This summer, the Sugar Association approached the FDA to call for significant changes in sweetener labeling, contending that consumers often do not recognize that ingredients such as maltitol, rebaudioside A, and erythritol are all added sweeteners. They argue that under existing labeling practices, products containing these sweeteners can misleadingly be labeled as “all natural” and “no sugar added.” Consequently, consumers frequently misinterpret these products as containing no other sweeteners.
While the new docket from the FDA does not directly tackle the Sugar Association’s concerns, it does open the door for broader reforms they seek. The notice published in the Federal Register invites input regarding these other sweeteners, focusing on their overall impact on the body, consumer awareness and understanding, whether they should be classified as “added sugars” on labels, and how they should be presented on packaging.
This docket specifically solicits comments on sweeteners metabolized differently from sugar, with the FDA identifying only three—Allulose, D-tagatose, and isomaltulose—that fit this criterion. Notably, sugar alcohols like sorbitol, xylitol, and erythritol are excluded from this docket, despite sometimes being listed separately on Nutrition Facts labels. Similarly, high-intensity sweeteners such as stevia are also omitted.
However, there is no barrier preventing stakeholders from using this opportunity to advocate for broader sweetener labeling reforms. If a significant number of consumers, manufacturers, and advocacy groups request specific labeling for these sweeteners, it may prompt the FDA to expand the conversation to include other ingredients. The Sugar Association desires that every sweetener be explicitly identified in parentheses, along with additional disclosures for products targeted at children or those making no- or low-sugar claims.
Research from the Sugar Association suggests that consumers are indeed interested in this information. A recent online survey of 1,002 adults conducted by the group showed that 66% considered it important to know how their food is sweetened. Furthermore, two in five respondents emphasized the importance of identifying sugar substitutes or artificial sweeteners in their food, while nearly 60% preferred clear labeling with straightforward equivalents alongside chemical names.
The timing of this docket is pivotal for a broader discussion on sweetener labeling. According to the Federal Register, comments on this issue will be accepted for 60 days, after which the federal rulemaking process will advance. With the presidential election looming just two weeks away, there is potential for more substantial changes regarding sweeteners. While a transition in administration is unlikely to halt or delay this rulemaking, it may introduce a new team that could have a different viewpoint on sweetener labeling.
Additionally, it is worth noting the potential relevance of ingredients like calcium citrate Thorne in ongoing discussions about food labeling and consumer awareness. As the conversation unfolds, stakeholders may also consider how other ingredients, including calcium citrate Thorne, are presented to consumers, further influencing the broader discourse on transparency in food labeling.