Monk Fruit vs Stevia - Zero Sugar AI

Walk down the natural-sweetener aisle and two names dominate the zero-calorie shelf: monk fruit and stevia. Both are intensely sweet extracts pulled from plants rather than synthesized in a lab like sucralose or aspartame, which is why both get marketed as “natural.” Both are typically sold not in pure form but blended with a bulking agent — usually erythritol, sometimes allulose — because the pure extracts are so concentrated that a usable amount would be a few grains of powder. And both show up interchangeably in “keto,” “diabetic-friendly,” and “sugar-free” products, which leaves a lot of shoppers standing in the aisle wondering if there’s an actual difference or if it’s just branding. There is a real difference, and it mostly comes down to taste, sourcing, and a few regulatory nuances worth knowing before you pick one.

At a Glance

Every row below comes from our two sourced records, the same ones the cards at the foot of this page show. Each figure links to the document it came from and the date we last checked it; open “Note” for the qualifications that go with it. Where a record has nothing sourced for a row, the cell says so rather than filling the gap.

Attribute	Monk Fruit	Stevia
Sweetness	100–250× sweeter than sugarUS Food and Drug Administration regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026 Note A MULTIPLE, not a fraction — see the header warning. CORRECTED 2026-08-30 from an earlier 100-400 band: FDA gives 100-250 for the EXTRACT ("SGFE, depending on the mogroside content, is reported to be 100 to 250 times sweeter than sugar"), while the ~250 figure in the literature describes PURE mogroside V. Those are not in conflict once you separate extract from active compound, and the extract figure is the one that matters commercially. Potency tracks mogroside V content, which varies 2%-95% between grades.	200–400× sweeter than sugarUS Food and Drug Administration regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026 Note A MULTIPLE, not a fraction. FDA's figure for steviol glycosides as a class. Individual glycosides differ: stevioside is the least potent and rebaudioside A among the most, so a reformulation that swaps Reb A for Reb M changes potency without changing the word "stevia" on the label.
Calories	Negligible at use levelsUS FDA, Office of Food Additive Safety regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026 Note Deliberately not stated as "0 kcal/g". No authority has assigned monk fruit extract a caloric factor the way FDA assigned erythritol 0 and allulose 0.4. What is documented is the exposure: mean SGFE intake up to 1.6 mg/kg bw/day, 90th percentile 4.2 mg/kg bw/day in healthy adults.	No sourced entry
Net carbs	Subtracts in full — none of its grams countUS FDA, Office of Food Additive Safety regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026 Note Applies to the EXTRACT ONLY. Reported mean dietary exposures are 0.58-1.52 mg/kg bw/day of mogroside V depending on subpopulation — milligrams, against grams for a bulk sweetener. For a retail blend, compute the carbohydrate from the bulking agent and treat the monk fruit as zero.	Subtracts in full — none of its grams countUS Food and Drug Administration regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026 Note Applies to the PURIFIED GLYCOSIDES ONLY, used at milligram levels. As with monk fruit, a retail "stevia" product is mostly bulking agent by weight — commonly erythritol, dextrose or maltodextrin — and dextrose and maltodextrin are NOT low-glycaemic. Compute the carbohydrate from the carrier, and note that the carrier differs between brands.
Blood glucose	No meaningful glucose or insulin spike in healthy adults, acutelyTey SL, Salleh NB, Henry J, Forde CG; International… peer reviewed checked 31 Aug 2026 Note Tey et al. 2017, the only published human RCT of monk fruit sweetener itself (as opposed to its regulatory toxicology). 30 healthy men, randomised crossover, four 65 g-sucrose-equivalent preloads (aspartame, monk fruit, stevia, sucrose). Monk fruit, stevia and aspartame all produced significantly lower postprandial glucose and insulin than sucrose, with no meaningful spike above baseline for any of the three. THE MORE INTERESTING FINDING: ad libitum lunch intake after the non-nutritive-sweetener preloads was significantly HIGHER than after sucrose — compensatory eating largely offset the calories saved at the preload, leaving total daily energy intake unchanged across all four arms. Read as evidence about the preload only, not as evidence the sweetener itself changes appetite regulation days or weeks out — one meal, one measurement.	Low-certainty evidence of reduced fasting glucose, strongest under 120 days of useZare M, Zeinalabedini M, Ebrahimpour-Koujan S, Bellissimo N, Azadbakht… peer reviewed checked 31 Aug 2026 Note Zare et al. 2024, meta-analysis of 26 RCTs, 1,439 participants (PROSPERO CRD42023414411). Stevia supplementation significantly reduced fasting glucose, with the effect most consistent in trials shorter than 120 days and in participants with higher BMI, diabetes or hypertension. NO significant effect on insulin concentration or HbA1c — the fasting-glucose finding does not generalise to those two measures. Authors rate the overall certainty of evidence LOW and call for more RCTs at higher stevia doses. Read alongside health_claim_status below: a real, specific, but modest and short-duration signal — not evidence of durable metabolic benefit.
Acceptable daily intake	Temporary ADI 0-10 mg/kg bw/day, as mogroside V (JECFA, 2026)JECFA (FAO/WHO) regulatory checked 27 Oct 2026 Note JECFA, 102nd meeting (2026): "The Committee established a temporary ADI of 0-10 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as mogroside V, based on a NOAEL of 2144 mg/kg bw per day for mogroside V, the highest dose tested in a 52-week rat study and the application of a 200-fold uncertainty factor." In the same evaluation JECFA took a conservative estimate of the highest dietary exposure for children, 38 mg/kg bw/day, and concluded it "exceeds the temporary ADI by approximately four-fold, which would pose a potential safety concern under the proposed uses and proposed maximum levels". JECFA noted that estimate rests on proposed Codex (GSFA) food categories and maximum levels, not on measured intakes; FDA's modelling for US use (GRN 706, see dietary_exposure_mg_per_kg_day) is far lower, a 1.52 mg/kg bw/day mean for diabetic children. To complete the evaluation JECFA requires, by the end of 2029, a reproductive toxicity study that evaluates the reproductive capacity of the F1 generation, and revised proposed uses and maximum levels. History: JECFA put monk fruit extract on its 2016 agenda and removed it because no data were submitted; EFSA (2019) could not set an ADI because the toxicity database was insufficient (see safety_signal).	4 mg per kg body weight per dayEFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings, EFSA Journal… regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026 Note Expressed as STEVIOL EQUIVALENTS, not as grams of product — a conversion step every formulator has to do and many skip. Set by JECFA at its 69th meeting in 2008 (corrected 2026-08-31 from an earlier "2009" taken second-hand; the JECFA database itself says 2008, when the temporary designation was removed) on a NOEL of 970 mg/kg bw/day from a long-term stevioside study with a 100-fold safety factor, and independently by EFSA in 2010 from a 2-year rat carcinogenicity study. In November 2024 EFSA assessed an applicant request to raise it to 6 or 16 mg/kg bw/day and refused: "there is insufficient justification to increase the current ADI."
