Key Takeaways
- Two FDA workstreams are converging in 2026: a front-of-pack rule (finalization signaled ~mid-2026) that flags added sugar at 20% DV or more as "High," and a proposed nutrient content claim defining "low added sugar."
- The easy swap is now riskier: the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines say no amount of added sugar or non-nutritive sweetener belongs in a healthy diet, so trading sugar for sucralose no longer reads as a clean win.
- Polyols carry the reduction: maltitol and sorbitol are sugar alcohols — not counted as added sugars — so they lower the flagged number while replacing sugar's bulk, within a digestive-tolerance ceiling.
- Rice syrups carry the clean-label story, not the reduction: rice syrup is a sugar and counts on the label; its value is replacing corn syrup/HFCS with a non-GMO, allergen-free option.
A product team looks at the front of a package it has sold for fifteen years and sees a label that is about to read "High" in added sugar. The obvious fix — drop in a high-intensity sweetener and cut the sugar — used to be the whole conversation. In 2026 it is no longer that simple, because the same regulatory push that flags the sugar has also turned its attention to the sweeteners meant to replace it.
This is the bind reformulators are working inside this year. Cutting added sugar is no longer enough on its own; how you cut it now carries its own labeling and positioning risk. Understanding what FDA has actually set in motion — and what it has only signaled — is the difference between a reformulation that ages well and one that has to be redone in two years.
What did FDA actually put in motion for added sugar?
FDA advanced two things in 2026: a front-of-pack "Nutrition Info" rule that sorts added sugars into Low (5% DV or less), Med, or High (20% DV or more), with finalization signaled around mid-2026; and a Human Foods Program commitment to propose a nutrient content claim defining "low added sugar."
The first workstream moves the added-sugar question from the back of the pack, where few shoppers look, to the front, where the "High" flag does real work at the shelf. The rule FDA proposed in January 2025 would require the box on most packaged foods, with the Low/Med/High bands tied to percent Daily Value.
The second workstream is quieter but matters more for ingredient choice. A defined "low added sugar" claim is what gives a reformulation a marketing payoff rather than just the avoidance of a penalty — the carrot behind the front-of-pack stick. The same FDA strategy also says it will assess low- and no-calorie and non-nutritive sweeteners, and explore how sugar alternatives are labeled.
The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines state that no amount of added sugars or non-nutritive sweeteners is recommended as part of a healthy diet. That single sentence is why swapping sugar for sucralose or aspartame no longer reads as an unambiguous win — federal guidance now treats both as things to move away from, not a destination.
Put the two together and the reformulator's problem comes into focus. Reduce added sugar, because the front-of-pack flag and a forthcoming claim both reward it. But do not lean on high-intensity sweeteners to get there, because the guidance and the reduction strategy have folded those into the same category of scrutiny. The room left to maneuver is narrower than it looks, and it is exactly the room where bulk sweeteners and lower-sweetness syrups live.
Why do maltitol and sorbitol sit in a different box?
Maltitol and sorbitol are polyols — sugar alcohols. On the US Nutrition Facts label they are not counted as added sugars, and not as sugars at all; they fall under total carbohydrate and may be declared voluntarily as "Sugar Alcohol." That classification is why they lower the front-of-pack flag while a high-intensity sweetener cannot replace sugar's bulk.
The functional case is older than the regulatory one. Maltitol carries roughly 75–90% of the sweetness of sucrose with about half the calories, and it browns, bulks and behaves enough like sugar that it can carry a formulation rather than just flavor it. Sorbitol is less sweet, around 60% of sucrose, and earns its place as a humectant and bulking agent — it holds moisture in soft-baked and confectionery systems and resists crystallization. Neither is a drop-in for sugar in every matrix, but both do the structural work that a high-intensity sweetener, dosed in parts per million, leaves undone.
The honest limit is digestive tolerance. Polyols are incompletely absorbed, and excess intake can have a laxative effect; in the US, foods whose reasonably foreseeable consumption may exceed 50 g/day of sorbitol or 20 g/day of mannitol must carry a statement to that effect, and responsible maltitol use is governed by the same tolerance logic even without a fixed federal trigger. This is a real constraint on dose, not a reason to avoid the category. Polyols are formulated to a tolerance ceiling — used to carry a defined share of the sweetness and bulk, often alongside fiber or a small residual of sugar, rather than pushed to replace sugar gram for gram.
Where do rice syrups help — and where don't they?
Rice syrup is a sugar. It counts as an added sugar on the label and carries Daily Value like sucrose or corn syrup, so swapping corn syrup for rice syrup does not move the added-sugar number or earn a "low added sugar" claim. Its value is the clean-label story around the sugar that remains.
Rice syrups and rice syrup solids are a rice-derived, non-GMO, allergen-free alternative to corn-derived glucose syrups and high-fructose corn syrup — the same body, binding and mild sweetness, from an ingredient line that reads cleanly on a label and avoids the corn and allergen flags. Lower-DE rice syrups in particular contribute viscosity, chew and a gentle sweetness profile that lets a formulator hold structure in bars, cereals and confections while the total sugar load is brought down by other means.
The two ingredients therefore do different jobs, and the mistake is to ask either to do the other's. The added-sugar reduction is carried by the polyols, which lower the flagged number while replacing sugar's bulk. The clean-label and supply story is carried by the rice syrups, which improve the quality and provenance of whatever sugar stays in the formula. A well-built low-added-sugar reformulation usually uses both: polyols to take the number down, a lower-DE rice syrup to keep the eating quality and the ingredient statement where the brand wants them.
| Ingredient | Counts as added sugar? | Primary job under the 2026 rules |
|---|---|---|
| Maltitol | No (sugar alcohol) | Lower the flagged added-sugar number while replacing sucrose bulk and browning; dose to tolerance ceiling |
| Sorbitol | No (sugar alcohol) | Humectancy, bulking and crystallization control in reduced-sugar systems |
| Rice syrup / syrup solids | Yes | Clean-label, non-GMO, allergen-free replacement for corn syrup/HFCS; body, chew, mild sweetness on the residual sugar |
| High-intensity sweeteners | No, but under guidance scrutiny | Reduce sugar, but now share the Dietary Guidelines' "not recommended" framing; leave a bulk gap polyols fill |
One rice-derived source for both halves of the job
This is the brief ACT Polyols is built for. We make the maltitol and sorbitol that take the added-sugar number down, and the rice syrups and syrup solids that hold eating quality on the sugar that stays — all of it non-GMO, allergen-free, Halal and organic-certified, from an irrigated Pakistan base, and supplied into North America through our US arm, Ricels LLC. A formulator can assemble the reduction lever and the clean-label body from a single rice-derived line rather than stitching them together across corn and cane suppliers — and the same base carries a supply-resilience advantage over corn and cassava.
Talk it through at IFT FIRST 2026 · Booth #2377What does a defensible reformulation look like?
A reformulation that ages well spreads the work: a measured dose of polyol to take added sugar down, a lower-DE rice syrup to hold structure and eating quality, and modest high-intensity sweetener use — so it reads well against the front-of-pack thresholds without staking everything on one ingredient surviving regulatory review.
The reduction strategy is not finished. The "low added sugar" claim has been proposed, not defined; the front-of-pack rule is intended for finalization but not yet final; and FDA's own language about assessing and labeling sugar alternatives means the polyols themselves could draw labeling attention before the decade is out. None of that argues for waiting. It argues for building reformulations that do not depend on any single ingredient surviving review unchanged.
The reformulations that will look smart in 2028 are the ones that read the direction of travel in 2026 and stopped trying to win with a single swap.