Remaking the biscuit: from Doritos to digestives, why the UK’s snacks are being ‘reformulated’
UK snack manufacturers are reformulating familiar products such as Ritz crackers, Doritos and digestives to comply with tighter rules on foods high in fat, sugar and salt. The changes matter because they aim to improve diets while allowing brands to keep products tasting and behaving much as consumers expect, often without buyers realising the recipes have changed.
Ritz now contains 80% less saturated fat, partly through replacing palm oil with sunflower oil, while BelVita Soft Bakes has cut sodium by 56% to avoid the “less healthy” classification. Mondelēz has invested £40m in reformulation since 2020 and employs more than 750 scientists and engineers in its UK research network, but companies fear a proposed tougher nutrient profiling model could reclassify 80% of reformulated products, especially over sugar rules. Manufacturers also argue that reducing sugar is technically difficult because it affects texture, bulk and preservation as well as sweetness.
- Britain’s snack brands are quietly changing recipes to meet health rules.
- Reformulation can cut fat and salt without obvious taste changes.
- Proposed sugar rules could undo much of the industry’s work.
New here? Start with this
Food makers are under pressure to reduce the amount of salt, sugar and certain fats in everyday packaged foods. In the UK, products judged to be high in fat, sugar or salt face restrictions on where and how they can be promoted, including limits on prominent shop displays and some advertising.
Manufacturers can change recipes to bring products below these thresholds, while trying to preserve their familiar taste, texture and shelf life. This can mean swapping oils, using less salt, or finding other ingredients that provide sweetness and structure.
The debate also involves the rules used to judge a food’s nutritional profile. Companies say further tightening could affect products already changed to meet earlier standards, while health policy aims to encourage diets with lower levels of nutrients linked to poorer health when eaten in excess.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Reformulation can improve public health by making everyday snacks lower in saturated fat, salt and sugar without demanding that consumers abruptly abandon familiar foods. Supporters argue that gradual, technically careful changes reach far more people than advice alone, and that replacing ingredients such as palm oil can bring wider benefits. In this view, stronger nutrient rules give manufacturers a necessary incentive to invest in healthier products rather than treating diet-related harm as solely an individual responsibility.
The case against
Critics argue that reformulation rules can oversimplify nutrition and impose standards that are difficult to meet without materially changing a product’s taste, texture, shelf life or affordability. They contend that manufacturers already have strong incentives to respond to consumer demand and that a tougher profiling model could disregard substantial progress by classifying most improved products as unhealthy anyway. From this perspective, transparent labelling, informed choice and attention to overall diets may be fairer and more effective than prescriptive thresholds focused on individual products.