Is Monk Fruit Healthy? The Erythritol Catch That Changes the Answer

What is monk fruit sweetener actually made of?

Most of what sits in a "monk fruit" bag or packet is erythritol, with a small fraction of real monk fruit extract. The front of the package sells you the exotic fruit; the ingredient panel sells you a sugar alcohol. That gap is the whole story.

Monk fruit — Siraitia grosvenorii, also called Luo Han Guo — gets its sweetness from compounds called mogrosides. The sweetest and most abundant is mogroside V, which is roughly 100 to 250 times sweeter than table sugar, with zero calories and no glycemic impact. The catch: mogroside V is less than 1% of the raw fruit by weight, and the purified extract is so intensely sweet that you'd need a near-invisible pinch to sweeten a cup of coffee.

That's a problem for a product meant to scoop and pour like sugar. So manufacturers blend the tiny bit of extract into a bulking agent that looks and measures like sugar. The bulking agent of choice, almost always, is erythritol.

Why is there erythritol in monk fruit sweetener?

Because monk fruit extract alone is far too sweet to spoon, and erythritol fills out the volume to make a 1:1 sugar replacement. Erythritol is a sugar alcohol that's only about 70% as sweet as sugar — close enough that brands can mix a lot of it with a hint of mogroside V and hit a "tastes and measures like sugar" target.

Lakanto, one of the most recognizable monk fruit brands, says this plainly on its own site:

"Monk fruit is much too sweet, being about 200-300 times sweeter than sugar; and Erythritol is only about 70% as sweet as sugar. Because of this, the combination of the two (in a very special recipe) is where magic happens in matching the flavor of sugar."

And on why the erythritol is there at all:

"We use it in our Lakanto Monkfruit Sweeteners as a way to make a convenient one-to-one sugar replacement."

The exact multiplier varies by source — mogroside V on its own is usually cited around 100 to 250 times sweeter, and Lakanto's "200-300 times" figure describes the whole extract — but the structural point holds either way. So "monk fruit sweetener" is, structurally, an erythritol product with a monk fruit accent. There's nothing deceptive about the recipe itself — it's chemistry, not a trick. The trick is only in the reading, when a shopper assumes "monk fruit" on the front means "monk fruit" in the bag.

Here's how the two ingredients actually stack up:

Is erythritol bad for you?

Regulators still clear it — but a 2023 study put a real question on the table that hasn't been closed. Two things are simultaneously true here, and honest label reading means holding both.

On the regulatory side: FDA lists erythritol as GRAS. In its agency response to GRAS Notice GRN 789 (notified by Cargill, closed February 20, 2019), FDA's conclusion was the standard "FDA has no questions," covering erythritol's use as a "flavor enhancer, formulation aid, humectant, nutritive sweetener, stabilizer and thickener, sequestrant, or texturizer" across dozens of food categories. In Europe, EFSA's 2023 re-evaluation of erythritol (E 968) concluded that the additive "does not raise a concern" for genotoxicity, and set an Acceptable Daily Intake of 0.5 g/kg body weight per day — notable because that limit was derived mainly to protect against erythritol's well-known laxative effect at high doses, not against any cardiovascular mechanism.

On the research side: that's where the 2023 Nature Medicine study comes in. It's the reason "is monk fruit sweetener fine?" stopped being a simple yes.

What did the 2023 erythritol study actually find?

It found that higher levels of erythritol in the blood were associated with a higher 3-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events — an association across large groups of people, backed by lab work showing a clotting mechanism, but not proof that erythritol causes heart attacks. Precision matters here, so let's use the authors' own words.

The paper — Marco Witkowski, Stanley L. Hazen and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic, Nature Medicine 2023 — reports its core results like this:

"In initial untargeted metabolomics studies in patients undergoing cardiac risk assessment (n = 1,157; discovery cohort), circulating levels of multiple polyol sweeteners, especially erythritol, were associated with incident (3 year) risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; includes death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke). Subsequent targeted metabolomics analyses in independent US (n = 2,149) and European (n = 833) validation cohorts of stable patients undergoing elective cardiac evaluation confirmed this association."

The effect size, from the abstract: a fourth-versus-first-quartile adjusted hazard ratio of 1.80 (95% CI 1.18–2.77) in the US cohort and 2.21 (1.20–4.07) in the European cohort. The team also ran mechanistic experiments — "At physiological levels, erythritol enhanced platelet reactivity in vitro and thrombosis formation in vivo" — and a small pilot in which 8 healthy volunteers drank erythritol and saw sustained spikes in plasma erythritol.

