By David Marinac

There's a war happening right now in American food manufacturing.

On one side: billion-dollar corporations desperately clinging to the chemical additives, preservatives, and artificial dyes that have kept their products "shelf-stable" for decades.

On the other side: a growing movement of consumers, health advocates, and now finally government regulators demanding clean labels, real ingredients, and food that doesn't make us sick.

And caught in the middle? Thousands of small-to-mid-sized food manufacturers who want to do the right thing but have been told the solution is either impossible or prohibitively expensive.

I'm here to tell you that's a lie.

And I'm going to show you exactly how the biggest shift in food packaging since the invention of the aluminum can is about to create a $3 billion opportunity and why most of your competitors have no idea it's even happening.

The Band-Aid Just Got Ripped Off

Let me start with what just happened.

In early 2025, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made a move that sent shockwaves through the food industry. He formally requested that the FDA close what's known as the "GRAS loophole" — a 1958 regulatory backdoor that has allowed food companies to add thousands of chemicals to our food supply without FDA review.

GRAS stands for "Generally Recognized As Safe."

Sounds reasonable, right?

Here's the problem: Since 2000, 99% of new chemicals introduced into the American food supply never underwent FDA safety review. Food companies simply declared these additives "safe" themselves — often hiring their own scientists to rubber-stamp the decision — and added them to your kids' cereal, your canned soup, your salad dressing.

No government oversight. No independent testing. No public notification.

According to the Environmental Working Group, companies sought actual FDA approval for new food additives just 10 times in over two decades. Ten times. Out of thousands of new chemicals.

Kennedy didn't mince words in his statement:

"For far too long, ingredient manufacturers and sponsors have exploited a loophole that has allowed new ingredients and chemicals, often with unknown safety data, to be introduced into the U.S. food supply without notification to the FDA or the public."

Translation: The party's over.

Why Big Food Is Terrified (And Why You Should Be Excited)

Now, if you're Campbell's Soup or Nestlé, this is a nightmare.

Your entire business model is built on extending shelf life through chemical preservation. You've spent decades perfecting formulations that can sit on a shelf for years without spoiling. You've built massive distribution networks predicated on ambient-temperature storage. You've invested billions in facilities designed around retort processing and hot-fill technology.

And now the government is telling you to take out the preservatives, the artificial colors, the high-fructose corn syrup, the stabilizers, the emulsifiers — all the stuff that made your "food" possible in the first place.

What do you do?

If you're a multinational corporation, you do what you've always done: You lobby. You fight. You spend millions trying to slow down the regulatory changes. You hire scientists to produce studies showing your additives are "perfectly safe." You launch PR campaigns about "consumer choice" and "food affordability."

You do everything except actually change.

Because changing is expensive. Changing requires new equipment, new processes, new supply chains. Changing means admitting you've been selling suboptimal products for years. Changing means your competitors might get there first.

So you stall.

But here's the thing: While the giants are stalling, the mid-market is starving for solutions.

The Preservative Problem No One Wants to Talk About

Let's get real for a second.

Why do food companies add preservatives in the first place?

Because without them, food spoils. Bacteria grow. Products become unsafe. Shelf life disappears. Distribution becomes impossible. Retailers reject your products. Your business dies.

For decades, the solution was simple: Add chemicals that kill bacteria or prevent their growth. Problem solved.

Except we now know those chemicals come with a cost.

Artificial preservatives like BHA, BHT, sodium benzoate, and potassium sorbate have been linked to everything from allergic reactions to potential carcinogenic effects. Artificial dyes like Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 have been connected to hyperactivity in children and are already banned in multiple European countries.

High-fructose corn syrup — the sweetener of choice for decades because it was cheap and extended shelf life — is now recognized as a major contributor to the obesity epidemic, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome.

The FDA just banned Red Dye 3 in January 2025 after years of evidence showing it causes cancer in rats. Food manufacturers have two years to remove it. Drug manufacturers have three.

This isn't fringe science anymore. This is mainstream health policy.

And here's the kicker: Consumers are already voting with their wallets.

Clean-label products — those without artificial ingredients — are growing at 5-10% annually while traditional processed foods are flat or declining. Brands like Siete Foods, Primal Kitchen, and RXBAR have built nine-figure businesses specifically by avoiding the chemicals their competitors rely on.

The market is screaming for change.

But there's a problem.

The $10 Million Lie That's Keeping You Stuck

If you're a small-to-mid-sized food manufacturer — let's say you're doing $3 million to $20 million in annual revenue — you've probably looked at the clean-label trend and thought:

"I'd love to remove preservatives, but how do I maintain shelf life without them?"

