The Claim

Prebiotic sodas such as OLIPOP, Poppi, Coca-Cola’s Simply Pop, and Pepsi Prebiotic Cola are marketed as gut-friendly alternatives to regular soda. OLIPOP’s site claims, for example, that added fiber, usually chicory root or agave inulin, will “feed the good bacteria you already have.” Coca-Cola’s Simply Pop line claims that it contains “prebiotic fiber to support gut health and vitamin C and zinc to support immune function.” Products also claim to be lower in sugar and calories than conventional sodas or fruit drinks.

The Drivers

The prebiotic soda category has expanded quickly through influencer and artist partnerships, collaborations with movies and television, and even sponsorships of dietitians, Carlos R. Soto-Díaz, MPH, doctoral student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who studies the products, told Medscape Medical News. Newer market entrants continue to arrive. For example, Pepsi launched its own Prebiotic Cola earlier this year.

What People Are Saying

Online commentary from consumers is mixed. Ratings on Walmart’s OLIPOP page, for example, are overwhelmingly positive, with most commenting on the taste rather than the fiber or sugar content. The same is true for Poppi’s Instagram page — comments about flavors, giveaways, and soda replacement.

But in the comments section of a Substack post on prebiotic sodas, one reader wrote, “I’ve tried a couple of these sodas and they always give me a stomach ache (I assume from the fiber content or the artificial sweeteners?).” The consensus from respondents seemed to be that kombucha is a better choice than prebiotic sodas and can be made at home. As one commentator said, “I think the future of soda needs to be making our own.”

Reddit has a trove of negative comments, suggesting many consumers are not enamored of the products. One thread starts with “OLIPOP soda was destroying my gut.” Commentators pinpoint inulin, chicory root, and stevia as potential culprits. Another thread, from posters with digestive issues, documents cramps and diarrhea. One poster commented, “It’s depressing, but when a product is promoted as a gut-healthy product, be highly skeptical! Most of the time, I find such products are bad for IBS [irritable bowel syndrome]….”

Plausible or Proven?

Recent evidence presented by Soto-Díaz at NUTRITION 2026, the American Society for Nutrition’s annual meeting, suggests that the health claims for these sodas are likely overblown. The fast-growing market, the lack of a standard definition for “prebiotic,” and lawsuits over “gut-healthy” claims prompted researchers to examine “whether prebiotic sodas are truly low in sugar and contain meaningful amounts of fiber, and how their nutritional profiles compare with other beverages in the US market,” Soto-Díaz said.

The team conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the Mintel Global New Products Database, which includes 3709 nonalcoholic beverages launched in the US from 2021 to 2025. A total of 108 products met the team’s definition of prebiotic sodas: carbonated beverages containing fiber, with the term “prebiotic” appearing in the product name, package claims, or ingredient lists indicating fiber (eg, inulin).

Beverages not considered direct alternatives to prebiotic sodas, such as sports drinks, were excluded from the study. Comparator beverages included regular sodas, diet sodas, fruit drinks, and flavored sparkling waters. The researchers assessed nutrient composition (kcal, carbohydrates, sugars, added sugars, and fiber per 100 mL) and the presence of nonnutritive sweeteners.

On average, prebiotic sodas contained about 35 kcal, 5 g of sugar, and 5 g of fiber per 12-oz can.

Prebiotic sodas had lower calories, lower total and added sugars, and higher fiber than regular sodas and fruit drinks. Prebiotic sodas had higher fiber but also higher calories and total sugars than diet sodas and flavored sparkling waters.

Nonnutritive sweeteners were present in 64.8% of prebiotic sodas, which was lower than in diet sodas (91.9%) but higher than in fruit drinks (27.5%), flavored sparkling waters (15.8%), and regular sodas (11.5%).

“The most surprising finding was that the fiber content was nearly the same as the sugar content,” Soto-Díaz said. “For beverages that market themselves as ‘prebiotic,’ we expected the fiber content to be higher.”

Furthermore, he said, “We were surprised by how common nonnutritive sweeteners were in prebiotic sodas compared with other categories, such as flavored sparkling waters and fruit drinks.”

Of note, he added, the term “prebiotic” has no defined fiber threshold in the US, so the label alone doesn’t guarantee a meaningful amount, and some products advertised as having “no added sugar” still contain roughly 10 g of total sugar from juice.

“Although prebiotic sodas are available in multiple countries, you would not necessarily see the term ‘prebiotic’ on them,” he said. “That’s because countries like the UK and Canada have stricter regulations surrounding the use of the term prebiotic.”

The Bottom Line

“Clinicians should encourage patients to read the Nutrition Facts label rather than relying solely on marketing claims,” Soto-Díaz advised. Patients should check whether the product is truly low in sugar and contains a meaningful amount of fiber. For example, some products claim to have “no added sugar” but still contain about 10 g of total sugar because they use fruit juice as a sweetener.

“Prebiotic sodas may be a lower-calorie, lower-sugar alternative to regular soda or juice, but they should still be consumed in moderation,” he concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) T32 and Bloomberg Philanthropies. Soto-Díaz was supported by a predoctoral fellowship from an NIH Training Grant. 

Marilynn Larkin, MA, is an award-winning medical writer and editor based in New York City whose work has appeared in numerous publications, including Medscape Medical News and its sister publication MDedge, The Lancet (where she was a contributing editor), and Reuters Health.