And then the line that the headlines mostly dropped — the authors' own bottom line:

"Studies assessing the long-term safety of erythritol are warranted."

Read what that is and isn't. It is an observational association (people with more erythritol in their blood had more cardiovascular events) plus a plausible mechanism (platelet/clotting effects in the lab). It is not a randomized controlled trial proving that eating erythritol causes heart attacks. The study can't rule out that some people make more erythritol internally (the body produces small amounts), or that high blood erythritol is a marker of an underlying metabolic state rather than its cause. The authors didn't claim causation — they called for more study. Anyone telling you erythritol "causes heart attacks" is reading past the science.

How do you read a monk fruit label?

Look at ingredient order: ingredients are listed by weight, so if erythritol is first, the product is mostly erythritol — and the monk fruit is the accent, not the act. This is the single skill that turns a marketing word into real information.

Take the clearest worked example. Lakanto Classic Monkfruit Sweetener's ingredient statement, on Lakanto's own product page, reads in full:

"Non-GMO erythritol and Monk Fruit extract."

Erythritol first. Monk fruit extract last. Because U.S. ingredient lists run in descending order by weight, that ordering tells you — without any insider knowledge — that you're holding an erythritol product with a monk fruit finish. That's not a knock on Lakanto; they're transparent about it. It's simply what "monk fruit sweetener" means most of the time.

So when you pick up any "monk fruit" product:

1. Find the ingredient line, not the front-of-pack name. "Monk fruit" in big letters is marketing; the panel is the contract.
2. Check what comes first. Erythritol first → mostly erythritol. The same goes for allulose, maltodextrin, inulin, or dextrose — those are bulking agents too, and whichever is listed first is the bulk of the bag.
3. If you specifically want pure monk fruit, the panel will say "monk fruit extract" alone, with no bulking agent. Those exist, but they're intensely sweet and don't scoop like sugar.
4. If you're sensitive to sugar alcohols, the erythritol content is the relevant number — that's what drives the laxative effect EFSA flagged at high intake, not the monk fruit.

The label already contains the answer. The brand just isn't going to put it on the front.

So should you use monk fruit sweetener?

Our read: monk fruit sweetener is a reasonable zero-glycemic sugar swap — but know that "monk fruit" usually means "mostly erythritol," and treat the 2023 Nature Medicine finding as an open question, not a verdict. The monk fruit extract itself is zero-calorie, zero-glycemic, and GRAS. The erythritol that makes up the bulk is also GRAS and EFSA-cleared, with a real, well-documented laxative effect at high doses and one association study that the study's own authors say warrants more research.

What we wouldn't do is panic, and what we wouldn't do is pretend nothing happened. If you eat a moderate amount and you're not chugging erythritol-bulked products all day, the evidence we have today doesn't justify alarm. If you have cardiovascular risk factors and you want to be conservative while the long-term safety studies the authors called for get done, that's a defensible, evidence-aware choice — and the way to act on it is to read the panel, see how much erythritol you're actually getting, and decide from there.

Our take: "monk fruit" is the headline, erythritol is the body text. Read the body text.

Sources

1. Witkowski M, Nemet I, Li XS, et al. The artificial sweetener erythritol and cardiovascular event risk. Nature Medicine. 2023;29(3):710–718. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
2. FDA. GRAS Notice Inventory — GRN 789, Erythritol (Cargill, Inc.); agency "has no questions," closed February 20, 2019. hfpappexternal.fda.gov
3. FDA. GRAS Notice Inventory — GRN 301, Siraitia grosvenorii (Luo Han Guo) fruit extract (BioVittoria Ltd.); agency "has no questions," closed January 15, 2010. hfpappexternal.fda.gov
4. FDA. GRAS Notice Inventory — GRN 627, Siraitia grosvenorii (Luo Han Guo) fruit juice concentrate; agency "has no questions," closed October 11, 2016. hfpappexternal.fda.gov
5. EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF). Re-evaluation of erythritol (E 968) as a food additive. EFSA Journal. 2023;21(12):e8430. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
6. Lakanto USA. Classic Monkfruit Sweetener — ingredient statement ("Non-GMO erythritol and Monk Fruit extract"). lakanto.com
7. Lakanto USA. Why Lakanto uses erythritol in its monk fruit sweetener. lakanto.com

Keep reading

• AdditivesIs Carrageenan Safe? The 2026 EU vs FDA Split You Need to Know8 min read
• AdditivesWhat "Natural Flavors" Actually Mean (And What the Label Legally Leaves Out)8 min read
• AdditivesRed Dye 40 Isn't Banned. Here's What's Actually Happening — and the Full Brand Hit List.9 min read