Prebiotic drinks have become more popular in recent years, with a wave of new products promising gut health benefits and low-calorie indulgence. According to a new analysis, however, many of these drinks contain relatively little prebiotic fiber and more sugar than their marketing claims suggest.
Many products include nutrition and functionality claims that may overstate their nutritional quality. For example, some labels say “no added sugar,” yet the product may contain about 10 grams of total sugars from sources such as juice. This raises concerns that such claims may create a ‘health halo’, leading consumers to believe that the product is healthier than its overall nutritional profile suggests.”
Carlos R. Soto Díaz, MPH, PhD Candidate, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Soto Díaz will present the findings at NUTRITION 2026, the American Society of Nutrition’s flagship annual meeting, held July 25-28 in Maryland’s National Harbor, just outside Washington, D.C. Soto Díaz conducted the research with Lindsey Smith Taillie, PhD, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Prebiotic soft drinks represent one of the fastest-growing soft drink segments in the US market, with estimated sales of $777 million in 2025. Using data from the Mintel Global New Products Database, researchers analyzed 108 prebiotic soft drinks launched in the US between 2021-2025. These were defined as carbonated drinks that contain fiber and use the term ‘prebiotic’ in the product name, package claims or ingredient lists. They compared the nutritional content of prebiotic soft drinks with regular soft drinks, diet soft drinks, fruit drinks and flavored carbonated waters introduced during the same time period.
On average, prebiotic sodas contained about 35 calories, 5 grams of sugar and 5 grams of fiber per 12-ounce can. In terms of calories and sugar, they ranked lower than regular sodas and fruit drinks, but higher than diet sodas and flavored sodas. Additionally, nearly two-thirds of prebiotic soft drinks contained non-nutritive sweeteners such as stevia. In comparison, over 90% of diet sodas contained non-nutritive sweeteners, while less than 28% of fruit drinks, 16% of flavored sodas, and 12% of regular sodas did.
Prebiotic soft drinks consistently contained more fiber than other drinks, ranging from about 2 to 9 grams of fiber per can. In the US market, the term “prebiotic” is not associated with a specific amount of fiber, so the researchers cautioned that consumers should not assume that a product contains a significant amount simply because it is labeled as a prebiotic, and that soft drinks should not be relied upon as a primary source of dietary fiber.
“I would encourage consumers not to be swayed by marketing claims and to carefully review the Nutrition Facts label,” said Soto Díaz. “While certain types of prebiotic fiber have been shown to support gut health, the extent to which the amounts found in these beverages provide significant benefits is still unclear. Any potential benefits should be considered alongside the overall nutritional profile of the product, including calories, sugars and non-nutritive sweeteners.”
When looking at the healthiness of prebiotic drinks, researchers say it’s important to consider what they’re replacing. For people who regularly consume sugary drinks, switching to prebiotic drinks could help reduce overall calorie and sugar intake. On the other hand, switching to prebiotic sodas may not be as beneficial for people who typically opt for low- or no-calorie beverages.