And if you've done any research, you've probably been told the answer is aseptic packaging.

Aseptic packaging is a process where both the product and the package are sterilized separately, then combined in a sterile environment to create a shelf-stable product without preservatives. It's how products like Tetra Pak juice boxes, Capri Sun pouches, and even some soups and sauces achieve long shelf life without refrigeration or chemicals.

It's brilliant technology.

But here's what you've also been told: "Aseptic packaging is only for the big boys."

You've been told you need a $10-15 million facility. You've been told you need massive production volumes to justify the investment. You've been told you need to be Coca-Cola or PepsiCo to even get a meeting with the equipment manufacturers.

And for decades, that was true.

But it's not true anymore.

And the fact that most food manufacturers still believe it is creating the biggest opportunity in packaging I've seen in 30 years.

The Technology Revolution No One's Talking About

Here's what changed:

For most of the aseptic packaging era — roughly from the 1980s through the early 2010s — the technology was dominated by a handful of massive players. Tetra Pak controlled the carton market. Scholle (now owned by SIG) and Liquibox (owned by Sealed Air) controlled flexible aseptic packaging like bag-in-box systems.

These companies built their businesses around serving the giants: Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé, Unilever. Their equipment was designed for massive throughput — hundreds of units per minute. Their minimum orders were enormous. Their pricing reflected their monopoly position.

If you were a small manufacturer, you simply couldn't play.

But over the last 5-7 years, something has shifted.

New equipment manufacturers—primarily in Europe and Asia—began developing modular, small-scale aseptic systems designed specifically for mid-sized producers. These systems can process batches as small as 500 liters. They can fill pouches, bag-in-box, and even bottles. They can handle both high-acid products (like juices and sauces) and low-acid products (like soups and dairy alternatives).

And here's the game-changer: These systems start at $300,000-$500,000.

Not $10 million. Not $15 million.

Under half a million dollars.

For a complete turnkey system that includes mixing, heating, sterilization, filling, and packaging.

I know this because I've spent the last two years working with Scott Eckman, one of the pioneers of aseptic packaging in North America. Scott built some of the first aseptic bag-in-box systems in the U.S. back in the 1990s. He's worked with everyone from juice companies to cocktail mixers to industrial food processors.

And he's watched the cost curve collapse.

"When I got into aseptics in 1994," Scott told me, “You needed millions of dollars and you needed to be producing hundreds of thousands of units. Today? I can put a small manufacturer into a complete aseptic system — mixer, heater, filler, bagger — for $350,000. And they can be in production in 90 days."

Let that sink in.

The barrier to entry just dropped by 95%.

The Two-Supplier Monopoly That's About to Break

Now, here's where it gets interesting.

In North America, there are essentially two suppliers of flexible aseptic packaging: Scholle and Liquibox.

That's it.

Two companies controlling a $3 billion market.

And both of them are locked into serving the big boys — Coke, Pepsi, the multinationals. Their pricing reflects their monopoly position. Their lead times are long. Their minimum order quantities are massive. Their customer service is... let's just say "lacking."

I can't tell you how many mid-sized food manufacturers have told me the same story:

"We hate our supplier, but we don't have a choice."

"The pricing keeps going up, but what are we going to do?"

"We've been trying to get samples for six months."

And here's the thing: Most of these manufacturers don't even know there are alternatives.

They've been conditioned to believe that Scholle and Liquibox are the only game in town. That if you want aseptic flexible packaging in North America, you have to go through one of these two gatekeepers.

But that's not true.

Over the last decade, a handful of manufacturers globally have developed world-class aseptic packaging capabilities. These aren't fly-by-night operations. These are ISO-certified, FDA-compliant, multi-million-dollar facilities producing for major global brands.

And their pricing is 30-40% lower than Scholle and Liquibox.

With faster lead times. Lower minimums. Better customer service. And often higher quality.

I know this because I've vetted them personally. I've visited facilities. I've reviewed certifications. I've tested samples. I've negotiated contracts.

And I've watched North American manufacturers' jaws drop when they see the comparison.

"Wait," they say. "Is this possible?"

Yes. It's possible.

But almost no one knows it.

The Closed-Loop System That Changes Everything

Let me get technical for a moment, because this is important.

The magic of aseptic packaging isn't just about removing preservatives. It's about creating what's called a closed-loop sterile system.

