Not every ingredient in Soma is the kind that photographs well next to a wellness influencer. Sucralose and nature-identical flavouring exist in the formula because the alternatives introduce problems they don't actually solve. Here's what the decision actually looked like.
Sucralose
The alternatives to sucralose in a high-protein shake are narrower than they appear. Sugar and natural caloric sweeteners like coconut sugar or jaggery add carbohydrate load, raise the glycemic contribution of the serving, and introduce batch-to-batch variation in sweetness intensity depending on source and processing. For a product with a defined nutritional profile, that variability compounds.
Stevia is the most common natural non-caloric alternative. At the concentrations required to adequately sweeten a high-protein formulation, stevia produces a pronounced bitter and liquorice aftertaste that most people find difficult to consume daily [1].
The perception threshold varies significantly between individuals, making consistent flavour delivery harder to engineer. Monk fruit extract is better tolerated by most palates but is substantially more expensive and introduces similar consistency challenges at scale.
Sucralose is approximately 600 times sweeter than sugar [2], requires very small quantities to achieve consistent sweetness, contributes no calories, has no glycemic impact [3], and is stable across the pH and temperature range involved in shake preparation. It delivers the same flavour profile in every serving, regardless of batch.
The concern that exists around sucralose is worth acknowledging directly. Some research suggests effects on gut microbiome composition at high doses. The operative phrase is high doses: the quantities used in a single serving of a meal shake are well within the Acceptable Daily Intake established by the FDA (5 mg/kg body weight/day) [4] and EFSA (15 mg/kg body weight/day) [5], and the evidence at typical consumption levels does not support the more alarming claims made in popular nutrition discourse [6].
That said, the concern is legitimate enough to track. If the evidence base shifts meaningfully or if there's a vocal disdain for these ingredients, the formulation will change.
Nature-identical flavouring
Natural flavouring sounds like the cleaner choice. In practice, the distinction between natural and nature-identical is more technical than it is meaningful from a safety standpoint.
Nature-identical flavouring compounds are chemically identical to the molecules found in their natural sources. Vanillin from vanilla bean and vanillin synthesised from other precursors are the same molecule. The body processes them identically [7]. What nature-identical flavouring offers that natural flavouring often does not is consistency.
Natural cocoa and chocolate flavour extracts vary significantly by origin, harvest season, and processing method. That variation shows up in the final product as perceptible differences in flavour profile across batches. For a daily product where the expectation is that it tastes the same every time, that inconsistency is a functional problem.
The choice was made on those grounds, not as a cost shortcut. The flavour system in Soma is designed to taste like the same thing every time it's prepared.
What's next?
Sucralose and nature-identical flavouring are not decisions that will sit right with everyone, and that's a known trade-off. Label purists have a coherent position: the preference for identifiable, whole-food-derived ingredients is a reasonable one, even where the safety difference is marginal.
Whether a stevia or monk fruit system can be developed that holds up to daily use without the aftertaste problems is a question the v1.1 formulation brief will take seriously. What Early Access users report back will determine whether that conversation is worth having, or whether the current system stays. That feedback loop is the point.
References
1. Oleson, S., & Murphy, C. (2017). Prediction of stevia liking by sucrose liking: Effects of beverage background. Chemosensory Perception, 10(3), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12078-017-9225-7
2. Wiet, S. G., & Beyts, P. K. (1992). Sensory characteristics of sucralose and other high intensity sweeteners. Journal of Food Science, 57(4), 1014–1019. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1992.tb14345.x
3. Ahmad, S. Y., Friel, J. K., & Mackay, D. S. (2020). Effect of sucralose and aspartame on glucose metabolism and gut hormones. Nutrition Reviews, 78(9), 725–746. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuz099
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2025). Aspartame and Other Sweeteners in Food. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/aspartame-and-other-sweeteners-food
5. EFSA FAF Panel. (2026). Re-evaluation of sucralose (E 955) as a food additive and evaluation of a new application on extension of use of sucralose (E 955) in fine bakery wares. EFSA Journal, 24(2), e9854. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2026.9854
6. Ahmad, S. Y., Friel, J., & Mackay, D. (2020). The effects of non-nutritive artificial sweeteners, aspartame and sucralose, on the gut microbiome in healthy adults: secondary outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Nutrients, 12(11), 3408. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12113408
7. Perfumer & Flavorist. (2016). The significance of GRAS and nature-identical for worldwide harmonization of flavor regulation.