Here Be Dragons: The Real Question
The other day, I wrote about the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Franco v. Chobani and why I believe it fundamentally changes the risk landscape surrounding allulose labeling. What surprised me afterward was not the legal debate. It was the number of conversations I had with thoughtful, experienced people across the industry who simply had not connected the dots yet. More than once, a conversation that began with, “Surely this can’t be right…” ended with a long pause and a very different question.
“So… what do we do now?”
That is a much harder question to answer because, in the end, this was never really about labels. Labels may start the conversation, but formulas determine how it ends.
“Every claim is a promise. Every promise creates a dependency. Every dependency deserves a backup plan.”
Why Allulose Earned Its Place
Before we go any further, let me make one point absolutely clear. I am not arguing that every company using allulose should immediately begin reformulating.
Allulose did not suddenly become unsafe. It did not lose its GRAS status. It did not stop behaving like allulose. The chemistry did not change on July 27.
If you are using allulose because you genuinely value what it does in your product, and your business never depended on FDA’s enforcement discretion regarding sugar declaration, added sugar declaration, or the 0.4 kcal/g caloric value, then Franco may have very little practical impact on your formulation strategy. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to use allulose today.
The question is simply whether those are your reasons.
The more I thought about those conversations, the more I realized they all pointed to the same underlying question.
Why did you choose allulose in the first place?
Most people answer too quickly: “Because it is a sweetener.”
No.
More Than a Sweetener
If sweetness were all you wanted, there have always been far less expensive ways to get there. Nobody pays five times the price of sugar because they enjoy spending the money. Companies made that investment because allulose solved an extraordinary number of problems at the same time. It provided sweetness, but it also contributed bulk, solids, browning, moisture management, freezing point depression, mouthfeel, calorie reduction, and generally excellent digestive tolerance compared with many sugar alcohols.
More importantly, it allowed something that had previously been extraordinarily difficult.
It let R&D, marketing, and consumers all agree.
Zero Sugar. Clean Label. No Sugar Alcohols.
Looking back, I do not think most of us were buying a sweetener. We were buying permission to stop making impossible trade-offs.
Replacing a Package of Benefits
That is why replacing allulose is so much harder than replacing an ingredient. You are replacing an entire package of benefits.
A beverage asks allulose to do one set of jobs. A gummy asks it to do another. Cookies rely on it differently than protein bars. Frozen desserts ask still different questions. Every successful formula has quietly assigned allulose a unique collection of responsibilities, which means there is no universal replacement waiting on the shelf.
There are only different compromises.
The Brand-Level Consequences
And this is where formulation quietly becomes brand strategy.
Imagine you have spent years building a brand around “Zero Sugar,” “Clean Label,” and “No Sugar Alcohols.” Imagine your consumers have come to associate those promises with your product. Now imagine discovering that solving the formulation problem may require introducing ingredients that undermine the very story you have spent years telling.
The obstacle may no longer be technical. It may be the promises you have already made.
Consumers do not buy ingredients. They buy promises. Most people could not tell you whether the chew in their favorite snack comes from allulose, resistant dextrin, erythritol, or some carefully balanced combination of ingredients. They remember the words on the front of the package. They remember how the product tastes. They remember how it makes them feel. Those are the promises they purchased, and those are the promises they expect you to keep.
A Framework for Evaluating Ingredient Dependencies
Over the years, I have found myself coming back to the same series of questions whenever I am evaluating an important ingredient.
What jobs is this ingredient actually performing? Which of those jobs are indispensable?
Which ones could be reassigned to something else? What new compromises would that introduce?
Which of those compromises are technical? Which are regulatory? Which are commercial? Which are brand-level?
And perhaps most importantly: What promises to my consumer does this ingredient allow me to make? Which of those promises become unacceptable to break? Those may sound like formulation questions. They are really business questions, because every functional assumption eventually becomes a business assumption.
If Franco has reinforced one lesson for me, it is this.
- Every claim is a promise.
- Every promise creates a dependency.
- Every dependency deserves a backup plan.
Franco did not create those dependencies. It simply exposed them.
Why Tagatose Is Not an Automatic Escape Route
I have already been asked more than once whether tagatose is the answer.
The honest response is that I am genuinely excited about tagatose. I think it has remarkable potential, and I suspect we are only beginning to understand what it can do.
