Fruggies: Understanding the True Impact of Fruit Powders on Children's Health

# FRUGGIES: THEY SELL YOU FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, BUT HAVE YOU LOOKED AT ALL THE SUGAR YOUR CHILDREN ARE DRINKING?

**Up to 17 grams of sugars in a 22-gram sachet, fruits reduced to powder, enticing nutritional promises, and prices that can exceed 4 euros per glass. Behind the Fruggies concept, several biological questions deserve much more precise answers than just “no added sugar.”**

*By Laurent Glatz – for Athletic Carnivore*

It looks beautiful, colorful, organic, and convenient. You add water, shake, and thirty seconds later, you feel like you've given your child a generous serving of fruits and vegetables.

The French company **Fruggies** built its concept around an appealing idea: transforming about 200 grams of fruits and vegetables into 22 grams of freeze-dried powder, to be rehydrated in 200 ml of water.

On its website, the company mentions the difficulty of reaching the recommended five daily servings of fruits and vegetables and presents its preparations as an easy way to consume more.

But behind this friendly presentation, a troubling question arises.

**When fruits are transformed into powder and then into a drink, do we truly preserve the metabolic benefits of whole fruit, or do we create a product whose physiological behavior becomes very different?**

Because ingredients can be natural, certified organic, and free of added sugars, yet this does not suffice to prove that daily consumption is equivalent to eating whole fruits and vegetables.

And when it comes to children's nutrition, this distinction matters.

First Observation: Up to 77% of a Sachet’s Weight Is Sugars

Let's start with the information published by Fruggies itself.

One sachet contains 22 grams of preparation.

Depending on the recipe, the company indicates between 12 and 17 grams of sugars per serving.

This means sugars represent between **55% and 77% of the powder’s weight**, depending on the flavor.

Note: this proportion concerns the dry powder, not the prepared drink. Removing water from fruit naturally concentrates all its components, including sugars. So this percentage alone is not proof of danger.

However, it reveals what the dry matter being sold really represents.

Let's consider three official recipes.

**Candy** contains strawberry, apple, banana, raspberry, date, and chia seeds. It provides 13 grams of sugars, 4.8 grams of fiber, and 75 kilocalories.

**Azure** combines banana, pineapple, mango, apple, date, baobab, guava, coconut water, blueberry, kiwi, and blue spirulina. It provides 15 grams of sugars, 3.8 grams of fiber, and 75 kilocalories.

**Green**, whose name evokes green vegetables, actually starts with apple, banana, and kiwi. Spinach follows, then date, broccoli, lemon, pineapple, and chia seeds.

Result: 12 grams of sugars, 4 grams of fiber, and 74 kilocalories.

These are not hidden ingredients: the company lists them.

But the real question is consumer understanding.

**Does a parent buying a preparation called Green truly realize that the first three ingredients are fruits?**

And do they know the exact proportion of green vegetables in the sachet?

The ingredient list does not specify individual quantities of apple, banana, spinach, or broccoli.

It only shows their order of inclusion.

The word “vegetables” in a product’s presentation is therefore insufficient to clarify the actual fruit-to-vegetable ratio.

“No Added Sugar”: A Claim That Requires Biological Explanation

Fruggies emphasizes the absence of added sugars.

This claim aligns with the published compositions.

But there is a fundamental difference between **added sugars** and **free sugars**.

Added sugars are those incorporated into a preparation to sweeten it.

Free sugars constitute a broader nutritional category. They can include sugars naturally present in some processed foods, especially when their cellular structure has been destroyed.

Here lies a significant problem for interpreting Fruggies products.

In 2018, researchers associated with Public Health England published a British definition of free sugars.

This classification explicitly includes sugars naturally present in juices, smoothies, purees, and fruit and vegetable powders when their cellular matrix is disrupted.

It also includes sugars in beverages, except for certain sugars naturally present in dairy drinks.

In other words, **according to this British classification, the sugars in a Fruggies drink prepared with water fall into the free sugars category, even if no sugar was added during manufacturing.**

This is a British nutritional classification, not an accusation of non-compliance with French labeling.

