. The astringency in particular has a clear physiological basis: polyphenols bind to the proteins that lubricate the mouth, stripping that lubrication away and leaving a dry, puckering sensation.
A high-protein beverage that delivers 20 grams of protein but finishes bitter or chalky will struggle to win a repeat purchase. A plant-based dairy alternative that is nutritionally attractive but carries strong vegetal notes will stay niche.
This is the gap that functional flavor work is designed to close.
Masking is not what most people think it is
There is a persistent misconception that masking means laying a stronger flavor over an unpleasant base. It does not, and treating it that way is why so many corrective attempts disappoint.
Flavor is not perceived through taste alone. As decades of sensory research have established, flavor is an integrated experience built from taste, retronasal smell, texture, mouthfeel and the trigeminal signals that register sensations such as cooling, warming and astringency, all combined by the brain into a single percept.
An off note is rarely a single isolated fault. More often it is a disturbance somewhere in that integrated system. Effective masking therefore has to engage the system as a whole, not just add aromatic cover.
Addressing these challenges requires three key steps.
- The first is blocking receptor interaction. Some off-notes, particularly bitterness, metallic character and certain astringent sensations, are perceived directly at the level of the taste receptor. Human bitterness is detected by a family of about 25 dedicated bitter taste receptors, and research over the past 15 years has identified compounds that act as antagonists, reducing receptor activation at the source before the off-note can dominate the profile. The aim at this level is to lower the perception of the problem where it begins.
- The second is modulating perception. Beyond blocking a specific note, it is possible to work on how the whole product is experienced in the mouth: balancing acidity and astringency, softening bitterness, improving mouthfeel and coating, and adjusting how flavor is released over time. This matters most in reduced-sugar, high-protein, fortified and plant-based applications, where the issue is usually not one off-note but a global imbalance across the profile.
- The third is flavor balancing. Certain aromatic directions can compete with or redirect the perception of undesirable notes, and this is where flavor-creation expertise becomes decisive. The right flavor system does not hide the problem. It rebuilds a cleaner, smoother and more attractive profile that fits the intended product concept.
Taken together, receptor blocking, sensory modulation and flavor balancing allow for more complete solutions than any single technique. They also explain why masking belongs early in development, as part of the formulation strategy, rather than as a last-minute correction once the product is technically finished.
From off-note removal to indulgence rebuilt
A practical illustration is cocoa. Ready-to-drink and powdered chocolate beverages lean heavily on fat and lipid content for roundness, body and a rich cocoa impression. When manufacturers reduce fat to improve the nutritional profile, the drink quickly becomes thinner and less satisfying. A cocoa enhancer approach works to rebuild cocoa impact, roundness and indulgence, supporting the fat reduction while preserving the cues consumers associate with a generous chocolate drink.
The same logic applies across the harder reformulation cases: reducing sugar while protecting sweetness and fruit; reducing salt while holding savory depth; lifting mouthfeel in low-fat or low-sugar systems; and masking the off-notes that proteins, fibers, botanicals and micronutrients introduce.
These are not aspirations. The flavor industry has already developed a functional toolkit for exactly this work: sweetness enhancers, salt reducers and MSG substitutes on the reduction side, alongside masking systems built specifically for the ingredients that most often carry off-notes, including plant and dairy proteins, minerals, collagen and adaptogens.
The flavor house as reformulation partner
The implication of all this is a shift in role. As brands move toward high-protein, plant-based, reduced-sugar, reduced-fat, fortified, functional and clean-label products, the flavor house becomes more than a supplier of taste. It becomes a development partner that helps reformulate intelligently, reduce vulnerable ingredients and rebalance the sensory profile of a healthier product.
The future of food will not be defined only by what is removed. It will be defined by the ability to create products that are healthier, more transparent and more responsible, and still genuinely desirable. The brands that manage this transition will be the ones that protect what matters most to the consumer: taste, pleasure and trust.
