Last verified 17 Sep 2026 · Sources
“Reduced fat” (or “less fat,” “lower fat,” “fat reduced”) requires your product to contain at least 25% less fat per Reference Amount Customarily Consumed (RACC) than an appropriate reference food, usually your own regular product or a representative market norm for that category (21 CFR 101.62(b)(4)(i), citing the reference-food rules at 101.13(j)(1)). Unlike fat free or low fat, this is a relative claim: there’s no fixed gram ceiling, only a percentage difference, and the label has to name the reference food and state the percentage right next to the claim. The trap you’re most likely to hit: the reference food itself already qualifies as “low fat” under 101.62(b)(2). In that case the reduced-fat claim isn’t available at all, no matter how big the percentage difference is.
| Quick facts | Reduced fat |
|---|---|
| Regulation | 21 CFR 101.62(b)(4) |
| Threshold | ≥25% less fat/RACC than reference food; unavailable if reference already meets 'low fat' |
| Claim type | relative |
| Reference food needed | Yes |
| Disclosure statement | Not applicable to reduced fat itself, but any nutrient content claim on the label triggers disclosure if fat >13 g, sat fat >4 g, cholesterol >60 mg or sodium >480 mg per RACC (21 CFR 101.13(h)(1)) |
| Wordings FDA allows | Reduced fat, Reduced in fat, Fat reduced, Less fat, Lower fat, Lower in fat |
What the rule says
21 CFR 101.62(b)(4)(i) sets the math: “The food contains at least 25 percent less fat per reference amount customarily consumed than an appropriate reference food,” with “appropriate reference food” defined at 101.13(j)(1). Confirmed on eCFR and cross-checked on Cornell’s LII text, 101.13(j)(1)(ii) requires that for “reduced” and similar claims “the reference food shall be a similar food”: your own regular product, or a comparable product regularly sold in the same market, or a representative market average.
The restriction that trips people up is 101.62(b)(4)(iii) (confirmed verbatim on both eCFR and Cornell): “Claims described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section may not be made on the label or in the labeling of a food if the nutrient content of the reference food meets the definition for ‘low fat.’” In other words, once a category’s typical product is already low fat, nobody in that category gets to claim a further “reduced” fat percentage off it.
The comparative statement itself is governed by 101.13(j)(2), not 101.62. Read on eCFR, (j)(2)(i) requires the label to state “the identity of the reference food and the percentage (or fraction) of the amount of the nutrient in the reference food by which the nutrient in the labeled food differs”. The rule’s own example is “50 percent less fat than [reference food].” Paragraph (j)(2)(iv) also requires “clear and concise quantitative information comparing the amount of the subject nutrient in the product per labeled serving with that in the reference food”. In practice, that means both the percent and the gram figures, side by side, near the claim.
“Light” is a separate claim with its own reference-food-based math under 21 CFR 101.56(b), which can hinge on calories as well as fat; see /claims/light/ rather than treating “light” and “reduced fat” as synonyms.
The numbers
There’s no absolute gram threshold here, only the ≥25% relative reduction, tested per RACC. That means the same 25% cutoff applies whether the reference food has 20 g of fat per serving or 4 g; what changes is the gram target, not the percentage.
The comparative statement format matters as much as the number: 101.13(j)(2) wants both the percentage (or fraction) and the identity of the reference food adjacent to the claim, plus the quantitative before/after comparison, something like “47% less fat than our Classic Potato Chips (9.5 g reduced to 5 g of fat per serving).” A bare “reduced fat” claim with no reference food named and no numbers nearby doesn’t satisfy the rule even if the underlying reduction is real.
Rounding still applies to the underlying fat figures under 21 CFR 101.9(c)(2) (nearest 0.5 g below 5 g, nearest gram above), so the percentage difference should be calculated from the unrounded analytical values, not from whatever numbers happen to be printed on each product’s panel.
On the label
Take a bag of classic salted potato chips as the reference food: about 33.9 g fat per 100 g, or roughly 9.5 g fat per 28 g serving. A reformulated version delivering 5 g fat per serving is a 47% reduction, well past the 25% floor. Because 9.5 g per RACC is above the 3 g “low fat” line, the reference food doesn’t itself qualify as low fat, so the reduced-fat claim on 101.62(b)(4)(iii) grounds is available. The label would need something like “Reduced Fat: 47% less fat than our Classic Potato Chips; fat reduced from 9.5 g to 5 g per serving” printed adjacent to the most prominent claim. See a full build for this category at /product-labels/chips/.
Mistakes we see
- Comparing to a reference food that’s already low fat. Under 101.62(b)(4)(iii), that voids the claim outright. Check the reference food’s own fat number first.
- Making the claim without naming the reference food and percentage nearby. 101.13(j)(2) requires the reference food’s identity and the percentage difference adjacent to the claim, plus the gram comparison.
- Using a dissimilar reference food. For “reduced” and “less” claims, 101.13(j)(1)(ii) calls for a similar food (your own regular product or a comparable market product), not a different category.
- Printing the claim on a label relying on a “no claims” exemption. Any nutrient content claim, including “reduced fat,” voids the exemptions in 21 CFR 101.9(j) that depend on carrying none.
- Confusing “reduced fat” with “light.” They use different math (“light” can be calorie-based under 101.56(b)), so clearing one doesn’t mean clearing the other.
Related claims
See /claims/fat-free/ and /claims/low-fat/ for the absolute versions, /claims/light/ for the separate calorie-or-fat relative claim, and /claims/saturated-fat-free/ for the related fat-family claim. General rules: /labeling-rules/nutrient-content-claims/ and /labeling-rules/rounding-rules/.
Check your label
The NutriLabels builder’s claims check compares your product’s fat number against the reference food you specify, calculates the percentage difference, and tells you whether “reduced fat”, and the exact comparative statement it requires, applies to your label.
A “reduced fat” claim with the reference food and both gram figures beside it shows shoppers exactly what your reformulation changed. Enter your recipe, then see your label: its shape and calorie count, the claims you qualify for and your allergen line are free, no card required, and every other value and %DV stays hidden until you unlock it. $29 unlocks every other nutrient value and %DV, the claims check, every FDA format your product qualifies for, and the ingredient statement and allergen declaration. Start your label or compare low fat for your reference food.
Reduced fat claim FAQ
What counts as an 'appropriate reference food'?
For 'reduced' and 'less' claims, 21 CFR 101.13(j)(1)(ii) requires a similar food, typically your own regular product, or a representative market norm such as the top national brands in that category.
Can I make a reduced-fat claim against a competitor that's already low fat?
No. 21 CFR 101.62(b)(4)(iii) bars a reduced-fat claim if the reference food's fat content already meets the 'low fat' definition. You'd be claiming a reduction off a baseline the rule considers already low.
Do I have to print the percentage next to the claim?
Yes. 21 CFR 101.13(j)(2) requires the identity of the reference food and the percentage or fraction of the difference declared immediately adjacent to the most prominent claim, plus a quantitative gram comparison.
Is 'light' the same as 'reduced fat'?
No. 'Light' has its own separate math under 21 CFR 101.56(b) and can be based on calories, not just fat. See /claims/light/ for that rule.
Does reduced fat need a fixed minimum gram amount, or just a percent?
Just the percent: at least 25% less fat per RACC than the reference food. There's no separate gram floor the way there is for the absolute fat claims.
What if my reduced-fat product also happens to meet the 'low fat' threshold on its own?
Then it can carry both claims independently. 'Reduced fat' compares to the reference food, 'low fat' is judged on its own absolute number. Check each one separately.
Related claims
Fat free, Low fat, Light / Lite, Saturated fat free. See the full all label claims.