blog

The Rules Didn’t Change. Our Understanding of Them Did.

Every once in a while, a court decision comes along that makes an entire industry stop mid-stride and ask: “Wait…what just happened?” The Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Franco v. Chobani is one of those moments.

If you formulate with allulose, tagatose, or other alternative sweeteners, this case deserves your attention. Not because these ingredients suddenly became unsafe. Not because FDA changed its position. And certainly not because the future of rare sugars is in jeopardy.

Rather, the decision exposed something many of us in the industry had assumed was settled. It isn’t.

The Football Analogy

Imagine you’ve spent years practicing under one rulebook. The referees watched every game. They approved your uniform. They let you score. Then halfway through the season someone points to the official rulebook and says,

“Actually…the wording says touchdowns only count if you crossed the goal line with your left foot first.”

Everyone looks around wondering, “Then why have we all been playing this way?” That, in many respects, is what happened here.

What Happened?

Chobani introduced a Zero Sugar yogurt sweetened primarily with allulose. FDA had previously announced it would exercise enforcement discretion allowing allulose to be excluded from the Total Sugars and Added Sugars declarations on the Nutrition Facts panel because allulose behaves metabolically very differently from conventional sugars.

The company also received a Temporary Marketing Permit after FDA reviewed its labeling. Reasonably, many people believed that meant the regulatory path was clear. Consumers disagreed. A lawsuit followed. 

The Seventh Circuit did not decide Chobani deceived consumers.

Instead, it ruled the lawsuit deserves to move forward. That distinction matters.

The Heart of the Decision

The court focused on something surprisingly simple. Chemistry. Not metabolism. Not calories. Not glycemic response. Chemistry. Allulose is chemically a monosaccharide.

The current federal regulation defining “sugars” still describes sugars using their chemical classification. FDA’s enforcement discretion did not formally rewrite that regulation. That’s the tension. One set of rules recognizes physiology. Another still relies on chemistry. Those two worlds collided.

This Is Bigger Than Chobani

While this case involves yogurt, the implications extend across nearly every category that uses alternative sweeteners. Think about: Beverages, Frozen desserts, Nutrition bars, Protein products, Bakery, Gummies, Confectionery, and, Dairy Functional foods.

If your front panel prominently says: Zero Sugar,  Sugar Free, or No Sugar, while your formula contains meaningful levels of a chemically defined sugar such as allulose or potentially tagatose, plaintiffs’ attorneys now have a roadmap they didn’t have before.

That doesn’t mean they’ll win. It does mean they’ll likely try.

What About Tagatose?

Naturally, many of our customers have asked me this question. Tagatose remains one of my favorite ingredients. It delivers functionality remarkably close to sucrose. It browns beautifully. It contributes body. It depresses freezing point. It creates mouthfeel.

Its sweetness profile is exceptionally sugar-like.

Its emerging science around glycemic response, dental health, and prebiotic functionality continues to grow.

None of that changed because of this lawsuit.

What may have changed is how we talk about products formulated with it. Tagatose, like allulose, is chemically classified as a monosaccharide. If regulators and courts continue interpreting nutrient-content claims strictly through chemical definitions rather than physiological behavior, products containing meaningful levels of tagatose could face similar legal scrutiny when marketed with absolute claims like “Zero Sugar.”

That’s an important distinction. The ingredient isn’t the problem. The claim may be.

Science and Law Are Not Always on the Same Team

Scientists ask: “How does this ingredient behave?” Lawyers ask: “How is this ingredient defined?” Those are different questions. Allulose behaves differently than sucrose. Tagatose behaves differently than sucrose. Their metabolic effects differ substantially. Their caloric contributions differ. Their glycemic responses differ. But chemically, they are still sugars. The court essentially said:

“Until the regulation itself changes, we have to follow the words currently written.”

Should Manufacturers Panic?

Absolutely not. This is a time for thoughtful review. Not emergency reformulation. Most products don’t succeed because of a front-panel claim. They succeed because consumers love eating them.

The functionality rare sugars provide hasn’t disappeared. Consumers still want lower sugar. Brands still need better taste. Formulators still need browning, freezing-point control, bulk, moisture management, and clean sweetness. Those problems haven’t gone away.

What I Would Do Today

If I were reviewing a product portfolio, I would begin with a straightforward audit. Review products making:

• Zero Sugar
• Sugar Free
• No Sugar
• Similar absolute claims

Evaluate formulations containing meaningful levels of allulose or tagatose. Have experienced food-labeling counsel review those claims in light of this decision. Review websites. Review Amazon listings. Review sales sheets. Review digital advertising. Remember, litigation doesn’t only target packaging anymore. Every consumer touchpoint matters.

The Opportunity Hidden Inside This Decision

Here’s the good news. This decision doesn’t reduce the value of rare sugars. It increases the value of smart formulation. The companies that thrive over the next decade won’t simply replace sugar.

They’ll understand how ingredient functionality, consumer perception, regulatory compliance, and truthful marketing all work together. That’s where formulation becomes strategy.

My Prediction

I don’t believe this is the final chapter. I expect continued litigation. I expect additional FDA attention. I expect significant discussion throughout the food industry.

And I would not be surprised if this ultimately accelerates formal FDA rulemaking to better align modern nutritional science with decades-old regulatory language. The industry has evolved dramatically. The regulations eventually will too.

Final Thoughts

Innovation has always outrun regulation. That’s nothing new. The challenge isn’t to stop innovating. It’s to innovate responsibly. Rare sugars remain some of the most exciting tools available to food formulators. They solve real formulation problems. They create products consumers genuinely enjoy. They help reduce conventional sugar while maintaining eating quality. That’s still true today.

The lesson from Franco v. Chobani isn’t that rare sugars are flawed. It’s that words matter. Ingredient chemistry matters. Claims matter. And increasingly, understanding all three may become just as important as building the perfect formulation.

At Icon Foods, we’re continuing to monitor the legal and regulatory landscape closely. We’ll keep sharing what we learn, helping our customers navigate change with sound science, practical formulation expertise, and a commitment to transparent, compliant innovation.

Because great formulation isn’t just about making a better product. It’s about making a product that’s built to last. A few enhancements would make this publication even stronger:

• A “What This Means for Formulators” one-page checklist.
• A risk matrix showing relative claim exposure for allulose, tagatose, polyols, stevia, monk fruit, and thaumatin.
• A timeline graphic illustrating FDA guidance, the Chobani launch, the lawsuit, and the Seventh Circuit decision.
• A decision tree titled “Can I Make This Claim?” that walks formulators through common labeling scenarios.
• A legal disclaimer clarifying that the paper provides technical information rather than legal advice.

This has the potential to become one of Icon Foods’ most valuable thought leadership pieces because it positions you not as an alarmist, but as the trusted guide helping formulators navigate an evolving regulatory landscape.