The distinction is nonetheless crucial.

Because a parent may read “no added sugar” and not realize they are giving their child a drink containing a significant amount of free sugars.

One Fruggies Can Represent Nearly 90% of the UK Daily Free Sugar Guideline for Young Children

Here is a particularly enlightening comparison.

The UK National Health Service sets the following maximum daily free sugar intake guidelines:

- 19 grams for children aged 4 to 6 years;
- 24 grams for children aged 7 to 10 years;
- 30 grams from age 11 onward.

These thresholds concern total free sugars consumed throughout the day, not just those from one drink.

Now, consider a Fruggies containing 17 grams of sugars.

For a child aged 4 to 6, this represents about **89% of the UK daily guideline**, if the free sugar classification is applied to fruit powder-based drinks.

Just one preparation.

Before accounting for any other foods and drinks containing free sugars consumed during the day.

Two sachets at 17 grams represent 34 grams of sugars, exceeding the UK guideline of 30 grams applicable from age 11.

Yet, in its FAQ, Fruggies mentions the possibility of consuming one or two sachets per day and indicates its preparations can, in principle, be consumed by children.

The company also acknowledges that children's needs differ from adults'.

But juxtaposing these facts invites reflection.

**How can daily consumption of a fruit drink be trivialized without clearly explaining what its free sugar content means for a young child's diet?**

This is not an accusation that one sachet causes disease. It is a matter of nutritional transparency and consumption frequency.

Second Problem: Destruction of the Fruit’s Cellular Structure

In a whole apple, sugars are distributed inside plant cells surrounded by walls.

These walls include structural polysaccharides like cellulose, hemicelluloses, and pectins.

Digestion of fruit involves mechanical and physiological steps.

The child bites, chews, breaks down tissues, swallows, then the food undergoes digestive secretions.

Some cells rupture during chewing and digestion, gradually releasing their components.

In freeze-dried fruit powder, the situation differs.

Freezing, dehydration, and especially grinding alter tissue structure.

Rehydration reconstructs a drink but not necessarily the original cellular architecture.

This is where the commercial claim “fibers are preserved” must be put into context.

Yes, a large portion of fiber can be preserved.

Yes, Fruggies displays appreciable fiber amounts for a drink.

But **preserving fiber weight does not guarantee preservation of its original physical organization.**

Fiber behavior during digestion depends on solubility, viscosity, fragmentation degree, and interactions with other food components.

Fiber is not just a number on a label.

And science shows that food’s physical form can influence its effect on appetite.

What Researchers Discovered Comparing Whole Apple, Applesauce, and Juice

In 2009, Julie Flood-Obbagy and Barbara Rolls published a study in *Appetite*.

They compared the effects of different apple forms on satiety and subsequent food intake.

Among 58 adults, whole apple induced greater satiety than applesauce or apple juice.

Eating whole apple also reduced energy intake at the next meal more significantly.

An especially interesting result appeared with fiber-enriched juice.

**Adding fiber to juice did not fully replicate the satiating effect of whole fruit.**

This study does not concern Fruggies directly and does not demonstrate its exact effects.

Other experiments have even shown that blended fruit can, depending on recipe and ingredients, provoke a lower glycemic response than whole fruit.

So it would be wrong to claim that all ground fruit automatically causes a higher glycemic spike.

But the central point remains: texture and physical structure of food potentially modify digestive response.

One cannot prove physiological equivalence of two foods simply because they contain the same grams of carbohydrates and fiber.

Third Problem: What Really Happens to Fructose in the Liver?

Here we must understand the biochemistry.

Fruits contain varying proportions of glucose, fructose, and sucrose.

After ingestion, sucrose is hydrolyzed in the intestine into glucose and fructose.

Glucose mainly enters enterocytes via the SGLT1 transporter.

Fructose passes mainly through GLUT5.

Some fructose is metabolized in the intestine; some reaches the liver via the portal circulation.

In hepatocytes, an enzyme called ketohexokinase or fructokinase converts fructose into fructose-1-phosphate.