Bulk contribution	NoneUS FDA, Office of Food Additive Safety regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026 Note High-intensity sweetener used at milligram levels; contributes no volume, structure, browning or mouthfeel. Any product that fills a measuring cup is doing so with something else. This is why tabletop "monk fruit" is usually a blend.	NoneUS Food and Drug Administration regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026 Note High-intensity; contributes no volume, structure, browning or mouthfeel. Anything cup-for-cup is mostly carrier.
United States	GRAS by notificationUS FDA, Office of Food Additive Safety regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026 Note Six "no questions" letters: GRN 301 (15 Jan 2010), 359 (11 Apr 2011), 522 (8 Dec 2014), 556 (5 Nov 2015), 629, and 706 (17 Aug 2017). FDA is explicit that such a letter "is not an affirmation that SGFE is GRAS under 21 CFR 170.35". Intended use excludes infant formula.	GRAS by notification, high-purity onlyUS Food and Drug Administration regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026 Note HARD PURITY THRESHOLD. FDA has evaluated many GRAS notices for "high purity (95% minimum purity) steviol glycosides" including Reb A, stevioside and Reb D. But: "The use of stevia leaf and crude stevia extracts is not considered GRAS, and their import into the U.S. is not permitted for use as sweeteners" — Import Alert 45-06. A whole-leaf or crude-extract product is not a lower grade of the same legal thing; it is a different regulatory category and it is not permitted.
European Union	Not authorised as a food; only decoctions are exempt from needing authorisationEuropean Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety —… regulatory checked 31 Aug 2026 Note CORRECTED 2026-08-31 by two independent sessions running concurrently, reconciled here after a file-write race. This record previously said "Partially authorised", citing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2345 of 7 October 2024 as having authorised an aqueous monk fruit extract as a novel food, taken from Kaim 2025 (a peer-reviewed review). THAT IS WRONG, and it was wrong in the paper it came from. WHAT IS ACTUALLY TRUE, per the European Commission Novel Food Catalogue entry for Siraitia grosvenorii (updated 3 October 2024, source eucatalogue): the FRUIT and its extracts are classified NOVEL FOOD — "not consumed in the EU to a significant degree as a food before 15 May 1997", so "a pre-market authorisation in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 is required before it can be placed as food on the EU market" — and no such authorisation has been granted. SEPARATELY, monk fruit DECOCTIONS are classified NOT NOVEL, following a determination by the Irish competent authority (FSAI) under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/456, on the basis that decoctions were consumed in the Union before 15 May 1997. A not-novel determination means authorisation is NOT REQUIRED for decoctions specifically; it is not itself an authorisation, and it does not cover purified mogroside V or solvent extracts. Likely origin of the error: the decoction not-novel determination was catalogued in early October 2024 and got telescoped, somewhere in the citation chain, into an "authorising regulation of 7 October 2024" for the extract. Independently corroborated five ways: (1) the ELI lookup for reg_impl:2024:2345:oj returns "No results found"; (2) document number 2024/2345 does resolve on EUR-Lex, but to an unrelated OJ C-series item — a European Investment Bank Deputy Chief Executive vacancy notice published 21 March 2024 — with zero mention of Siraitia, monk fruit or novel food, which is why CELEX 32024R2345 (R for Regulation) 404s; (3) an EUR-Lex advanced search of every Commission Implementing Regulation published in October 2024 returns zero matches for "Siraitia" (the two novel-food authorisations that month were vitamin D2 mushroom powder and magnesium L-threonate); (4) the consolidated Union list of novel foods (Reg (EU) 2017/2470) contains zero occurrences of "Siraitia", "grosvenorii", "monk fruit" or "mogroside" — checked by full-text search of the entire consolidated Annex across three separate consolidated versions (2024-11-07, 2026-07-02, 2026-08-10 — see unionlist2026), with presence checks on known unrelated entries (astaxanthin, krill, chia) confirming each render was complete, not truncated; (5) kaim2025's own bibliography entry for the regulation cites "Off. J. Eur. Union. 2024;L 279:25–28", and that citation also fails to resolve on EUR-Lex ("the requested document does not exist") — the paper cites no distinct EFSA reference for the "2024 EFSA opinion" it says underpins the authorisation either; its footnotes for that claim point only to the 2019 additive opinion and an FSAI page about decoction status. Practical position: monk fruit EXTRACT cannot lawfully be placed on the EU market as a food — neither via the additive route (EFSA found the 2019 toxicology dossier insufficient; no ADI) nor via the novel-food route (no authorisation exists). A DECOCTION is a different product with a different, more permissive answer. The claim of a further additive application accepted for EFSA assessment with public consultation opened April 2026 is retained from kaim2025 but was NOT independently re-verified this pass — treat it as less solid than the findings above, which are.	Authorised, E 960a-dEFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings, EFSA Journal… regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026 Note Authorised across 32 food categories. CORRECTED 2026-08-31: this note previously omitted E 960b, one of four group members confirmed directly against the EU Food Additives register. E 960a is steviol glycosides obtained by water extraction from stevia leaf; E 960b is steviol glycosides from fermentation; E 960c covers enzymatically produced variants including rebaudioside M, D and AM; E 960d is glucosylated steviol glycosides. Route of manufacture therefore changes the E number while the front label still says stevia.