Here's how it works:

1. Product Sterilization: Your product (juice, sauce, soup, whatever) is rapidly heated to a high temperature — usually 280-300°F for just a few seconds using either a tubular heat exchanger or steam injection. This kills all bacteria, yeasts, and molds.
2. Rapid Cooling: The product is immediately cooled back down to ambient temperature (or whatever temperature you're filling at). This happens in seconds, not minutes or hours.
3. Package Sterilization: Meanwhile, your packaging material (pouch, bag, bottle) is sterilized using heat, hydrogen peroxide, or UV radiation.
4. Sterile Filling: The sterile product is filled into the sterile package in a sterile environment — usually a clean room or enclosed filling chamber.
5. Hermetic Sealing: The package is sealed while still in the sterile environment, creating an airtight, bacteria-free container.

The key word here is closed-loop.

At no point does the sterilized product come into contact with the outside environment. At no point can bacteria re-enter the system. The entire process from heating to sealing happens in a continuous, enclosed flow.

This is fundamentally different from older preservation methods:

• Hot-fill processes fill product at high temperatures (usually 185-195°F) and rely on that heat to sterilize the container after filling. This means your product sits at high temperature for extended periods, degrading flavor and nutrients.
• Retort processes fill product into containers, seal them, then pressure-cook the entire sealed package in a giant autoclave. Again, extended high heat, degraded quality.
• Cold fill with preservatives skips the heat but requires chemicals to prevent bacterial growth.

Aseptic processing gives you the safety of high-heat sterilization with the quality of cold-fill — because the product is only at high temperature for seconds, not minutes or hours.

The result?

Better taste. Better nutrition. Better texture. No preservatives. Longer shelf life.

It's not magic. It's engineering.

And it's now accessible to companies doing $5 million in revenue.

The Economics That Will Make Your CFO Smile

Let's talk money.

Because at the end of the day, this has to make financial sense.

Here's what shifting to aseptic flexible packaging typically looks like for a mid-sized manufacturer:

Packaging Cost Reduction: 20-40%

Glass jars, metal cans, and rigid plastic containers are expensive. They're heavy. They're bulky. They require labels, caps, and often secondary packaging.

Aseptic pouches and bag-in-box systems use a fraction of the material. A typical 5-liter bag-in-box costs $0.40-$0.60 in materials. The equivalent in glass jars (multiple containers to equal 5 liters) would cost $2-$3.

Even accounting for the fitment (spout/valve), you're looking at 30-50% material cost savings.

Freight Cost Reduction: 30-50%

This is huge and often overlooked.

Glass and cans are heavy. A pallet of glass bottles might weigh 1,200-1,500 pounds. The same volume of product in pouches might weigh 400-500 pounds.

That's a 60-70% reduction in shipping weight.

And because pouches and bags are flexible, they pack more efficiently. You can fit more product per pallet, more pallets per truck.

One of Scott's clients — a sauce manufacturer — cut their freight costs by 42% just by switching from glass to aseptic bag-in-box. Same product. Same volume. Less than half the shipping cost.

Energy Cost Reduction: 40-60%

Hot-fill and retort processes are energy hogs.

You're heating product to high temperatures and holding it there. Then you're running it through cooling tunnels. Then you're running sealed containers through retort chambers at high pressure and temperature.

Aseptic processing heats products rapidly, cools it rapidly, and fills at ambient temperature. The total energy consumption is typically 40-60% lower than retort or hot fill.

For a facility running multiple shifts, that's tens of thousands of dollars per year in energy savings.

Labor Cost Reduction: 20-30%

Aseptic systems run faster and more consistently than traditional filling lines.

A modern aseptic pouch filler can run 60-120 units per minute with minimal operator intervention. A hot-fill glass line might run 30-40 bottles per minute and require constant adjustment.

Fewer operators. Less downtime. Higher throughput.

Waste Reduction: 50-70%

Glass breaks. Cans dent. Seals fail.

Flexible packaging has a much lower defect rate. And when something does go wrong, you're throwing away pennies worth of film, not dollars’ worth of glass.

The ROI Calculation

Let's put this together with a real example:

Current State: $5M Sauce Company Using Glass Jars

• Packaging cost: $0.45/unit
• Freight: $0.18/unit
• Energy: $0.08/unit
• Labor: $0.12/unit
• Waste: $0.05/unit
• Total: $0.88/unit
• Annual volume: 8 million units
• Annual packaging-related costs: $7.04M

Future State: Same Company Using Aseptic Pouches

• Packaging cost: $0.28/unit (38% reduction)
• Freight: $0.09/unit (50% reduction)
• Energy: $0.04/unit (50% reduction)
• Labor: $0.09/unit (25% reduction)
• Waste: $0.02/unit (60% reduction)
• Total: $0.52/unit
• Annual volume: 8 million units
• Annual packaging-related costs: $4.16M

Annual savings: $2.88 million

System investment: $450,000

Payback period: 2.3 months

Yes, you read that right. Less than three months.

