Q&A: Inside the Complex World of Soft Drinks – Why reformulation is harder than you think
To those outside the soft drinks industry, reformulation might sound simple, but those within it know it requires an intricate blend of science, patience, and consumer acceptance.
As the Government considers extending the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) at the Budget, I sat down with Nikki Pegg – our Research and Development (R&D) Director at Suntory Beverage & Food GB&I – to discuss what it takes to reformulate an iconic brand like Ribena and why further reformulation isn’t an ‘easy win’.
Nikki has been at the forefront of some of the most ambitious sugar-reduction projects in the sector, helping to meet consumer demands while reducing the sugar in great British brands.
Fraser McIntosh: What experience does Suntory Beverage & Food GB&I have of reformulating its drinks?
Nikki Pegg: We began our reformulation journey back in 2013, with a small reduction to the amount of sugar in Ribena. We were able to learn from that and other tweaks to our brands to launch a more ambitious programme across our entire range of drinks a few years later.
That meant we were able to reduce the sugar content of our drinks by 57% on average by 2018. Today, none of our drinks are High in Fat, Salt or Sugar (HFSS), and all are below the current lower threshold of the SDIL.
FM: Why did that process take so long? Couldn’t you have just reduced the sugar straight away?
NP: Reformulation – especially to reduce sugar – is a complex process with every drink built on a careful balance of ingredients. It’s not as simple as just taking out one element and replacing it with another, especially when we’ve already halved the amount of sugar.
Each change must be right for the consumer, delivering on taste, texture and functionality – all while maintaining safety, stability and shelf-life. When you reduce sugar, you don’t just lose sweetness; you also affect the body and texture of the drink, and how flavours are perceived.
Overcoming these challenges make me proud to be a part of the soft drinks industry that has taken huge steps to reduce sugar in our drinks. We now contribute less than 6.5% of the sugar to the national diet and that continues to fall.
FM: Take us behind the scenes – what does the process look like?
NP: Each reformulation project is unique because every drink has its own needs – we test, taste, tweak and test again.
We need to find the ingredients to achieve a taste match, then develop new recipes with those ingredients before testing it with consumers. All of this happens before we then test to make sure a new recipe delivers the shelf life needed and can be scaled for production in a factory setting.
If a drink fails any of these tests, we have to go back to the drawing board.
The Government’s proposal currently would only allow 18 months for producers to make changes to our recipes before the new Levy threshold is introduced. In our experience, three years should be the absolute minimum if they’re to avoid forcing producers to divert resources away from other projects like zero-sugar innovation.
FM: How do you balance the science with consumer expectations – especially for such well-known brands?
NP: Consumers know what their favourite drinks should taste like and what they drink them for. It can be a comforting taste of home; vital refreshment on the go, or a connection to family having shared a love for the same drink over decades. We simply don’t want to disrupt what they enjoy.
When we reformulate, we’re not only making a technical adjustment; we’re walking a delicate tightrope of trust with our consumers. Our teams spend huge amounts of time ensuring that the new drink maintains the flavour and function that consumers know and rely on. Reformulation is most successful when consumers don’t notice a difference.
FM: What are the consequences if you don’t get it right?
NP: If the aim is to reduce sugar consumption, any process would be pointless if consumers were to reject a new recipe and switch to buying higher sugar drinks. We know from experience that this can happen, and it reduces the impact we’re able to have.
This risk is exacerbated by a short timeline to comply that presents us with a rapidly approaching cliff edge: rush reformulation or incur higher costs.
It’s a hugely disruptive way of making this change. Within 18 months we’d have to mobilise a huge cross-functional effort, from R&D and quality control to packaging, logistics and supply chain. Not being able to line up all these elements would mean the Levy hits and we’re presented with a decision about whether to pass through higher costs.
These costs regrettably but inevitably end up being borne by hardworking families at a time of already high food and drink inflation. It’s the worst-case scenario for us.
FM: What would your message be to policymakers as they consider changes to the levy?
NP: The government’s ambition for people to live healthier lives for longer is one everyone supports, but short timelines and a narrow focus is not going to help reduce obesity.
We now need to take a holistic approach to public health policy that considers all components of diet and lifestyle, while giving new rules, that are only just coming into force, time to work.