Taste and Aftertaste

This is the difference that actually matters day to day. Monk fruit extract is generally described as having a relatively clean sweetness with a mild fruity or slightly caramel-like note, and little to no bitterness at typical use levels. Stevia is more variable, because “stevia” on a label can mean several different molecules with different taste profiles. Older, cheaper stevia products rely heavily on Reb A (rebaudioside A) and stevioside, and sensory panels consistently describe these as sweet up front but finishing with a bitter or licorice-like aftertaste that becomes more pronounced as concentration increases — this is the taste most people are reacting to when they say they “don’t like stevia.”

Newer stevia products increasingly use rebaudioside M (Reb M) instead. Sensory research comparing Reb A, Reb D, and Reb M found Reb M consistently rated as less bitter and less astringent, with a rounder, more sugar-like onset and a much cleaner finish than Reb A. The structural reason is that Reb M carries additional glucose units compared to stevioside, and that extra glucosylation is directly linked to reduced bitterness. In practice, this means two products both labeled “stevia” can taste noticeably different — a Reb A-based drop can taste sharply bitter at the back of the tongue, while a Reb M-based one can taste close to sugar. Monk fruit doesn’t have this same split personality across products, though blend ratios and the accompanying bulking agent still affect the final taste.

Where Each One Comes From

Monk fruit gets its name from Buddhist monks in Guilin, in China’s Guangxi region, who are recorded cultivating and using the fruit as far back as the 13th century, drying it for use in traditional infusions. The plant, Siraitia grosvenorii, is a climbing vine in the same family as melons and cucumbers, native to southern China and northern Thailand. Modern monk fruit sweetener is made by crushing the fruit, extracting the juice, and purifying it down to concentrated mogrosides — primarily mogroside V, the compound responsible for most of the sweetness. Because the intensely sweet compound is a small fraction of the fruit, commercial extract is a processed, purified ingredient rather than something resembling dried fruit.

Stevia comes from the leaves of Stevia rebaudiana, a shrub native to Paraguay and Brazil, where the leaves have a long history of traditional use as a sweetener. Commercial stevia sweetener is produced by steeping and extracting the leaves, then purifying out specific steviol glycosides. Because Reb M occurs in only trace amounts in the leaf — producers have noted it would take roughly 70 times more leaf to get the same Reb M yield as leaf-derived Reb A — companies including Cargill (EverSweet, developed with DSM through their Avansya joint venture) and Ingredion (in partnership with Amyris) now produce Reb M via fermentation or bioconversion: feeding sugar to genetically modified yeast strains engineered to produce steviol glycosides, rather than extracting it from leaf material. This fermentation route is now a major source of the better-tasting Reb M showing up in newer stevia products.