And that's before you factor in the premium pricing you can command for a preservative-free, clean-label product.

The Market Segments Being Left Behind

So who needs to know about this?

Based on my conversations with Scott and my own 30 years in the packaging industry, here are the market segments that are ripe for disruption:

1. Sauce & Condiment Manufacturers

If you're making pasta sauce, salsa, BBQ sauce, hot sauce, or salad dressing in glass jars, you're leaving money on the table.

These are typically high-acid products (pH below 4.6), which makes them ideal for aseptic processing. The flavor improvement alone — no more "cooked" taste from retort — can justify a premium price.

And consumers are already trained to buy these products in pouches. Look at the success of brands like Primal Kitchen and Siete Foods.

2. Juice & Beverage Producers

Cold-pressed juice. Cold brew coffee. Smoothies. Functional beverages.

These products are exploding in popularity, but most manufacturers are stuck in expensive glass bottles or cans that require either preservatives or refrigeration.

Aseptic pouches give you ambient shelf life without sacrificing the fresh taste that makes these products premium.

3. Soup & Broth Manufacturers

The soup aisle is dominated by cans and Tetra Pak cartons. But consumers are increasingly rejecting both — cans because of BPA concerns, cartons because they're difficult to recycle.

Aseptic pouches and bag-in-box systems offer a superior alternative. Better taste (no metallic notes from cans), easier to use (resealable spouts), more sustainable (recyclable mono-material films).

4. Dairy & Plant-Based Alternatives

Almond milk. Oat milk. Coconut milk. Creamers.

These products have traditionally required either refrigeration or UHT processing with Tetra Pak cartons. But aseptic pouches are now taking market share — especially in food service where bag-in-box systems offer better portion control and less waste.

5. Edible Oils

Olive oil. Avocado oil. Cooking oils.

Most consumers don't realize that oil oxidizes and degrades when exposed to light and air. Glass bottles and plastic jugs accelerate this process.

Aseptic bag-in-box systems protect oil from oxygen and light, extending shelf life and preserving quality. And they eliminate the risk of glass breakage during shipping (a major issue for premium oil brands).

6. Industrial & Food Service

This is the sleeper category.

Restaurants, hotels, casinos, cruise ships, and institutional kitchens buy enormous quantities of sauces, oils, juices, and bases. They're currently buying mostly in #10 cans (106 oz) or 5-gallon buckets.

Aseptic bag-in-box systems offer better portion control, less waste, easier handling, and lower cost per ounce.

Scott worked with a casino operator who switched their cocktail mixers from glass bottles to aseptic bag-in-box. They cut their mixer costs by 35% and eliminated the constant problem of broken glass behind the bar.

The Three Paths to Aseptic (And Which One Is Right for You)

So let's say you're convinced. You want to explore aseptic packaging for your products.

What are your options?

Path 1: Co-Packer Partnership

Best for: Companies doing under $5M in revenue or just testing aseptic for the first time.

Find an existing co-packer with aseptic capabilities and have them produce your product. You avoid the capital investment entirely and can test the market before committing.

Pros:

• Zero capital investment
• Fast time to market (weeks, not months)
• Access to expertise and established processes
• Flexibility to scale up or down

Cons:

• Less control over production schedule
• Sharing proprietary formulations
• Per-unit costs will be higher than in-house
• Limited customization options

Typical cost: $0.60-$1.20 per unit depending on volume and complexity.

Path 2: Modular Aseptic System

Best for: Companies doing $5-20M in revenue ready to bring production in-house.

Install a small-scale aseptic system in your existing facility. These modular systems can be integrated with your current mixing tanks and typically include:

• Tubular heat exchanger or steam injection unit
• Sterile holding tank
• Aseptic filler (pouch or bag-in-box)
• Control systems and automation

Pros:

• Full control over production
• Lower per-unit costs than co-packing
• Can start small and add capacity
• Protects proprietary formulations

Cons:

• Capital investment required ($300K-$500K)
• Learning curve for operators
• Ongoing maintenance and validation
• May need facility upgrades (clean room, utilities)

Typical cost: $350,000-$500,000 for a complete system capable of 30-60 units per minute.

Path 3: Full Aseptic Production Line

Best for: Companies doing $20M+ in revenue or planning significant growth.

Build a dedicated aseptic production facility with multiple lines, high-speed fillers, and full automation.

