Court Says Allulose Is a Sugar. 'Zero Sugar' Labels Are in Trouble

A federal appeals court ruled on July 27, 2026, that allulose is legally a sugar under federal regulations. Because it is chemically a monosaccharide, products containing 0.5 grams or more of allulose cannot claim zero sugar on front packaging under federal standards, despite contrary informal FDA guidance.

Key takeaways:

• The Seventh Circuit held in Franco v. Chobani (decided July 27, 2026) that allulose is legally a sugar because 21 CFR 101.9 defines Total Sugars as all free mono- and disaccharides.
• The FDA's 2020 guidance allowing brands to omit allulose from the Nutrition Facts panel represents agency enforcement discretion, not a formal regulatory amendment.
• Under 21 CFR 101.60, front-of-pack claims like "sugar free" or "zero sugar" require foods to contain less than 0.5 grams of total sugars per serving.
• The ruling leaves shoppers facing a mismatch: products may still display zero grams on the Nutrition Facts panel under FDA guidance while facing legal challenges over front-of-package claims.

What happened in the Franco v. Chobani court ruling?

On July 27, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided Franco v. Chobani, LLC (No. 25-2087). The plaintiffs had filed a putative nationwide class action alleging that Chobani misled consumers by labeling a yogurt that contained four grams of allulose per serving as "zero sugar" and "sugar free".

The federal district court had initially dismissed the lawsuit, accepting the argument that Chobani conformed to published guidance from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The appellate court concluded that informal agency guidance cannot override binding Code of Federal Regulations mandates.

Following the ruling, legal and food-industry coverage in early September 2026 described a growing number of similar "zero sugar" suits against allulose-sweetened products.

What changed in the legal definition of sugar?

The central legal dispute rests on the precise regulatory wording codified in 21 CFR 101.9. This federal regulation specifies that "Total Sugars" constitutes the mathematical sum of all free mono- and disaccharides. Because allulose is chemically a single-ring monosaccharide containing 6 carbon atoms, the court held that it unambiguously qualifies as a sugar under binding federal law.

This binding definition directly triggers the nutrient content claim requirements set out in 21 CFR 101.60. Under that regulation, a food manufacturer may only apply terms like "sugar free," "free of sugar," "no sugar," or "zero sugar" if the finished food contains less than 0.5 grams of total sugars per labeled serving. Because Chobani's single serving contained 4 grams of allulose, an amount roughly 8 times higher than the 0.5-gram ceiling, the court determined that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged the front-of-package marketing violates federal standards.

The court invited the FDA to state its view. In its October 2020 guidance on declaring allulose, the agency had announced it would exercise enforcement discretion and not object if brands omitted allulose from the "Total Sugars" and "Added Sugars" lines on the Nutrition Facts panel, while still counting its calories at 0.4 per gram. In its brief to the court, the FDA said the regulation itself defines Total Sugars as all free mono- and disaccharides, which supported the plaintiffs' reading; the court treated the 2020 document as enforcement discretion, not a change to the rule.

Who is affected by the allulose ruling?

The ripple effects of this ruling directly impact food manufacturers operating in the keto, low-carbohydrate, and high-protein sectors. Over the past five years, allulose emerged as an industry-standard sweetener because it provides functional bulk and browning without the standard caloric load or glycemic spike of table sugar. Brands manufacturing low-sugar yogurts, protein bars, low-carb baked goods, and functional beverages that pair allulose with front-of-package "zero sugar" banners now face substantial litigation exposure.

Class action exposure spans across federal jurisdictions as consumer defense attorneys respond to complaints filed throughout August and September 2026. Companies selling nationwide distribution lines cannot easily isolate product packaging to specific states.

Food shoppers seeking diabetic-friendly or ketogenic pantry staples are also caught in the middle. Consumers who rely heavily on quick front-of-package claims to avoid simple sugars must now look past bold marketing claims to inspect the underlying ingredients.

