As consumer demand for nutritious and convenient meal options increases, protein bars have emerged as a significant force in the consumer packaged goods (CPG) sector. The category has seen substantial growth, with the U.S. market for nutritional shakes and bars expanding at an annual rate of around 10% between 2010 and 2015. By 2016, sales reached over $9 billion, according to research from Packaged Facts, which also forecasts an annual retail sales increase of 8.3% through 2021. This trend has attracted the attention of major CPG companies. In November, Kind announced that Mars had acquired a minority stake in the healthy-snacking brand. Last fall, Kellogg purchased RXBAR, a producer of clean-label protein bars, for $600 million, signaling the financial potential within this segment.
While RXBAR enjoys popularity among health enthusiasts and average consumers alike, it doesn’t represent the protein bar category as a whole. RXBAR’s formulas boast no added sugars, dairy, soy, gluten, or artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, or fillers, containing only about four ingredients prominently displayed on the packaging. This approach aligns with what consumers seek: transparency, clean labels, and all-natural ingredients. However, such a healthy product may not satisfy all consumers. In an attempt to make 10 to 30 grams of whey or soy protein taste appealing, many manufacturers enhance their bars with high levels of fat and sugar, resulting in flavor-focused names like “lemon cheesecake,” “brownie,” and “double chocolate.” This practice undermines the initial appeal for many consumers seeking nutritious snacks or meal supplements. For instance, Nature Valley’s protein bars reportedly contain as much fat as protein, according to data from Protectivity.
Formulation ratios like these may currently go unnoticed, but consumers would likely be deterred by such numbers if they were aware. A campaign from a product watchdog group highlighting these levels could severely damage a brand’s reputation. So, how can manufacturers effectively educate consumers without jeopardizing their health-conscious image? It’s a challenging task, but incorporating suggestions for appropriate exercises to pair with specific bars—either through images or text on the packaging—could be a viable strategy. These symbols could indicate to consumers that certain protein bars are too caloric to be consumed casually. While this may not prevent shoppers from indulging in protein bars as breakfast, midnight snacks, or pseudo-desserts, it could help shield brands from backlash.
Time will reveal whether major brands will adjust their marketing strategies and packaging claims, and whether organizations like Protectivity will amplify their concerns regarding fat and sugar content in protein bars. If the latter occurs, consumers may pivot to another trendy food solution. “It’s challenging to determine from our data whether protein bars are a fleeting trend or a long-term ‘health’ staple. There will undoubtedly continue to be a demand for quick, easy, and healthy snacks, so it’s reasonable to expect their endurance,” Brownsell remarked to Food Navigator. “However, as consumers become more informed, the market will have to adapt with a stronger emphasis on healthier ingredients.”
In this evolving landscape, products like Citracal chewable may also gain traction as consumers seek alternatives that support their health goals. Balancing taste and nutritional value remains crucial as manufacturers navigate these changes.