The recent 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans takes a sharper tone on sweeteners, urging consumers to pull back on foods and beverages that contain “low-calorie non-nutritive sweeteners” and stating that “no amount of added sugars or non-nutritive sweeteners is recommended or considered part of a healthy or nutritious diet.”
It also reiterates that one meal should contain no more than 10 grams of added sugars and encourages Americans to avoid sugar-sweetened beverages altogether.
For ingredient suppliers and the brands they advise, that language presents both a messaging challenge and a formulation crossroads.
Welcome to the Dietary Guidelines edit
- Whole food now at the heart of US nutrition policy: The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines focus on federal programs and procurement to drive whole-food consumption and reduce ultra-processed foods nationwide
- Why the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines need a ‘mulligan’ – and how to fix them: This isn’t a food fight, it’s a structural failure, according to experts who say the new US Dietary Guidelines need a reset, not another round of compromises
- US Dietary Guidelines sideline MyPlate in favor of inverted food pyramid: The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans spotlight an inverted food pyramid, effectively sidelining MyPlate and sparking debate among nutrition experts and educators
- 2026 beef trends: How new Dietary Guidelines are shaping protein demand: Dietary guidance, convenience-driven meals and emerging trends like beef tallow may open new avenues for innovation in beef
- ‘Highly-processed’ or ‘ultra-processed’? New dietary guidelines reignite a definitional food fight: The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans avoid the term “ultra-processed foods,” prompting both praise and criticism
- How the Dietary Guidelines may shape product strategy and development: The latest Dietary Guidelines may not reinvent the wheel, but they offer manufacturers a roadmap to balance nutrition, consumer preference and formulation strategy across sweeteners, grains and processed foods, according to one expert
- Study finds dietary guidelines linked to forced labor risks in supply chain: Seafood, dairy and red meat carry a higher risk of forced labor, according to a new Tufts and University of Nottingham study that maps labor exploitation across popular US diets
‘Difficult to reconcile’ with the science
The Calorie Control Council, a trade association that represents manufacturers of low- and no-calorie food and beverage products, argues the guidance overreaches.
“The caution is difficult to reconcile with the full weight of scientific evidence on low-and no-calorie sweeteners,” said Carla Saunders, president of the Calorie Control Council.
Some of these ingredients “have been rigorously tested” and “repeatedly affirmed as safe by global regulatory authorities,” including recent evaluations from scientific bodies Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Saunders said. However, not all sweeteners have the same standing across all these groups. For example, while erythritol and allulose are permitted in the US, Europe allows erythritol, but not allulose.
Decisions on product formulation need to be grounded in science, regulatory guidelines, technical and functional aspects of the ingredients to support the taste and quality consumers are looking for.
Carla Saunders, president, Calorie Control Council
“The important nuance for brands and consumers is that these ingredients are meant to support health, especially for those managing weight and diabetes,” Saunders added.
She continued: “Lumping low- and no-calorie sweeteners into a general ‘avoid’ message risks confusing consumers and undermining practical, evidence-based strategies that help people meet dietary and health goals.”
Saunders contended that “quite frankly, the science isn’t there” to justify an avoid recommendation from the guidelines.
Citing the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, she noted that “some of the recommendations in the DGAs are not aligned with the current body of evidence and will create challenges for implementation,” and that moderation is emphasized “even though evidence to date indicates they are generally considered safe within acceptable intake limits.”
She also pointed to the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s scientific report, which found that substituting beverages sweetened with low- and no-calorie sweeteners for sugar-sweetened versions was associated with lower weight and lower incidence of obesity.
“Framing them as something to avoid ignores their extensive safety record and the practical public health role they play,” Saunders said.
Formulation decisions beyond the Guidelines
For brands, however, the question is less philosophical and more practical: how to reduce sugar while maintaining taste, functionality and consumer acceptance.
According Saunders, “the market and consumer demand tells a clear story: Global sales of foods and beverages made with these sweeteners are steadily rising.”
The practical implication, she argued, is that “companies will continue to use low- and no-calorie sweeteners because they work, they’re safe, and consumers want lower-sugar options, regardless of a guidance document that doesn’t reflect marketplace or scientific reality.”
Reformulation decisions, she added, hinge on “consumer demand for lower-sugar options, strong regulatory certainty, and the well-established safety and functionality” of these ingredients.
“Decisions on product formulation need to be grounded in science, regulatory guidelines, technical and functional aspects of the ingredients to support the taste and quality consumers are looking for,” she said.
Brands will continue investing in non-nutritive sweeteners
Univar Solutions‘, the response is more measured.
“The food and beverage industry strives to offer products that consumers demand,” said Charles Purcell, technical leader, Foodology by Univar Solutions. The company offers sweeteners “in accordance with, and in compliance of FDA regulations,” enabling “a wide variety of sweetener options to meet our customers’ product development needs.”
Purcell said brands “will certainly explore what alternatives there are to their current formulations.” He added that Univar is receiving “a lot of inquiries into what options exist to current ingredients across many segments of the food and beverage industry.”
The company declined to comment on whether the guidance aligns with existing regulatory approvals.
Looking ahead, Saunders maintains that R&D will continue to monitor consumer behavior and regulatory science, not just federal phrasing. As long as “the world’s leading safety experts and regulators continue to affirm their safety,” she said, brands will keep investing in low- and no-calorie sweetener solutions – even as the policy conversation shifts.