What it means for shoppers reading food labels

For practical grocery shopping, this legal fight means you will likely encounter confusing contradictions on packaging. Under the FDA's 2020 enforcement policy, manufacturers are still permitted to state zero grams on the "Total Sugars" and "Added Sugars" lines of the Nutrition Facts panel. However, the ingredient statement on the back or side of the package will continue to explicitly list "allulose."

Shoppers should know what allulose actually is from a nutritional standpoint. Chemically, allulose (also known as D-psicose) is a rare sugar that exists naturally in trace amounts in foods like figs, raisins, and wheat. It is an epimer of fructose, meaning it shares the same chemical formula as fructose but possesses a different spatial arrangement of atoms. Allulose delivers approximately 70 percent of the sweetness of sucrose (table sugar).

Unlike traditional carbohydrates, human digestive enzymes do not break down allulose into energy. Most ingested allulose is absorbed in the small intestine and excreted unchanged in urine, which is why the FDA lets it be counted at 0.4 kilocalories per gram instead of the 4 kcal/g of table sugar, and why it does not raise blood glucose the way sugar does. To see how it compares to alternative bulk sweeteners, read our guide on Allulose vs Erythritol: Which Sugar Substitute Is Better?.

If you are managing diabetes or strictly monitoring added sweeteners, understanding chemical distinctions is vital. You can explore how manufacturers declare various carbohydrate sources in our explainer on how Added Sugar Has Dozens of Label Names: The Ones to Know. If you prefer zero-calorie plant extracts that do not rely on rare monosaccharides, review our breakdown of Stevia vs Monk Fruit: Which Sweetener Is Better for You?.

When reading labels under current market conditions, keep this checklist in mind:

• Front-of-package claim: Look closely at banners reading "Zero Sugar" or "Sugar Free" on protein items and yogurts.
• Ingredient statement: Check whether allulose appears in the ingredient list. If it does, the item contains a monosaccharide regardless of the front claim.
• Nutrition Facts panel: The "Total Sugars" line may state 0 grams because of the FDA's 2020 guidance, but the total carbohydrate line will reflect the weight of the allulose.
• Calorie counts: Regulators require allulose to be counted at 0.4 calories per gram on the Nutrition Facts panel.

The background behind the FDA allulose guidance

How did the food industry end up with a sweetener that the FDA treats as non-sugar on the Nutrition Facts panel, but federal judges declare is a sugar under the law? The discrepancy dates back to how federal food standards were originally codified.

When the FDA enacted 21 CFR 101.9, the agency based its chemical definition of sugars on molecular structure: any free monosaccharide or disaccharide fell into the category. Decades later, commercial enzymatic processes made it possible to produce rare sugars like allulose at industrial scale from corn starch. Ingredient manufacturers petitioned the FDA, demonstrating that allulose behaves metabolically like a non-nutritive sweetener rather than a standard carbohydrate.

In October 2020, the FDA published a final guidance document agreeing with the metabolic distinction. The agency reasoned that allulose does not behave like other sugars in the body, so counting it with them would not serve the purpose of the sugar lines. The FDA announced it would exercise enforcement discretion, allowing companies to omit allulose from those lines.

However, the FDA never issued a formal notice-and-comment rulemaking to revise the regulatory text of 21 CFR 101.9 or 21 CFR 101.60. Until the FDA undergoes formal rulemaking to amend the code, the strict chemical definition controls the courtroom.

What to watch next in food courtrooms and regulations

Food-industry legal teams are watching the proceedings in Franco v. Chobani on remand. While the appellate court established that allulose is legally a sugar under 21 CFR 101.9, the plaintiffs must still prove their state-law consumer fraud and misrepresentation claims.

Observers are also monitoring whether the FDA will initiate formal administrative rulemaking. Only an official amendment to 21 CFR 101.9 and 21 CFR 101.60 can bridge the gap between the agency's scientific view of allulose and the text of federal regulations. Without formal regulatory changes, food manufacturers face continued vulnerability under state consumer protection statutes.

Clinical evidence cannot guarantee identical digestive or metabolic responses for every individual, as personal tolerance for rare sugars varies based on intake level and digestive sensitivity.