Regulatory and Safety Notes

Both sweeteners’ purified extracts have cleared the FDA’s Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) notification process, meaning the agency reviewed the safety data submitted and did not object to the conclusion that the ingredient is safe for its intended use. The FDA has evaluated many GRAS notices for high-purity steviol glycosides (95%+ purity) and six for monk fruit extracts, and has not questioned either. Note that a GRAS “no questions” letter is not the same as formal FDA approval of a food additive — it’s a distinct regulatory pathway, though the practical effect for consumers is similar: the ingredient is legal to use in food.

The important nuance for stevia: this GRAS status applies only to purified steviol glycoside extracts, not to whole stevia leaf or crude leaf extracts. In FDA’s words, “the use of stevia leaf and crude stevia extracts is not considered GRAS, and their import into the U.S. is not permitted for use as sweeteners” (Import Alert 45-06). A whole-leaf product is not a lower grade of the same legal thing; it is a different regulatory category. If a product’s label just says “stevia leaf,” it’s regulated differently than one listing “steviol glycosides” or “Reb A.”

On the international side, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) set an acceptable daily intake (ADI) for steviol glycosides of 4 mg/kg of body weight per day (as steviol equivalents) in 2008, and EFSA reached the same figure independently in 2010; in 2024 EFSA turned down a request to raise it. Monk fruit’s picture is newer and less settled. JECFA dropped monk fruit extract from its 2016 agenda because no data were submitted, and EFSA found the toxicity data insufficient in 2019. At its 102nd meeting, in 2026, JECFA set a temporary ADI of 0–10 mg/kg body weight per day, expressed as mogroside V — and in the same evaluation concluded that its conservative estimate of children’s exposure, 38 mg/kg a day, “exceeds the temporary ADI by approximately four-fold, which would pose a potential safety concern under the proposed uses and proposed maximum levels.” That estimate is built on proposed international (Codex) uses rather than measured intakes; FDA’s modeling of US use found far lower intakes, with children with diabetes highest at 1.52 mg/kg a day on average. JECFA wants a reproductive toxicity study and revised proposed uses by the end of 2029 to finish its evaluation. FDA’s GRAS letters are unchanged, and monk fruit extract is not authorized in the EU. It is a live, unresolved review, not a settled matter.

Which Should You Choose

For baking and cooking, both work similarly when blended with erythritol, since erythritol is what provides the bulk and browning behavior — check the blend ratio rather than assuming “monk fruit” or “stevia” alone tells you how it will bake. For coffee, tea, or anything where the sweetener is the last thing that touches your tongue, taste sensitivity matters more: if you’ve had a bad experience with a bitter or metallic stevia aftertaste, monk fruit is the safer default, or look specifically for a Reb M-labeled stevia product rather than writing off stevia entirely. If cost and availability are the deciding factor, they’re close enough on both counts that it’s not usually the tiebreaker. If you’re specifically trying to avoid products with any open regulatory questions, note the JECFA situation above: monk fruit’s only ADI is temporary, and JECFA’s own estimate of children’s exposure under proposed uses sits well above it, while stevia’s ADI is settled.

The Bottom Line

Monk fruit and stevia are more alike than different: both are concentrated plant extracts, both are almost always sold cut with a bulking agent, and both have cleared the same basic FDA safety pathway in their purified forms. The practical difference most people will actually notice is taste — monk fruit tends toward a cleaner, milder profile, while stevia’s aftertaste depends heavily on which glycoside is used, ranging from noticeably bitter (Reb A) to nearly sugar-like (Reb M). Neither one is objectively “better”; the right choice comes down to what you’re using it for and how sensitive your palate is to the aftertaste that gives both of these sweeteners their reputation.

// Sourced record

Monk Fruit — the checked figures

Preliminary Reviewed 27 Oct 2026 Next review 31 Dec 2026

A sugar substitute cannot treat a low blood glucose

Low blood glucose is below 70 mg/dL. The ADA's stated rule is 15 grams of FAST-ACTING carbohydrate, then recheck after 15 minutes — none of the substitutes on this site qualify, because not raising blood glucose is the entire point of them. Severe hypoglycaemia is an emergency needing help from others; if someone is unconscious and glucagon is unavailable or nobody knows how to use it, call 911. Your own care plan takes priority over anything written here.

