HowGood: Using data to navigate health and sustainability trade-offs in F&B

The US government’s push to remove petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the food supply signals a broader shift in how health is being regulated and communicated to consumers. Under the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., policymakers are placing renewed scrutiny on ingredients long used across the food and beverage industry.

At the same time, consumer expectations are evolving just as quickly. Shoppers are increasingly seeking products with fewer additives, simpler ingredient lists, and clearer health credentials — forcing brands to rethink not only formulations, but the sourcing and production systems behind them. As regulatory pressure and consumer demand converge, the effects are rippling across the entire food value chain.

But this shift raises a more complex question: does “healthier” food also mean more sustainable food? In many cases, the answer is not straightforward. Reformulating products to remove synthetic ingredients can introduce new environmental trade-offs, from increased land and water use to greater supply chain complexity.

This is where HowGood enters the picture. The US-based sustainability intelligence platform provides detailed environmental and social impact data across food ingredients and supply chains, helping companies quantify the consequences of formulation and sourcing decisions in real time.

Food Ingredients First speaks with João Brites, director of growth and innovation at HowGood, to explore how the phase-out of synthetic dyes intersects with sustainability goals, and how companies can navigate the growing tension between health-driven reformulation and environmental impact.

Brites explains that while health and sustainability goals are often aligned, the reality is defined by trade-offs, data gaps, and increasing supply chain complexity.

To what extent do consumer demands for fewer dyes, pesticides, and additives actually align with environmental sustainability goals — and where do they diverge?

Brites: There is a lot of alignment. When companies move away from pesticides and synthetic additives, it often nudges them toward more regenerative or lower input farming systems, which can be a big win for soil health, biodiversity, and water quality. Where it gets tricky is that “cleaner” doesn’t always mean lower impact. Swapping in a natural ingredient can sometimes require more land, more water, or more energy to produce. And in some cases, demand for certain “clean” ingredients can actually drive monocropping or put pressure on new regions. So the intention is aligned, but the outcome depends on how those changes are executed.

What are the most immediate changes you’re observing across supply chains, as brands respond to pressure to remove certain ingredients or chemicals?

Brites: The biggest thing is how much more visibility brands need. A lot of companies are realizing they don’t actually know what’s in the ingredients they’re buying, especially beyond their direct suppliers. So there’s a big push toward getting more detailed data from suppliers and understanding sourcing and production practices at a deeper level. That’s leading to a lot more transparency, but also more pressure on suppliers to share data and back it up. It’s making supply chains more collaborative, but also more complex.

Reducing pesticides and synthetic additives often pushes companies toward regenerative, lower-input farming that improves soil health, boosts biodiversity, and protects water quality.

Where do regenerative agriculture practices fit into this shift toward healthier eating, and are brands effectively communicating that connection to consumers?

Brites: Regenerative agriculture sits right in the middle of this. It’s good for the environment, but it’s also starting to be linked to things like nutrient density and overall food quality. Brands are starting to connect those dots more, tying personal health to environmental benefits. That said, most consumers still don’t understand what regenerative means in a concrete way. There’s an opportunity to tell that story better and make it feel more relevant to everyday food choices.

How are farmers being affected by these changing requirements, particularly when it comes to cost, risk, and operational complexity?

Brites: Farmers are carrying a lot of this transition. The long-term benefits of regenerative practices are real, but getting there can be expensive and risky. There can be upfront costs, new equipment, a learning curve, and sometimes lower yields in the short term. Access to capital is still a big barrier. There’s more conversation now about brands, banks, and investors helping fund these transitions, but it’s not fully figured out yet. The big open question is still who ends up paying for it.

How can data help companies balance nutritional expectations with measurable sustainability outcomes?

Brites: It comes down to getting everything into the same place. A lot of companies still look at nutrition and sustainability separately, which makes it hard to see the full picture. When you bring that data together, teams can actually evaluate trade-offs in real time. So if you change an ingredient for health reasons, you can immediately see what that does to carbon, water, or other impacts. It helps teams make better decisions without working in silos.

Are there cases where reformulating products to meet “health” expectations could inadvertently increase environmental impact?

Brites: Yes, all the time. There are definitely cases where something is positioned as healthier, but the way it’s produced has a higher environmental footprint. Plant-based ingredients are a good example. Some of them are grown in pretty intensive monoculture systems, which can have real environmental downsides. That’s why it’s so important to look at health and sustainability side by side, using consistent data, instead of assuming one automatically leads to the other.

Do you think most F&B companies are equipped to handle this dual demand for healthier and more sustainable products, or is there still a capability gap?

Brites: It’s getting better. You’re seeing more companies bring sustainability and nutrition under the same umbrella, which makes a lot of sense. But there’s still a gap, especially when it comes to data systems and supplier engagement. The companies ahead are the ones investing in better data and making sure their teams are actually working together.

Over the next 3–5 years, do you expect the prioritization of “health” to accelerate the transition to a more sustainable food system, or complicate it?

Brites: Overall, it’s going to accelerate things. Consumer demand is a huge driver, and the push for healthier products is forcing companies to rethink ingredients and sourcing in a deeper way.It will not be perfectly smooth, and there will be trade-offs, but the general direction is clear. Health and sustainability are starting to move together, and that’s a pretty powerful shift.