Reducing allergen recalls at the source is a leadership call, because it depends on decisions only leaders can make about Product Lifecycle Management (PLM). A leadership approach treats PLM as a risk-control decision, not an IT project: leaders set the standards, accountability and measures that keep specifications, allergen data and approvals under control from concept to launch and every change after. The result is lower recall, compliance and reputational exposure.
In the US, Sedgwick's 2026 recall index found the FDA recorded 571 food and drink recalls in 2025, up 15.4% on 2024 and a nine-year high, with undeclared allergens behind around 16 million recalled units. In the UK, an RQA Group analysis of Food Standards Agency alerts found that 35% in the first half of 2025 were allergen-related labelling errors. In Australia, FSANZ attributes 38% of 2025 recalls to undeclared allergens, and names packaging errors and failure to communicate ingredient changes among the main contributing factors. Scale is rising too: Sedgwick's first-half 2026 data shows US recall events steady across product categories while units affected surged to near-record highs.
These are failures of information and ownership, not testing: a changed ingredient that never reached the label, or no one clearly accountable for checking it. When one becomes a recall, it lands with leadership, not with the spreadsheet. Regulators are moving the same way. The FDA issued two new allergen guidance documents in January 2026, and the UK's FSA has backed the Codex proposals for risk-based precautionary labelling. The detail differs by market, but the common thread is documented risk information behind every labelling decision.
Product Lifecycle Management manages a product through its whole life: concept and development, specification and approval, supplier and packaging changes, launch, and ongoing reformulation. A leadership approach adds three commitments on top of the tooling:
Allergen risk enters the lifecycle at five points: concept and development, specification approval, supplier changes, packaging and labelling, and ongoing reformulation. Without leadership direction, each is managed in a separate spreadsheet or inbox.
None of these needs new technology to begin.
Commission a trace of your last reformulation, from the supplier's notice to the approved label. Ask the team to record every handoff: who received the change, in what format, and who confirmed it. Each email or spreadsheet handoff is a risk point. Start with products that have many ingredients or suppliers, or recent changes.
Retire side spreadsheets. Allergen declarations, QUID and nutritional data should sit with the specification they describe, and suppliers should submit specifications in one standardised format. Good food specification management starts with a leadership decision that there is only one version.
Do not leave allergen and compliance review until a new product is almost finished. Make an allergen review a required step at each stage gate in new product development, with a named approver and a deadline, so problems surface while changes are still cheap.
Require suppliers to notify you of any formulation change. Name the teams who must review it (technical, packaging, labelling, quality), set a deadline, and hold production until the review closes. A change should create work automatically, not depend on someone passing the news on. Before artwork is signed off, reconcile the allergen declaration and packaging against the current specification version.
Require sign-offs with names and dates, and back precautionary labelling decisions with a written risk assessment. Then track two numbers: how long a supplier change takes to become an approved specification, and how many problems are caught in review rather than after launch. Review them regularly at leadership level, and use product inspections to check that what is made matches what was specified.
Take an illustrative case. A supplier reformulates a sauce ingredient and the new version contains a milk-derived component. The product sells in several markets.
Without a leadership standard: the supplier emails their account contact, who forwards it to technical. A spreadsheet is updated, but packaging works from last month's file. Labelling reviews each market's artwork against the old ingredient list, and the sign-off is a reply buried in a thread. Nobody owns the whole chain.
With a leadership standard: the ingredient specification is updated in a central repository with allergen information alongside it. Review tasks go to technical, packaging and labelling with named owners and deadlines, and sign-offs are recorded against the specification and shared with the supplier. When an auditor or retailer asks what changed and who approved it, the answer is in one place.
It means treating PLM as a risk-control decision owned by leaders: mandating one controlled specification record, assigning clear accountability for every lifecycle stage and change, and measuring exposure so it is reported before an incident.
PLM holds specifications, allergen information, approvals and change reviews in one record from concept to launch and beyond. That means fewer handoffs, one live version of each specification, and an evidence trail for every sign-off.
Quality and technical leaders are usually best placed to own the standards, with sponsorship from senior leadership and input from packaging, procurement and labelling, because allergen risk crosses all of those teams.
Foods Connected brings specification management and New Product Development into one cloud-based platform, with stage gates, deadline tracking, allergen management and supplier sign-offs in a single workflow. Leading global food businesses use it to manage product specifications and new product development without the manual approaches that can cause risk, compliance failures, and reputational damage.