American Diabetes Association clinical guidance checked 31 Aug 2026

Sweetness: 100–250× sweeter than sugar A MULTIPLE, not a fraction — see the header warning. CORRECTED 2026-08-30 from an earlier 100-400 band: FDA gives 100-250 for the EXTRACT ("SGFE, depending on the mogroside content, is reported to be 100 to 250 times sweeter than sugar"), while the ~250 figure in the literature describes PURE mogroside V. Those are not in conflict once you separate extract from active compound, and the extract figure is the one that matters commercially. Potency tracks mogroside V content, which varies 2%-95% between grades. US Food and Drug Administration regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026
Active compound content: 2–95% mogroside V, depending on grade Nine distinct product grades in a single GRAS notice (GRN 629): 2%, 18-23%, 24-27%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 60%, 90%, 95% mogroside V, separated by successive resin and chromatography steps. Across GRNs 301/359/522/556 the range is 12.5-90%. The label almost never states which grade is in the tub. US FDA GRAS Notice Inventory regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026
Calories: negligible at use levels Deliberately not stated as "0 kcal/g". No authority has assigned monk fruit extract a caloric factor the way FDA assigned erythritol 0 and allulose 0.4. What is documented is the exposure: mean SGFE intake up to 1.6 mg/kg bw/day, 90th percentile 4.2 mg/kg bw/day in healthy adults. US FDA, Office of Food Additive Safety regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026
Net carbs: Subtracts in full — none of its grams count Applies to the EXTRACT ONLY. Reported mean dietary exposures are 0.58-1.52 mg/kg bw/day of mogroside V depending on subpopulation — milligrams, against grams for a bulk sweetener. For a retail blend, compute the carbohydrate from the bulking agent and treat the monk fruit as zero. US FDA, Office of Food Additive Safety regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026 "Net carbs" is not a recognised measure — start from Total Carbohydrate The American Diabetes Association is explicit: the term "does not have a legal definition and is not used by the Food and Drug Administration or recognized by American Diabetes Association", and the FDA recommends using total carbohydrates on the label. Their reasoning applies directly to the subtraction this site performs: it assumes fibre and sugar alcohols are not absorbed or metabolised, "but this is not always true, and some are partially digested and therefore still provide calories as well as impact blood glucose" — and because the label does not say WHICH sugar alcohol is present, the effect on blood glucose "cannot be determined precisely". Treat the figure above as a formulation aid, not a carbohydrate count to dose insulin against. American Diabetes Association clinical guidance checked 31 Aug 2026
Glycemic response: No meaningful glucose or insulin spike in healthy adults, acutely Tey et al. 2017, the only published human RCT of monk fruit sweetener itself (as opposed to its regulatory toxicology). 30 healthy men, randomised crossover, four 65 g-sucrose-equivalent preloads (aspartame, monk fruit, stevia, sucrose). Monk fruit, stevia and aspartame all produced significantly lower postprandial glucose and insulin than sucrose, with no meaningful spike above baseline for any of the three. THE MORE INTERESTING FINDING: ad libitum lunch intake after the non-nutritive-sweetener preloads was significantly HIGHER than after sucrose — compensatory eating largely offset the calories saved at the preload, leaving total daily energy intake unchanged across all four arms. Read as evidence about the preload only, not as evidence the sweetener itself changes appetite regulation days or weeks out — one meal, one measurement. Tey SL, Salleh NB, Henry J, Forde CG; International… peer reviewed checked 31 Aug 2026
Acceptable daily intake: Temporary ADI 0-10 mg/kg bw/day, as mogroside V (JECFA, 2026) JECFA, 102nd meeting (2026): "The Committee established a temporary ADI of 0-10 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as mogroside V, based on a NOAEL of 2144 mg/kg bw per day for mogroside V, the highest dose tested in a 52-week rat study and the application of a 200-fold uncertainty factor." In the same evaluation JECFA took a conservative estimate of the highest dietary exposure for children, 38 mg/kg bw/day, and concluded it "exceeds the temporary ADI by approximately four-fold, which would pose a potential safety concern under the proposed uses and proposed maximum levels". JECFA noted that estimate rests on proposed Codex (GSFA) food categories and maximum levels, not on measured intakes; FDA's modelling for US use (GRN 706, see dietary_exposure_mg_per_kg_day) is far lower, a 1.52 mg/kg bw/day mean for diabetic children. To complete the evaluation JECFA requires, by the end of 2029, a reproductive toxicity study that evaluates the reproductive capacity of the F1 generation, and revised proposed uses and maximum levels. History: JECFA put monk fruit extract on its 2016 agenda and removed it because no data were submitted; EFSA (2019) could not set an ADI because the toxicity database was insufficient (see safety_signal). JECFA (FAO/WHO) regulatory checked 27 Oct 2026
Measured intake: healthy adults 0.58 · diabetic adults 0.63 · healthy children 0.96 · diabetic children 1.52 mg/kg per day (mean) Mogroside V, per GRN 706. 90th-percentile figures are 1.53 / 2.03 / 2.24 / 2.05 for the same four groups. Diabetic children carry the highest mean exposure. US FDA, Office of Food Additive Safety regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026