Pros:

• Maximum efficiency and throughput
• Lowest per-unit costs
• Can serve as contract manufacturer for others
• Complete control and flexibility

Cons:

• Major capital investment ($2M-$5M+)
• Longer implementation timeline (12-18 months)
• Requires dedicated team and expertise
• Higher risk if market doesn't materialize

Typical cost: $2M-$5M+ depending on capacity and automation level.

The Supplier Secret That Changes Everything

Here's where I need to be blunt.

If you're exploring aseptic packaging, you've probably been told you need to buy from Scholle or Liquibox.

And if you've gotten quotes from them, you've probably experienced sticker shock.

Here's what they don't want you to know:

There are world-class aseptic packaging manufacturers in Asia producing at 30-40% lower cost with equal or better quality.

I'm not talking about cheap knock-offs. I'm talking about ISO 9001 certified, FDA compliant, BRC audited facilities producing for major global brands.

These manufacturers have invested heavily in aseptic technology over the last decade. They've built clean rooms that rival anything in North America. They've implemented quality control systems that exceed industry standards.

And because their labor and overhead costs are lower, they can offer pricing that makes aseptic packaging accessible to mid-sized manufacturers.

Here's a real comparison from a recent project:

Scholle Quote:

• 5-liter aseptic bag-in-box
• MOQ: 50,000 units
• Price: $1.85/unit
• Lead time: 16 weeks
• Tooling: $8,500

Asian Supplier Quote:

• 5-liter aseptic bag-in-box (same specifications)
• MOQ: 10,000 units
• Price: $.90/unit
• Lead time: 8 weeks

Same product. Same quality certifications. 48% lower price. 80% lower MOQ. Half the lead time.

The manufacturer chose the Asian supplier. Their product launched six months ago. Zero quality issues. Zero customer complaints. And they're saving over $200,000 per year on packaging costs.

But here's the thing: Most North American manufacturers don't know these suppliers exist.

And the ones who do are skeptical. "How do I know they're legitimate? How do I know the quality is really there? What if something goes wrong?"

These are valid concerns.

Which is why I've spent the last two years personally vetting suppliers, visiting facilities, reviewing certifications, and building relationships.

I'm not asking you to take a leap of faith. I'm offering to be the bridge.

Why Now Is the Moment

Let me bring this full circle.

We're at a unique moment in the history of food packaging.

The regulatory environment is shifting. The FDA is closing loopholes. Preservatives and artificial additives are being phased out. Clean-label requirements are becoming mandatory, not optional.

Consumer demand is accelerating. People are reading labels. They're rejecting chemicals. They're willing to pay premium prices for products that align with their values.

Technology is democratizing. Aseptic systems that once cost $10-15 million now cost $300-500K. Equipment that was only accessible to Fortune 500 companies is now available to businesses doing $5 million in revenue.

The supplier landscape is opening up. The Scholle/Liquibox duopoly is being challenged by world-class global manufacturers offering better pricing, lower minimums, and faster service.

And almost nobody knows about it yet.

That's the opportunity.

The big food companies are too slow and too invested in the old ways to pivot quickly. They'll fight the regulatory changes. They'll lobby for delays. They'll try to preserve the status quo as long as possible.

But the mid-market — the $5M to $50M manufacturers who are nimble, entrepreneurial, and close to their customers — can move fast.

You can reformulate without preservatives. You can invest in aseptic systems. You can partner with new suppliers. You can launch clean-label products that command premium pricing.

You can win while the giants are still arguing about whether to change.

But you have to move now.

Because once your competitors figure this out — and they will — the advantage disappears.

The Bottom Line

The clean-label revolution is here.

Preservatives are dying. Artificial additives are being banned. Consumers are demanding real food.

And the only scalable way to deliver shelf-stable products without chemicals is aseptic packaging.

For decades, aseptic was only for the giants. But the technology has democratized. The costs have dropped. The suppliers have multiplied.

The opportunity is massive. The timing is perfect. And the competition is asleep.

The question is: Will you be one of the first movers who captures this wave?

Or will you wait until your competitors have already taken the high ground?

The choice is yours.

But I'd encourage you to choose quickly.

Because in 12-18 months, everyone will know about this.

And by then, the advantage will be gone.

David Marinac is a packaging industry veteran with over 30 years of experience helping food and beverage manufacturers optimize their packaging strategies. He specializes in flexible packaging solutions and is the founder of StandUpPouches.net, the leading online resource for aseptic and specialty flexible packaging. "Research and content development assisted by AI technology."

Want to explore aseptic packaging for your products?

• Advantages of Aseptic Packaging
• How Aseptic Packaging Works
• Aseptic Packaging Explained
• Aseptic Packaging for Juice