Prebiotic sodas have become one of the fastest-growing drink trends in recent years.
Many companies advertise these fizzy drinks as a healthier alternative to regular soft drinks, promising benefits for gut health while containing fewer calories and less sugar.
However, a new study suggests that consumers should look beyond the marketing because the nutrition inside the can may not always match the healthy image on the label.
The findings will be presented at NUTRITION 2026, the annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.
Prebiotics are types of fibre that feed the beneficial bacteria living in the gut. A healthy gut microbiome has been linked to digestion, immune function and overall health.
Because of this, many food and beverage companies have started adding prebiotic fibres to products and promoting them as good for digestive health.
Researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill analysed 108 prebiotic sodas introduced in the United States between 2021 and 2025. They compared these drinks with regular soft drinks, diet soft drinks, fruit drinks and flavoured sparkling water to see how they differed in calories, sugar, fibre and sweeteners.
On average, a 355-millilitre can of prebiotic soda contained about 35 calories, 5 grams of sugar and 5 grams of fibre.
Compared with regular soft drinks and fruit drinks, prebiotic sodas generally contained less sugar and fewer calories. However, they usually contained more sugar and calories than diet soft drinks and plain flavoured sparkling water.
One important finding was that many products relied on marketing claims that could easily confuse shoppers. Some drinks advertised ‘no added sugar’, but still contained around 10 grams of naturally occurring sugars from fruit juice or other ingredients. While this statement may be technically correct, consumers may wrongly assume the drink contains very little sugar.
The researchers also found that nearly two-thirds of prebiotic sodas contained non-nutritive sweeteners such as stevia. These sweeteners reduce calories but remain the subject of ongoing scientific debate regarding their long-term health effects, meaning consumers should still consider the complete nutrition label rather than focusing on one claim.
Another key issue involved fibre. Although every prebiotic soda contained more fibre than other types of soft drinks, the amount ranged from only about 2 to 9 grams per can. In the United States, there is no minimum amount of fibre required for a product to use the word ‘prebiotic’, so the label alone does not guarantee that the drink provides a meaningful amount of fibre.
The researchers emphasised that prebiotic sodas should not replace naturally fibre-rich foods such as vegetables, fruits, legumes and whole grains. These foods provide much larger amounts of fibre together with vitamins, minerals and many other nutrients that drinks cannot supply.
The health value of prebiotic soda also depends on what it replaces. Someone who normally drinks sugary soft drinks could reduce their sugar and calorie intake by switching to a prebiotic soda. On the other hand, people who already choose water or unsweetened sparkling water are unlikely to gain much additional benefit by making the switch.
In my view, this study provides a balanced reminder that healthy marketing does not always mean a product is highly nutritious.
Although prebiotic sodas may be a better choice than sugary soft drinks for some people, they should still be viewed as an occasional beverage rather than a major source of fibre or gut health support. Reading the Nutrition Facts label and maintaining a healthy diet remain the best ways to protect long-term health.
If you care about nutrition, please read studies about berry that can prevent cancer, diabetes, and obesity, and the harm of vitamin D deficiency you need to know.
For more health information, please see recent studies about the connection between potatoes and high blood pressure, and results showing why turmeric is a health game-changer.