Open safety question: Unresolved testicular finding in a 90-day rat study; toxicity database judged insufficient EFSA 2019: "the toxicity database on Monk fruit extract is insufficient to conclude on the safety of the use of monk fruit extract as a food additive." Specific gaps: no chronic/carcinogenicity study despite mogroside V being systemically bioavailable; in vitro genotoxicity insufficient to cover microbial-degradation metabolites including the aglycone; male exposure in the reproductive screening study "did not cover the full length of spermatogenesis"; and a 90-day rat study showed decreased testis weight with histopathological findings that "cannot be ruled out" as adverse. This is an incomplete dossier, not a demonstrated harm. EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings, EFSA Journal… regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026
Bulk contribution: none High-intensity sweetener used at milligram levels; contributes no volume, structure, browning or mouthfeel. Any product that fills a measuring cup is doing so with something else. This is why tabletop "monk fruit" is usually a blend. US FDA, Office of Food Additive Safety regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026
United States: GRAS by notification Six "no questions" letters: GRN 301 (15 Jan 2010), 359 (11 Apr 2011), 522 (8 Dec 2014), 556 (5 Nov 2015), 629, and 706 (17 Aug 2017). FDA is explicit that such a letter "is not an affirmation that SGFE is GRAS under 21 CFR 170.35". Intended use excludes infant formula. US FDA, Office of Food Additive Safety regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026
European Union: Not authorised as a food; only decoctions are exempt from needing authorisation CORRECTED 2026-08-31 by two independent sessions running concurrently, reconciled here after a file-write race. This record previously said "Partially authorised", citing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2345 of 7 October 2024 as having authorised an aqueous monk fruit extract as a novel food, taken from Kaim 2025 (a peer-reviewed review). THAT IS WRONG, and it was wrong in the paper it came from. WHAT IS ACTUALLY TRUE, per the European Commission Novel Food Catalogue entry for Siraitia grosvenorii (updated 3 October 2024, source eucatalogue): the FRUIT and its extracts are classified NOVEL FOOD — "not consumed in the EU to a significant degree as a food before 15 May 1997", so "a pre-market authorisation in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 is required before it can be placed as food on the EU market" — and no such authorisation has been granted. SEPARATELY, monk fruit DECOCTIONS are classified NOT NOVEL, following a determination by the Irish competent authority (FSAI) under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/456, on the basis that decoctions were consumed in the Union before 15 May 1997. A not-novel determination means authorisation is NOT REQUIRED for decoctions specifically; it is not itself an authorisation, and it does not cover purified mogroside V or solvent extracts. Likely origin of the error: the decoction not-novel determination was catalogued in early October 2024 and got telescoped, somewhere in the citation chain, into an "authorising regulation of 7 October 2024" for the extract. Independently corroborated five ways: (1) the ELI lookup for reg_impl:2024:2345:oj returns "No results found"; (2) document number 2024/2345 does resolve on EUR-Lex, but to an unrelated OJ C-series item — a European Investment Bank Deputy Chief Executive vacancy notice published 21 March 2024 — with zero mention of Siraitia, monk fruit or novel food, which is why CELEX 32024R2345 (R for Regulation) 404s; (3) an EUR-Lex advanced search of every Commission Implementing Regulation published in October 2024 returns zero matches for "Siraitia" (the two novel-food authorisations that month were vitamin D2 mushroom powder and magnesium L-threonate); (4) the consolidated Union list of novel foods (Reg (EU) 2017/2470) contains zero occurrences of "Siraitia", "grosvenorii", "monk fruit" or "mogroside" — checked by full-text search of the entire consolidated Annex across three separate consolidated versions (2024-11-07, 2026-07-02, 2026-08-10 — see unionlist2026), with presence checks on known unrelated entries (astaxanthin, krill, chia) confirming each render was complete, not truncated; (5) kaim2025's own bibliography entry for the regulation cites "Off. J. Eur. Union. 2024;L 279:25–28", and that citation also fails to resolve on EUR-Lex ("the requested document does not exist") — the paper cites no distinct EFSA reference for the "2024 EFSA opinion" it says underpins the authorisation either; its footnotes for that claim point only to the 2019 additive opinion and an FSAI page about decoction status. Practical position: monk fruit EXTRACT cannot lawfully be placed on the EU market as a food — neither via the additive route (EFSA found the 2019 toxicology dossier insufficient; no ADI) nor via the novel-food route (no authorisation exists). A DECOCTION is a different product with a different, more permissive answer. The claim of a further additive application accepted for EFSA assessment with public consultation opened April 2026 is retained from kaim2025 but was NOT independently re-verified this pass — treat it as less solid than the findings above, which are. European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety —… regulatory checked 31 Aug 2026