This reaction consumes ATP.

Fructose-1-phosphate is then broken down into three-carbon compounds by aldolase B.

These intermediates can enter various metabolic pathways.

Some serve to produce glucose or lactate.

Others help replenish glycogen stores.

Under high intake conditions, some substrates may also fuel **de novo lipogenesis**, i.e., synthesis of new fatty acids.

This pathway involves acetyl-CoA, acetyl-CoA carboxylase, and fatty acid synthase.

Synthesized fatty acids can be incorporated into triglycerides.

These triglycerides are either stored in the liver or exported as VLDL lipoproteins.

High fructose consumption can also influence cellular regulators like ChREBP, involved in lipogenic enzyme expression.

This mechanism is studied by Kimber Stanhope and colleagues in their research on sweetened beverages.

But there is an essential distinction.

Studies showing marked increases in liver fat generally used sugar intakes far exceeding those in a single Fruggies sachet.

**There is therefore no evidence that a Fruggies causes fatty liver disease in a child.**

However, the existence of these mechanisms reminds us why total sugar intake and consumption frequency deserve scrutiny.

And why “natural” does not mean “metabolically neutral.”

Fourth Problem: Fructose Can Also Promote Uric Acid Production

Phosphorylation of fructose consumes ATP.

When intake is sufficiently high, rapid ATP consumption can promote degradation of intracellular purine nucleotides.

AMP can be converted to IMP, then degraded to hypoxanthine and xanthine.

Xanthine oxidoreductase participates in final uric acid production.

This explains why fructose can stimulate uric acid production without directly providing dietary purines.

This mechanism is real.

But its clinical significance depends on dose, food source, and renal elimination capacity.

A 2021 meta-analysis of 47 controlled trials showed that fructose-containing sugars’ effects on uric acid vary greatly by food source.

Sweetened beverages consumed at high doses can raise uric acid levels.

Conversely, some trials using 100% fruit juices showed different results, sometimes even reductions in uric acid.

This means it would be incorrect to treat all fructose-containing foods as biologically identical.

But it again highlights the weakness of relying solely on slogans.

Fifth Problem: Teeth Don’t Read Organic Labels

The mouth is a true microbiological ecosystem.

Certain bacteria in dental biofilm use fermentable sugars to produce organic acids.

Among them, *Streptococcus mutans* has a strong ability to metabolize various sugars.

The acids produced can lower pH at the enamel surface.

When this acidic environment persists long enough, enamel demineralization can exceed natural remineralization mechanisms.

Caries development depends on sugar exposure frequency, dental hygiene, saliva flow, and fluoride availability.

Sugar from organic fruit is not automatically unusable by oral bacteria.

A drink prepared with fruit powders can therefore contribute to exposing teeth to fermentable sugars.

Fibers and vitamins present do not inherently eliminate this possibility.

In 2014, a systematic review by Moynihan and Kelly confirmed the association between sugar consumption and caries development.

An update published in 2022 reinforced the importance of limiting sugar exposure to preserve dental health.

No clinical comparison demonstrates that Fruggies is more cariogenic than other smoothies.

The critical point is consumption frequency.

**Regularly replacing water with a sugar-containing drink can create repeated dental exposures that water does not.**

And this is precisely why a nutritionally presented healthy drink should not be considered equivalent to water.

Sixth Problem: 200 Grams of Original Fruit Does Not Guarantee 200 Grams of Physiological Effects

The 200-gram argument is one of the most important elements of the commercial presentation.

It is not necessarily a false claim.

Removing water from a quantity of fruits and vegetables can indeed produce a much smaller powder mass.

But what exactly does this equivalence mean?

In terms of raw material quantity, it may be perfectly correct.

Biologically, it does not necessarily prove the product has the same effects as the fresh foods used.

French recommendations encourage consuming at least five daily portions of fruits and vegetables, generally estimated at 80–100 grams each for adults.

These recommendations are not just about raw weight before processing.

They fit within a varied diet, including different textures and plant categories.

