Creative product development is not R&D. Solving the science behind it can be.

Not automatically. Creating a new flavour or product from known ingredients and methods is usually routine, however creative it is. Development qualifies where you had to resolve scientific or technological uncertainty to make it work, for example a formulation that would not stay stable or a process that would not scale. Taste alone is not the test.

It can. Extending shelf life without artificial preservatives, or finding why a product spoils, often involves uncertainty about microbiology, chemistry or packaging interaction. The costs of staff, test materials and contracted-out laboratory work can qualify. Applying a known preservative at its recommended level is routine. The records should show the problem and what was tried.

They can, where reducing an ingredient changes how the product behaves and the team has to work out how to keep texture, safety or stability. A simple like-for-like swap using a supplier's recommended substitute is not R&D. We look for the technical problem the reformulation raised and the experiments that resolved it.

Consumer preference testing on its own is not scientific or technological uncertainty, and the Government's guidelines exclude social sciences from the definition of science. Sensory work that is part of a designed programme to resolve a technical question, for example whether a process change alters flavour compounds, may be part of a qualifying project.

Yes, where developing the packaging or the product-packaging combination involves technological uncertainty, such as barrier properties, shelf life or recyclability that no established material could deliver. Our recycled plastics case study shows regulation of food-contact materials driving R&D, although the company was a packaging material manufacturer, not a food producer.

Trials on production equipment can qualify where they are designed to test something uncertain, such as whether a recipe survives high-speed filling. The cost of materials consumed and staff time on the trial can be claimed. A normal run that makes saleable product is production. We need a trial plan and a result.

Ingredients used up in qualifying trials are consumables, even if the batch is thrown away. Materials, fuel, chemicals, power and water consumed in R&D can all qualify. Waste in normal production does not. Keep records that tie the ingredients to the trial, and record what was learned from a failed batch.

It can, where making a product without an allergen raises technical problems about structure, texture, safety or processing that no competent professional could readily solve. Swapping one standard ingredient for another and checking the result is likely to be routine. The more the project depends on resolving an unknown, the stronger the case.

Scaling up can be R&D where the process behaves differently at scale in a way that could not be predicted, and the team had to work out how to make it work. Scaling a process that is known to scale is routine. The Government's guidelines address when R&D starts and ends, and the costs after the uncertainty is resolved are production.

Yes, where the project resolves scientific uncertainty, such as a new fermentation process, a way of controlling flavour compounds or a method that has not been done before. Producing a new beer or spirit using established methods is not. Equipment you keep is capital expenditure, but materials consumed in qualifying experiments can qualify.

Routine testing to meet food safety requirements is not R&D. Testing carried out to resolve a technical question, for instance whether a new process reliably controls a hazard, can be part of a qualifying project. Contracted-out testing at an unconnected laboratory qualifies at 65% of the payment, if you decided the R&D needed doing.

It can, where replicating the function of an animal-derived ingredient raises real uncertainty about texture, stability or processing. The more the work involves finding out how to achieve a result, rather than assembling known ingredients, the better the case. Records of the failed formulations are some of the best evidence.

Only where they are directly involved in qualifying R&D and their time is recorded. A chef developing recipes by creative experimentation is not doing R&D. A chef working with food scientists on a designed experiment to resolve a technical problem may be. We look at what the person was actually doing, not at their job title.

We have not seen a published HMRC figure for food and drink. Overall, HMRC checked 17% of claims in 2023-24. In any claim where product creativity is involved, HMRC is likely to test whether the work resolved scientific uncertainty or was routine product development. Clear project descriptions and trial records answer that.

They can, but a customer specification does not make the work R&D. If the customer's brief requires something nobody knows how to make, and you set out to develop it, the work may qualify. If the customer is paying for the development, check who decided the R&D needed doing before you assume you can claim.