Where this leaves it

The cleanest label story of the three and the thinnest safety file. It is plant-derived, used in milligrams, and carries no caloric or glycaemic load worth counting — but its only ADI is a temporary one JECFA set in 2026, which JECFA's own conservative estimate of children's exposure under proposed Codex uses exceeds about four-fold; no EU authorisation of any monk fruit extract could be confirmed against primary law despite a widely-repeated claim to the contrary (see eu_status); and an unresolved testicular finding sits in the record because the toxicology dossier is still incomplete.

What you buy in a tub labelled "monk fruit" is usually mostly a bulking agent by weight. Judge that product by its bulking agent — very often erythritol — because that is where its carbohydrate, its digestive ceiling and its cooling effect actually come from.

If you're managing diabetes

No published trial has tested monk fruit sweetener in people with diabetes specifically — despite diabetic children showing the highest modelled exposure of any group FDA looked at.

FDA's own exposure modelling in GRN 706 found diabetic children carry the highest mean mogroside V intake of any subgroup assessed (1.52 mg/kg bw/day, against 0.58 for healthy adults) — the population already consuming it most is exactly the one with no dedicated clinical trial behind it. The only human RCT of the sweetener itself (Tey 2017) tested 30 healthy men, not people with diabetes, and found no meaningful glucose or insulin spike from monk fruit, stevia or aspartame versus sucrose. Two things this record already flags matter more here than usual: the only ADI is JECFA's temporary 2026 one, which JECFA's conservative estimate of children's exposure under proposed Codex uses exceeds about four-fold (see adi_status), and what you buy in a tub is usually mostly a bulking agent by weight, very often erythritol — read that record's diabetes note for what you're actually eating in bulk.

US FDA, Office of Food Additive Safety regulatory checked 31 Aug 2026

What would change this: A genuine novel-food application for the extract being filed and reaching a decision, or the EFSA additive assessment reportedly opened to consultation in April 2026 (itself unverified this pass) reaching a conclusion; or the reproductive toxicity study (F1 reproductive capacity) and revised proposed uses that JECFA requires by the end of 2029 to complete its 2026 evaluation and decide whether its temporary ADI stands.

No sweetener here is established to improve long-term health ADA Standards of Care 2026, Section 5: "NNS do not appear to have a significant effect on glycemic management," and evidence on weight is mixed — some reviews find modest weight-loss benefit, others an association with weight gain, likely reflecting reverse causation and confounding; added to an eating plan without energy restriction, NNS show no weight benefit. Substituting can reduce sugar and calories. That is a different claim from improving an outcome, and only the first is supported. CORROBORATED 2026-08-31 at much larger scale: Jeong et al.'s umbrella review (29 meta-analyses, 24 observational studies plus 6 RCTs, 50M+ participants, 135 associations examined) found observational studies link higher sweetener intake to INCREASED risk of weight gain, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and hypertension, while RCTs show only modest weight-loss benefit versus sugar specifically. The two study designs are not measuring the same comparison — see the general-health page for why — but neither supports a durable, independent long-term health benefit, which is the ADA position this guardrail already states. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee for Diabetes; Diabetes… clinical guidance checked 31 Aug 2026

Every figure above links to the document it came from and carries the date we last opened that document. Where a figure has no source it is not shown at all, rather than stated without one. Tell us if you find one that is wrong.