The French health insurance specifies that smoothies made from whole fruits and vegetables can count as one or two portions, depending on quantities used.

But it also specifies they should not systematically replace whole fruits, notably because chewing contributes to satiety.

This is an essential point.

Fruggies does not sell filtered juice: its preparations retain fiber.

They may therefore offer nutritional advantages over some ordinary drinks.

But this fact still does not prove a sachet reproduces all physiological effects of 200 grams of fresh foods.

The company now acknowledges in its FAQ that its products do not replace either a bitten apple or a plate of vegetables.

This raises a logical question:

**If a drink does not truly replace whole foods, why is the 200-gram argument so central in its presentation?**

This question concerns the scope of the commercial message, not an alleged falsification of quantities.

Seventh Problem: Freeze-Drying Is Not a Guarantee of Complete Vitamin Preservation

Freeze-drying is an excellent preservation method for many heat-sensitive substances.

But “excellent” does not mean “perfect.”

A 2020 scientific review in *Foods* shows that freeze-drying effects on bioactive compounds depend on the product, treatment conditions, and molecules considered.

Some studies document losses of vitamin C, carotenoids, or other sensitive compounds.

Another 2026 study on kiwis confirms freeze-drying preserves several vitamins better than other drying methods, while still causing measurable losses.

It would therefore be incorrect to claim the process always preserves 100% of initial vitamins.

Conversely, it would be wrong to say Fruggies contains no vitamins: its nutritional tables indicate substantial amounts of several micronutrients.

The relevant question is not simply: “Are vitamins still present?”

It is: **What proportion of initial vitamins is actually preserved after processing and storage, and what quantities are present in each commercial batch?**

Fruggies claims to perform microbiological and nutritional controls, including in independent labs.

These controls are a positive point.

But values on a nutrition label alone do not demonstrate clinical effects on children's health.

Eighth Problem: Claims of Concentration, Energy, and Immunity

On its website, Fruggies highlights vitamins and minerals in its preparations, associating certain nutrients with energy, normal intellectual performance, or immune system function.

These formulations rely on known nutritional functions of certain vitamins.

For example, vitamin C contributes to normal immune system function.

Vitamin B5 contributes to normal intellectual performance.

But there is a considerable difference between a recognized physiological function and a clinically demonstrated benefit after consuming a particular product.

A child already receiving sufficient vitamin C will not necessarily have enhanced immunity by drinking a beverage containing more.

Similarly, a vitamin involved in energy metabolism does not transform a drink into a product capable of providing stable energy in terms of constant blood glucose or insulin levels.

An old promotional page from Fruggies, still accessible, claimed its high fiber content ensured a low glycemic index.

This claim deserves particular scrutiny.

Glycemic index is not deduced simply from fiber content.

It is measured experimentally, following standardized protocols, by comparing glycemic response to a reference food.

Fibers can influence this response, but their presence alone does not guarantee a specific glycemic index.

Without glycemic trial results specific to the formulations, this claim cannot be considered demonstrated.

**The presence of a vitamin explains a biochemical function. It does not automatically prove the particular efficacy of a commercial product.**

Ninth Problem: The Real Cost of Convenience

Fruggies does not market a simple fruit powder costing a few cents.

According to its FAQ, prices are about 4.50 euros per sachet in the discovery kit, 3.52 euros per portion in a 20-pack, 3.28 euros in a 30-pack, and 2.94 euros in a 60-pack.

At one sachet daily for thirty days, this amounts to between 88.20 euros and 135 euros, depending on unit price.

At two sachets daily, the cost reaches between 176.40 euros and 270 euros for thirty days.

The manufacturer explains this price by the cost of organic raw materials, industrial processing, and preservation.

These elements can indeed justify part of the price.

But the economic question remains.

**What are families really paying for: fruits and vegetables, preservation technology, or mainly the convenience of not having to prepare them?**

Fresh, frozen, or canned products can also provide fiber and micronutrients.

They have highly variable prices, but it is not demonstrated that paying several euros for freeze-dried preparation yields superior clinical benefits.