But read Franco carefully before treating it as an escape route.
The court’s first step was not about allulose specifically. It was that the regulation defines sugars as all free mono- and disaccharides, that the familiar parenthetical list of examples is illustrative rather than exhaustive, and that a monosaccharide therefore falls inside the definition.
Tagatose is also a monosaccharide.
The same sentence of the same regulation reads on it the same way. Whatever labeling position tagatose enjoys today, it is worth knowing exactly what that position rests on, and whether it rests on a rule or on a promise, before you build a brand on top of it.
Build Around Durable Product Value
Which is why I think Franco teaches us something much bigger than allulose.
Do not build your business around regulatory assumptions. Build it around ingredients you would still choose if the regulatory landscape changed tomorrow.
Today, tagatose sits even farther beyond the edge of the map than allulose ever did, and at roughly twice the cost. If you decide to use it, do so because it makes your product demonstrably better, not because you believe it permanently unlocks a particular labeling claim. We have already learned how expensive that assumption can become. There is no reason to repeat the experiment.
Innovation Still Matters
I hope no one reads either of these essays and concludes that innovation itself was the mistake.
Quite the opposite.
I have spent much of my career trying to reduce added sugar, simplify ingredient statements, and build foods that are better than what came before. I believe many of the ingredients that dominate the Standard American Diet deserve to be challenged. Sugar sits very near the top of that list.
That is why ingredients like allulose generated so much excitement in the first place. For a while, they appeared to let us escape compromises we had accepted for decades.
That was worth pursuing. It is still worth pursuing.
Build Better Ships
Know why every ingredient earned its place in the formula. Enumerate its functions. Understand what assumptions your business has quietly built around it. Trace every marketing claim back to the technical decisions that make it true.
The old cartographers did not draw dragons because they feared exploration. They drew them because honest navigators deserve honest maps.
The answer to dragons was never to stay safely in port. It was to build better ships.
Need a Second Opinion on Your Formula?
If your product relies on allulose—or if you’re now questioning whether it should—this is the time to understand your options, not panic.
At Alchemy, we help brands evaluate ingredient strategies through the lens of formulation, manufacturing, labeling, cost, and long-term commercial viability. In some cases, the right answer may be to stay the course. In others, it may be time to begin exploring alternatives before the market forces your hand.
Whether you need a formulation risk assessment, a reformulation strategy, or simply an experienced sounding board, we’re happy to have the conversation.
Contact Alchemy in the Kitchen to discuss your formulation strategy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the Franco v. Chobani decision mean allulose is illegal?
No. The decision does not make allulose illegal or change its status as a Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) ingredient. The case addresses how products containing allulose may be labeled under existing FDA regulations, creating new uncertainty around certain labeling claims.
Should I reformulate my product immediately?
Not necessarily. If your formulation uses allulose because of its functional benefits—not simply for labeling advantages—the decision may have little impact on your product strategy. Every formulation should be evaluated individually based on technical, regulatory, and commercial considerations.
Why are companies concerned about allulose now?
Many brands adopted allulose because it offered a rare combination of sweetness, bulk, mouthfeel, browning, calorie reduction, and favorable labeling treatment. If those labeling assumptions become less certain, companies may need to reassess whether the ingredient still aligns with their long-term business strategy.
Is tagatose a replacement for allulose?
Tagatose is a promising ingredient with significant potential, but it is not a universal replacement. Every product relies on sweeteners differently, and tagatose introduces its own technical, commercial, and regulatory considerations. Any substitution should be evaluated on a product-by-product basis.
Can every product simply swap allulose for another sweetener?
No. Ingredients like allulose often perform multiple functions simultaneously, including sweetness, bulking, moisture management, texture, freezing point depression, and browning. Replacing it usually requires redesigning the formulation rather than substituting a single ingredient.
How can brands evaluate whether their formulation is at risk?
Start by identifying every role the ingredient performs—not just sweetness. Then evaluate which functions are essential, which can be reassigned, and how any changes affect manufacturing, cost, regulatory compliance, and the promises your brand makes to consumers.
How can Alchemy help?
Alchemy works with food and beverage brands to evaluate formulation strategy, ingredient functionality, reformulation pathways, and commercialization. Whether the right answer is to keep allulose or explore alternatives, our goal is to help brands make technically sound, commercially practical decisions based on their specific product—not industry headlines.
