The “sugar-free” claim on food labels is legally defined by EU Regulation 1924/2006: it means less than 0.5 g of sugars per 100 g of product. The problem is that “sugar-free” and “no added sugars” are not the same thing, and some sugar substitutes such as maltodextrins can have a glycemic index higher than pure glucose without appearing under “sugars” in the nutrition table. Here is how it actually works.

You know that feeling when you pick something up from the shelf, read “sugar-free” on the package and feel slightly more virtuous? As though you have made the right choice, the smart one. The choice of someone who reads labels.

That feeling is exactly what some food producers are counting on.

Not because the claim is always false. It is because it is true in a much narrower sense than it appears, leaving enough room for a product to be technically honest and practically misleading at the same time.

What the law says, word for word

EU Regulation 1924/2006 governs nutrition claims across Europe. For sugar, it sets precise conditions.

So far, so clear. The problem is in the details.

The crucial point: “no added sugars” does not mean “sugar-free”

These two claims are not the same thing, but almost nobody distinguishes them at the moment of purchase.

A fruit juice may carry the words “no added sugars” while still containing ten or twelve grams of sugar per 100 milliliters — fructose and glucose naturally present in the fruit. The law simply requires the label to state that the product “contains naturally occurring sugars.” A small sentence, low on the package, that almost nobody reads. The glycemic effect of that juice is fully present, comparable to that of a conventionally sweetened soft drink at the same sugar concentration.

The same logic applies to certain fruit yogurts, some packaged smoothies and “no added sugar” jams made with very sweet fruit. The claim is correct. The impression it creates is not always the same thing.

Substitutes: they do not all behave the same way

When sugar is removed, something replaces it. And substitutes are not all equivalent.

Sugar alcohols — erythritol, xylitol, sorbitol, maltitol — do not fall within the legal definition of “sugars,” so their presence is compatible with a “sugar-free” claim. But they behave very differently from one another. Erythritol has a glycemic index of zero, is not metabolized and does not raise blood glucose. Maltitol has a glycemic index of around 35 and a measurable insulin response — a “sugar-free” biscuit containing forty grams of maltitol can produce a rise in blood glucose comparable to that of a conventional biscuit. It is worth saying immediately: a rise in blood glucose after a meal is a normal physiological response, not an alarm. The body is built to manage it. It becomes particularly relevant for people with specific conditions — diabetes, insulin resistance or clinical reasons to control blood glucose — not for most healthy people.

Stevia and sucralose are high-intensity sweeteners approved by EFSA with a glycemic index of zero — compatible with the claims and with no direct effect on blood glucose in their ordinary use.

Agave syrup, by contrast, is made predominantly of fructose: it is sugar in every practical sense, adding it excludes the “no added sugars” claim, and its low immediate glycemic index does not tell the whole story — excess fructose stimulates hepatic lipogenesis and does not suppress ghrelin, the hunger hormone, in the same way as glucose.

Maltodextrins are the subtler case. Technically they are polysaccharides, not “sugars” under Regulation 1169/2011, so they are not declared as such in the nutrition table. A product may legally carry a “sugar-free” claim while containing substantial amounts of maltodextrins. Their glycemic index is around 95–110 — higher than pure glucose.

WHO’s position that is rarely mentioned

EFSA continues to regard approved sweeteners — acesulfame K, sucralose, neotame — as safe at authorized intakes, including in recent reassessments. But safety and usefulness are not the same question.

In 2023 WHO published a guideline advising against the systematic use of non-sugar sweeteners as a tool for weight control or for reducing the risk of metabolic disease. The review behind the recommendation found no long-term benefit for reducing body fat. It also reported a possible increase in the risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease with long-term use. Not a definitive condemnation, but a signal that mechanically replacing sugar with sweeteners does not solve the underlying issue.

How to choose without becoming obsessive

A premise that applies to this article and the ones that follow: sugar is not a poison. It is not the enemy. Dose determines risk — for sugar just as it does for any other nutrient, including salt and fats. A way of eating that works over time is not one that eliminates something; it is one that finds a reasonable balance.

With that said, the “sugar-free” claim deserves attention not because sugar is frightening, but because the claim can promise something it does not always deliver in the way people imagine. Check whether the claim is “sugar-free” or “no added sugars” — they mean different things. Look at total sugars in the nutrition table: if they are high despite the claim, the product contains naturally occurring sugars and the front of the pack may not be telling you what you think it is. Look for maltodextrins in the ingredient list if you are managing a condition that requires attention to glycemic response. And remember that a product with three ingredients you recognize is often more informative than one with twenty ingredients and a reassuring badge on the front.

A “sugar-free” claim can be true. It can also be marketing packaged neatly inside a legal rule. The difference lies a little further down the label.