Cost per portion deserves the same scrutiny as nutritional claims.

Tenth Problem: When a Drink Becomes a Habit, the Context Changes

An occasional preparation taken on the go does not necessarily have the same nutritional importance as a drink consumed daily, or even multiple times daily.

This question is especially relevant for children.

Eating habits develop gradually.

Energy-providing drinks can be added to meals without necessarily causing an equivalent reduction in subsequent food intake.

This is one reason several studies have examined the relationship between sweetened beverages and weight gain in children.

In 2012, Janne de Ruyter and colleagues published in the *New England Journal of Medicine* a randomized trial involving 641 children.

For eighteen months, participants received daily either a sweetened drink providing 104 kilocalories or a comparable nearly calorie-free drink.

Children in the sugar-free group showed less weight gain and fat accumulation.

This trial does not concern Fruggies, and the studied product does not have its fiber composition.

But it demonstrates that calories from drinks can contribute to children's weight evolution.

A 2024 meta-analysis in *JAMA Pediatrics*, including 17 pediatric cohorts, also observed a weak but positive association between 100% fruit juice consumption and BMI changes in children.

These results do not prove that fruit drinks automatically cause obesity.

They mainly remind us that a fruit-based drink should not be excluded from energy balance considerations simply because it contains no added sugar.

The Real Question Fruggies Should Help Parents Answer

Today, we have nutritional compositions, ingredients, energy values, and some manufacturing information.

But several important scientific questions remain open for the marketed formulations.

What exactly is the distribution of glucose, free fructose, and sucrose by recipe?

What is their actually measured glycemic index?

What insulin response do they provoke in people with different metabolic profiles?

How much satiety do they provide compared to equivalent whole fruits and vegetables?

What is their measured cariogenic potential?

And above all, what happens to children's eating habits when these preparations are consumed daily instead of whole foods?

To my knowledge, publicly available information does not provide clinical trials answering all these questions specifically for Fruggies.

It would be incorrect to conclude the products are dangerous.

But **it would be equally incorrect to consider their physiological benefits fully demonstrated solely because their ingredients are organic and their vitamins measurable.**

Fruggies: The Real Issue Is Not the Absence of Added Sugar, But the Meaning of What Is Sold

This is ultimately where the fundamental problem lies.

Fruggies sells real plant ingredients and retains measurable fiber amounts. Its preparations are not nutritionally identical to sodas.

But presenting a small fruit powder as an easy way to meet dietary recommendations can lead to confusion.

A quantity of raw materials is not proof of physiological equivalence.

A powder containing fiber does not necessarily reproduce the effects of whole fruit.

A no-added-sugar drink can provide a significant amount of free sugars.

A vitamin contributing to a normal function does not prove clinical improvement in a well-nourished child.

And a convenient solution does not automatically become a superior nutritional solution.

**The real critique of Fruggies is not that it put fruits into powder. It is the risk of making people believe that processing, rehydration, and rapid consumption are simply a matter of subtracting water.**

Because nutrition is not limited to molecules in a sachet.

It includes their physical structure, digestion, effect on satiety, consumption frequency, and place within overall eating habits.

At Athletic Carnivore, this is precisely the biological perspective we defend: examining real mechanisms rather than being convinced by nutritional slogans.

Before paying several euros for a drink meant to simplify your child's diet, you need to understand what this convenience really provides—and what it does not replace.

**And you, are you truly buying the equivalent of several fruits and vegetables, or mainly the reassuring promise of drinking them in thirty seconds?**

---

# Scientific Studies and References

1. Fruggies Composition and Commercial Arguments

**Fruggies Foods — Official Sheets Candy, Green, Azure and FAQ.**

Primary sources for ingredients, sugar and fiber quantities, preparation compositions, usage recommendations, and prices.

[Composition Candy](https://fruggies.com/products/candy)

[Composition Green](https://fruggies.com/products/green)

[Composition Azure](https://fruggies.com/products/azure)

[Official FAQ](https://fruggies.com/pages/faq-1)

[Presentation of Five Fruits and Vegetables](https://fruggies.com/pages/listicle)

2. Swan G. E. et al. (2018)

*A definition of free sugars for the UK.*

Public Health Nutrition, 21(9), 1636–1643.

