Last verified 17 Sep 2026 · Sources
“Reduced sodium” (also “less sodium,” “lower sodium,” “sodium reduced”) requires at least 25% less sodium per RACC than an appropriate reference food (21 CFR 101.61(b)(6)(i)). It’s a relative claim, so unlike “low sodium” or “sodium free” it has no fixed number of its own and lives or dies on the comparison. “Light in sodium” is a separate, stricter sibling at 50% or more reduction (21 CFR 101.56(c)). Either way, the label must name the reference food and state the percentage difference right next to the claim (21 CFR 101.13(j)(2)). The trap you’re most likely to hit: picking a reference food that isn’t representative, or making the comparison without the required statement in the right place.
| Quick facts | Reduced sodium |
|---|---|
| Regulation | 21 CFR 101.61(b)(6); 21 CFR 101.56(c) for light in sodium; 21 CFR 101.13(j) for reference food |
| Threshold | ≥25% less sodium per RACC than reference food; light/lite in sodium ≥50% less per RACC |
| Claim type | relative |
| Reference food needed | Yes |
| Disclosure statement | Yes, if fat >13 g, sat fat >4 g, cholesterol >60 mg or sodium >480 mg per RACC |
| Wordings FDA allows | Reduced in sodium, Sodium reduced, Less sodium, Lower sodium, Lower in sodium, Light in sodium, Lite in sodium |
What the rule says
Quoted verbatim from 21 CFR 101.61(b)(6)(i): “The food contains at least 25 percent less sodium per reference amount customarily consumed than an appropriate reference food.” That single paragraph covers “reduced sodium,” “reduced in sodium,” “sodium reduced,” “less sodium,” “lower sodium,” and “lower in sodium”; FDA treats them as one claim with several accepted wordings.
“Light in sodium” is governed separately, in 21 CFR 101.56(c), not the general “light”/”lite” rule in 101.56(b) that covers fat and calories. Read directly on eCFR: a reference food that is itself 40 calories or less and 3 g fat or less per RACC can call a version “light” or “lite” without qualification if sodium is cut by 50% or more; a reference food above those calorie/fat levels must use the fuller phrase “light in sodium” or “lite in sodium” for the same 50%-or-more sodium reduction, both measured per RACC against the reference food.
Every relative claim needs a reference food, per 21 CFR 101.13(j)(1): “To bear a relative claim about the level of a nutrient, the amount of that nutrient in the food must be compared to an amount of nutrient in an appropriate reference food.” The required comparative statement, from 101.13(j)(2)(i)-(ii): “The label or labeling must 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 (e.g., ’50 percent less fat than [reference food]’),” and “this information shall be immediately adjacent to the most prominent claim.”
The numbers
Reduced sodium: ≥25% less per RACC than the reference food. Light/lite in sodium: ≥50% less per RACC than the reference food. Both are percentage tests against a comparison product, not a fixed milligram ceiling, so the reference food’s own sodium level sets your target, and you need the actual number, not an estimate. The comparison and its statement (reference food identity plus the percent difference, e.g. “25% less sodium than our regular tortilla chips; sodium reduced from 200 mg to 150 mg per serving”) are both required, and 101.13(h) still applies on top of the comparison: if the reduced version still exceeds 480 mg of sodium per RACC (or the fat/saturated fat/cholesterol disqualifying levels), a disclosure statement is required regardless of the percentage achieved.
On the label
Crackers are the classic case: a reduced-sodium cracker line compared against your own regular cracker. A drop from, say, 200 mg sodium per RACC in the regular version to 150 mg or less in the reduced version clears the 25% bar, and the label states something like “25% less sodium than our regular crackers.” A salad dressing marketed “light in sodium” against a full-sodium reference dressing needs the steeper 50% cut and the same adjacent comparative statement, cited to 101.56(c) rather than 101.61(b)(6).
Mistakes we see
- Making the claim without printing the reference food’s identity and the percentage difference in immediate proximity to the claim, as 101.13(j)(2) requires.
- Comparing to a reference food that isn’t representative of the category. The rule requires an “appropriate reference food,” not just any lower-sodium competitor.
- Reaching for “light in sodium” at the 25% reduced-sodium level instead of the 50% the sodium-specific “light” provision actually requires.
- Assuming a successful percentage reduction clears the disclosure requirement automatically. 21 CFR 101.13(h) can still require a fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, or sodium disclosure statement even on a product carrying a “reduced sodium” claim.
- Losing a small-package or insignificant-nutrient exemption (21 CFR 101.9(j)(4), (j)(13)(i)) by adding a comparative sodium claim to a label that was otherwise exempt.
Related claims
See low sodium and sodium free for the absolute-claim tiers this comparison sits above, reduced fat for the same relative-claim mechanics on a different nutrient, and light for how the general “light” definition differs from “light in sodium.” Background reading: nutrient content claims and rounding rules.
Check your label
NutriLabels’ builder compares your product’s sodium against the reference food you specify, calculates the percentage difference on the RACC basis the rule requires, and drafts the comparative statement wording your label needs.
A sodium cut stated plainly next to your claim (“25% less sodium than our regular crackers”) gives a salt-conscious buyer a reason to reach for your product. Enter your recipe, then see your label: the calorie count, the nutrient content claims you qualify for and your allergen line show free, no card required, while every other value and %DV stays hidden until you unlock it. $29 unlocks every other nutrient value and %DV, every FDA format your product qualifies for, and the ingredient statement and allergen declaration; or send us the recipe and we build it (done-for-you, $249, within 5 business days). Start your label or see the absolute tier at low sodium.
Reduced sodium claim FAQ
How much less sodium do I need for "reduced sodium"?
At least 25% less per RACC than an appropriate reference food (21 CFR 101.61(b)(6)(i)). "Less sodium" and "lower sodium" are the same claim, same number.
Is "light in sodium" the same 25% rule?
No. It's stricter. "Light in sodium" and "lite in sodium" require at least a 50% reduction in sodium versus the reference food, per the sodium-specific "light" provisions in 21 CFR 101.56(c), not the general fat/calorie "light" definition in 101.56(b).
What has to appear next to the claim?
The identity of the reference food and the percentage or fraction of difference, in immediate proximity to the most prominent claim, per 21 CFR 101.13(j)(2)(i) and (ii). FDA's own example format is "50 percent less fat than (reference food)."
Can I compare to a competitor's product?
Yes, within limits. Under 21 CFR 101.13(j)(1)(i)(B), a 'reduced' claim's reference food must be a similar food, potato chips compared to potato chips, not a dissimilar substitute. Under 101.13(j)(1)(ii)(B), the nutrient value for that reference food may be your own regular product, or another manufacturer's regular product that's been offered for sale on a regular basis in the same geographic area, or an average value drawn from a representative database, the top brands, or a market-basket norm, not one competitor SKU cherry-picked because its number is high.
Does reducing sodium ever require a fat or cholesterol disclosure?
It can. 21 CFR 101.13(h) requires a disclosure statement whenever a product bearing any nutrient content claim exceeds 13 g fat, 4 g saturated fat, 60 mg cholesterol, or 480 mg sodium per RACC, and that applies even when the claim being made is about sodium itself.
Related claims
Low sodium, Sodium free, Reduced fat, Light / Lite. See the full all label claims.