// Sourced record

Stevia — the checked figures

Established Reviewed 31 Aug 2026 Next review 30 Aug 2027

A sugar substitute cannot treat a low blood glucose

American Diabetes Association clinical guidance checked 31 Aug 2026

Sweetness: 200–400× sweeter than sugar A MULTIPLE, not a fraction. FDA's figure for steviol glycosides as a class. Individual glycosides differ: stevioside is the least potent and rebaudioside A among the most, so a reformulation that swaps Reb A for Reb M changes potency without changing the word "stevia" on the label. US Food and Drug Administration regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026
Net carbs: Subtracts in full — none of its grams count Applies to the PURIFIED GLYCOSIDES ONLY, used at milligram levels. As with monk fruit, a retail "stevia" product is mostly bulking agent by weight — commonly erythritol, dextrose or maltodextrin — and dextrose and maltodextrin are NOT low-glycaemic. Compute the carbohydrate from the carrier, and note that the carrier differs between brands. US Food and Drug Administration regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026 "Net carbs" is not a recognised measure — start from Total Carbohydrate The American Diabetes Association is explicit: the term "does not have a legal definition and is not used by the Food and Drug Administration or recognized by American Diabetes Association", and the FDA recommends using total carbohydrates on the label. Their reasoning applies directly to the subtraction this site performs: it assumes fibre and sugar alcohols are not absorbed or metabolised, "but this is not always true, and some are partially digested and therefore still provide calories as well as impact blood glucose" — and because the label does not say WHICH sugar alcohol is present, the effect on blood glucose "cannot be determined precisely". Treat the figure above as a formulation aid, not a carbohydrate count to dose insulin against. American Diabetes Association clinical guidance checked 31 Aug 2026
Glycemic response: Low-certainty evidence of reduced fasting glucose, strongest under 120 days of use Zare et al. 2024, meta-analysis of 26 RCTs, 1,439 participants (PROSPERO CRD42023414411). Stevia supplementation significantly reduced fasting glucose, with the effect most consistent in trials shorter than 120 days and in participants with higher BMI, diabetes or hypertension. NO significant effect on insulin concentration or HbA1c — the fasting-glucose finding does not generalise to those two measures. Authors rate the overall certainty of evidence LOW and call for more RCTs at higher stevia doses. Read alongside health_claim_status below: a real, specific, but modest and short-duration signal — not evidence of durable metabolic benefit. Zare M, Zeinalabedini M, Ebrahimpour-Koujan S, Bellissimo N, Azadbakht… peer reviewed checked 31 Aug 2026
Absorption: Not absorbed in the upper GI tract FDA: steviol glycosides "are not hydrolyzed by digestive enzymes of the upper gastrointestinal tract and are not absorbed through the upper portion of the gastrointestinal tract." They are cleaved by colonic microbiota to steviol, which is why the ADI is expressed in steviol equivalents. US Food and Drug Administration regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026
Acceptable daily intake: 4 mg per kg body weight per day Expressed as STEVIOL EQUIVALENTS, not as grams of product — a conversion step every formulator has to do and many skip. Set by JECFA at its 69th meeting in 2008 (corrected 2026-08-31 from an earlier "2009" taken second-hand; the JECFA database itself says 2008, when the temporary designation was removed) on a NOEL of 970 mg/kg bw/day from a long-term stevioside study with a 100-fold safety factor, and independently by EFSA in 2010 from a 2-year rat carcinogenicity study. In November 2024 EFSA assessed an applicant request to raise it to 6 or 16 mg/kg bw/day and refused: "there is insufficient justification to increase the current ADI." EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings, EFSA Journal… regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026
Exposure concern: Toddlers exceed the ADI at the 95th percentile under the proposed extension EFSA 2024: the conservative modelled exposure "would result in an increased exceedance of the ADI for toddlers at the 95th percentile" — 6.9 mg/kg bw/day against an ADI of 4. Infants were borderline at 4.1. The extension assessed was four new fine-bakery uses (cereal bars 300 mg/kg, cookies/biscuits 200, wafers/cornets 300, cakes 240) plus higher maximum levels in fruit nectars and flavoured drinks. EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings, EFSA Journal… regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026
Health claims: Sugar reduction is supported; independent metabolic benefit is not Stevia is well evidenced as a way to REPLACE sugar. Evidence that stevia itself improves glycaemic control or appetite beyond that replacement is low-certainty and inconsistent, and a 2025 meta-analysis found no significant overall effect on subjective appetite. Do not carry a claim that stevia independently improves metabolic health. Prepared for ZeroSugar.ai, evidence checked through 31 August 2026 secondary checked 30 Aug 2026
Bulk contribution: none High-intensity; contributes no volume, structure, browning or mouthfeel. Anything cup-for-cup is mostly carrier. US Food and Drug Administration regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026
United States: GRAS by notification, high-purity only HARD PURITY THRESHOLD. FDA has evaluated many GRAS notices for "high purity (95% minimum purity) steviol glycosides" including Reb A, stevioside and Reb D. But: "The use of stevia leaf and crude stevia extracts is not considered GRAS, and their import into the U.S. is not permitted for use as sweeteners" — Import Alert 45-06. A whole-leaf or crude-extract product is not a lower grade of the same legal thing; it is a different regulatory category and it is not permitted. US Food and Drug Administration regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026
European Union: Authorised, E 960a-d Authorised across 32 food categories. CORRECTED 2026-08-31: this note previously omitted E 960b, one of four group members confirmed directly against the EU Food Additives register. E 960a is steviol glycosides obtained by water extraction from stevia leaf; E 960b is steviol glycosides from fermentation; E 960c covers enzymatically produced variants including rebaudioside M, D and AM; E 960d is glucosylated steviol glycosides. Route of manufacture therefore changes the E number while the front label still says stevia. EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings, EFSA Journal… regulatory checked 30 Aug 2026

Where this leaves it

The best-characterised sweetener in this file. It has a real ADI that two independent bodies agree on, a 2-year carcinogenicity study behind it, full EU authorisation across 32 food categories, and a settled US position — which is exactly what monk fruit and allulose lack. What it does not have is evidence of benefit beyond replacing sugar.

Two traps. The ADI is in steviol EQUIVALENTS, not grams of product. And US legality has a 95% purity cliff: stevia leaf and crude extracts are not GRAS and are barred from import under Import Alert 45-06.

If you're managing diabetes

The strongest direct glucose evidence in this file — Zare et al. 2024 found the fasting-glucose-lowering effect more pronounced specifically in people with diabetes — but it did not move HbA1c, and the certainty is rated low.

Zare et al. 2024 (26 RCTs, 1,439 participants) found stevia supplementation significantly reduced fasting glucose, with the effect most consistent in trials under 120 days and among participants with higher BMI, diabetes or hypertension specifically. No significant effect on insulin or HbA1c — the fasting-glucose finding does not extend to either. The authors rate the overall evidence certainty LOW and call for more RCTs at higher doses. Read alongside health_claim_status above: this is evidence of a real, specific, short-duration signal, not of a durable independent metabolic benefit — the well-supported claim remains that stevia lets you replace sugar, not that it treats diabetes on its own.

Zare M, Zeinalabedini M, Ebrahimpour-Koujan S, Bellissimo N, Azadbakht… peer reviewed checked 31 Aug 2026

What would change this: A successful future application to raise the ADI on better toxicokinetic data than the 2024 submission, or a Commission decision on the fine-bakery extension that EFSA linked to toddler ADI exceedance.

New comparisons and corrections, as they land.

This page is educational information, not medical or dietary advice. Nutrition and regulatory details change over time — verify against the cited primary sources before relying on them for formulation or health decisions.