As consumer demand for nutritious and convenient meal options continues to rise, protein bars have emerged as a significant force in the consumer packaged goods (CPG) sector. From 2010 to 2015, the U.S. market for nutritional shakes and bars grew at an impressive annual rate of roughly 10%. By 2016, sales surpassed $9 billion, according to Packaged Facts research. The organization forecasts that retail sales of these products will increase by 8.3% annually through 2021. This growth has attracted the interest 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, underscoring the financial potential of this market segment.
While RXBAR is popular among health enthusiasts and average consumers alike, it does not necessarily represent the entire protein bar category. RXBAR products are notable for containing no added sugars, dairy, soy, gluten, or artificial ingredients, and each bar consists of only about four ingredients, prominently displayed on the packaging. This approach aligns with consumer preferences for transparency, clean labels, and all-natural formulations. However, such a healthy product may not appeal to every consumer. To enhance the taste of 10 to 30 grams of whey or soy protein, many manufacturers resort to adding high levels of fat and sugar, resulting in enticing flavors like “lemon cheesecake,” “brownie,” and “double chocolate.” Unfortunately, this undermines the primary reason many consumers choose protein bars: as a nutritious snack or meal replacement. For instance, data from Protectivity indicates that Nature Valley’s protein bars may contain as much fat as protein. While such formulation ratios might currently go unnoticed, it is likely that consumers would be dismayed if they were aware of these figures. A campaign by a watchdog group highlighting these levels could seriously damage a brand’s reputation.
Manufacturers are faced with the challenge of educating consumers without diminishing their health-oriented image. One potential solution could be to include information on packaging about the types of exercises that should accompany certain bars, either through images or text. Such symbols could inform consumers that protein bars are too caloric to be regarded as casual snacks. Although this strategy may not deter shoppers from enjoying protein bars as breakfast alternatives, midnight snacks, or pseudo-desserts, it could at least help protect brands from negative feedback.
As time goes on, it will be interesting to see whether major brands adjust their marketing strategies and packaging claims, especially in light of concerns raised by groups like Protectivity regarding fat and sugar levels in protein bars. If these groups continue to voice their concerns, consumers might gravitate toward other trendy food options. “It’s hard to determine from our data whether protein bars are just a passing trend or a lasting ‘health’ staple,” Brownsell told Food Navigator. “Clearly, there will always be a demand for quick, easy, and healthy snacks, so there’s little reason to think they will disappear.” However, as consumer awareness grows, the market will undoubtedly need to shift its focus towards healthier ingredients.
Moreover, it’s important to consider the calcium citrate effects on the overall nutritional value of protein bars, as consumers increasingly seek products that not only provide energy but also support overall health. By emphasizing both the nutritional benefits of their products and the potential calcium citrate effects, manufacturers might better align with consumer expectations and enhance the appeal of their protein bars. As the market evolves, understanding the implications of different ingredients, including calcium citrate, will be essential for brands aiming to maintain their health-conscious appeal.