British scientific definition of free sugars including sugars from fruits processed into juices, purees, powders, or drinks when cellular matrix is disrupted.

DOI: [10.1017/S136898001800085X](https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898001800085X)

3. National Health Service — UK

*Reducing Sugar — Healthier Families.*

Official recommendations for maximum free sugar consumption by children’s age.

[NHS Recommendations](https://www.nhs.uk/healthier-families/food-facts/sugar/)

4. Flood-Obbagy J. E. and Rolls B. J. (2009)

*The effect of fruit in different forms on energy intake and satiety at a meal.*

Appetite, 52(2), 416–422.

Study comparing satiety and energy intake after consuming whole apples, applesauce, and juice.

DOI: [10.1016/j.appet.2008.12.001](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2008.12.001)

5. Postprandial Glycemic Response to Whole Fruit versus Blended Fruit in Healthy, Young Adults (2022)

Nutrients, 14(21), 4565.

Trial comparing glycemic response to whole and blended fruit, showing grinding does not always cause higher glycemic response.

DOI: [10.3390/nu14214565](https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14214565)

6. Stanhope K. L. et al. (2009)

*Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans.*

Journal of Clinical Investigation, 119(5), 1322–1334.

Clinical trial studying effects of high fructose or glucose beverage consumption.

DOI: [10.1172/JCI37385](https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI37385)

7. Different Food Sources of Fructose-Containing Sugars and Fasting Blood Uric Acid Levels (2021)

The Journal of Nutrition, 151(8), 2409–2421.

Meta-analysis of 47 controlled trials examining effects of fructose sources on uric acid.

DOI: [10.1093/jn/nxab144](https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxab144)

8. Moynihan P. J. and Kelly S. A. (2014)

*Effect on Caries of Restricting Sugars Intake: Systematic Review to Inform WHO Guidelines.*

Journal of Dental Research, 93(1), 8–18.

Systematic review on sugar exposure and dental caries development.

DOI: [10.1177/0022034513508954](https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034513508954)

9. Moores C. J., Kelly S. A. M., and Moynihan P. J. (2022)

*Systematic Review of the Effect on Caries of Sugars Intake: Ten-Year Update.*

Journal of Dental Research, 101(9), 1034–1045.

Update on scientific data regarding sugar consumption and dental health.

DOI: [10.1177/00220345221082918](https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345221082918)

10. De Ruyter J. C. et al. (2012)

*A Trial of Sugar-free or Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Body Weight in Children.*

New England Journal of Medicine, 367, 1397–1406.

Eighteen-month randomized trial studying effects of daily sweetened or nearly calorie-free drinks on children's weight.

DOI: [10.1056/NEJMoa1203034](https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1203034)

11. Nguyen M. et al. (2024)

*Consumption of 100% Fruit Juice and Body Weight in Children and Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.*

JAMA Pediatrics, 178(3), 237–246.

Meta-analysis studying associations between pure fruit juice consumption and weight changes, especially in children.

DOI: [10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.6124](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.6124)

12. Freeze-Drying of Plant-Based Foods (2020)

Foods, 9(1), 87.

Scientific review on freeze-drying of plant foods and sometimes incomplete preservation of bioactive compounds.

[Full Publication](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7022747/)

13. French Health Insurance — Nutritional Recommendations (2026)

*Fruits and Vegetables: Daily Consumption Recommendations.*

French recommendations on fruit and vegetable portions, smoothies, juices, and effects of food physical form.

[Official Source](https://www.ameli.fr/assure/sante/themes/alimentation/fruits-et-legumes/fruits-legumes-consommation)

---

#Fruggies #ChildNutrition #FreeSugars #Fructose #ChildDiet #FreezeDrying #FruitsAndVegetables #MetabolicHealth #ScientificNutrition #DentalHealth #AthleticCarnivore