News

Ingredient quantities mislabelled on popular protein bars, independent tests show

Some popular protein bars contain more fat, carbs, and/or sugars than claimed on their labels, independent nutrition testing reveals.

ConsumerLab, an independent product testing company based in the US, compared nutritional bars from brands including Aloha, Barebells, Clif Bar, GoMacro, David, IQ Bar, Kind, Larabar, Kirkland (Costco), Perfect Bar, Pure Protein, Quest, and RxBar to determine if the quantities of listed ingredients matched the make-up of formulations.

All the bars tested contained the listed amount of protein and fibre, while those with gluten-free claims were found to be free from gluten.

However, when it came to fat, carbs, and sugar alcohols, discrepancies were found.

One bar contained an extra 8g of fat than was disclosed on the nutritional label, most of which was saturated. Another bar had an additional 7g of carbs, and a third had three-quarters (75%) more sugar alcohols than listed.

High cost was not an indicator of high quality, the tests found.

Esterified propoxylated glycerol and calorie count confusion

Food expert and nutritionist Marion Nestle weighed in on the testing, writing about the findings in her blog, Food Politics.

One of the David bars contained nearly five times more fat than was listed on its nutritional label. The distributor of the bar “argued that ConsumerLab had used the wrong testing method”.

Nestle explained that the discrepancy stemmed from the “number of calories provided by esterified propoxylated glycerol (EPG)”.

EPG is a synthetic fat substitute that has been modified to prevent or limit digestion when it is consumed. It is widely used in confectionery, baked goods, frozen desserts, and snacks, as it allows manufacturers to reduce fat content and calories, while achieving a mouthfeel and texture similar to that of traditional fats.

Nestle agreed with ConsumerLab's stance on the synthetic fat, namely that “EPG is a way to add fat to a protein bar (making it less dry), while hiding most of this fat and possible calories from the label. But we think this is dishonest to consumers”.

She said that although the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers EPG to be generally recognised as safe, and “while the arguments about its calories continue, my bottom line is simple. EPG is a marker of ultra-processing. I would just as soon avoid it.”

Mounting concerns about the ingredients in protein bars

In her blog, Nestle pointed to a 2024 article by the Environmental Working Group, a US-based non-profit, about health concerns surrounding protein bars.

“[D]on’t be fooled by the flashy packaging and high protein count; some protein bars masquerade as ‘healthy’, despite containing the calories of a candy bar,” it read.

The working group also pointed to the added sugars, artificial sweeteners, and oils that many brands add to their formulations “to keep the bar from falling apart”.

Consumer safety organisations are also sounding the alarm on the safety of protein powders.

A 2025 study by the US non-profit organisation Consumer Reports that tested 23 protein powders and ready-to-drink shakes from popular brands found that over two-thirds of them contained “more lead in a single serving than our experts say is safe to have in a day”.

In January, meanwhile, a study from the Clean Label Project found that 47% of 160 protein powders tested in the US exceeded safety thresholds for heavy metals.

The Clean Label Project also found that the organic protein powders tested contained three times more lead and twice the cadmium than non-organic products, while plant-based powders contained triple the amount of lead than whey-based powders. Chocolate powders were found to contain four times more lead than vanilla-flavoured powders.

The study called for urgency in improving ingredient sourcing, increased transparency, and stricter regulations.