When Beet Gummies Become "Candy": What the Industry Should Really Be Thinking About
Introduction
"The remainder of this delicious candy went into the trash."
That is a real one-star review from one of Amazon's best-selling beet gummies. Most people focus on "went into the trash." We focus on a different word: candy.
Because in the end, the consumer did not remember it as a beet supplement. They remembered it as candy. And that may be the real issue facing today's beet gummy category.
This single review encapsulates a crisis of identity that few in the industry are willing to acknowledge publicly. The beet gummy market is booming—projected to grow from approximately USD 248.5 million in 2024 to USD 627.2 million by 2034, at a compound annual growth rate of 9.7%. But beneath these impressive numbers lies a fundamental tension that threatens the category's long-term credibility.
The problem is simple yet profound: in the rush to make beets palatable, the industry has inadvertently transformed a functional supplement into a confection. When consumers consistently describe their daily health supplement as "too sweet," "too much like candy," or—in one memorable review—"like eating a fruit snack," something has gone seriously wrong.
This essay argues that the beet gummy industry has spent too much effort making beets taste less like beets, rather than investing in making better-tasting beets in the first place. We will explore the root causes of this "candyfication" trend, examine its consequences for consumer trust, brand credibility, and regulatory compliance, and propose an alternative framework centered on ingredient quality rather than aggressive flavor masking. The stakes are high: flavor may earn the first purchase, but ingredient quality earns long-term trust.
1. The Candy Paradox – When Convenience Backfires
1.1 Market Growth and the Identity Crisis
The beet gummies market is experiencing undeniable growth. Consumer interest in beetroot's health benefits—particularly its high nitrate content, which supports cardiovascular health, blood pressure regulation, and athletic performance—has driven demand for convenient supplement formats. Gummies offer distinct advantages over traditional pills and powders: they are portable, pleasant to consume, and eliminate the need for water or preparation.
However, beneath this success story lies a fundamental tension. The very attributes that make gummies appealing—sweetness, chewiness, and candy-like familiarity—may be undermining the category's credibility as a functional health product.
Consider the language consumers use in their reviews across major platforms:
| Consumer Description | Implied Perception |
|---|---|
| "I could eat a handful of them at one time" | Dosage guidelines are irrelevant |
| "They taste just like candy, which is dangerous" | Pleasure overrides intended use |
| "These are so good they should be illegal" | Product is perceived as indulgence |
| "Too good to be true?" | Skepticism about health claims |
| "When I first got them, I thought them a bit too much like candy" | First impression is confection, not supplement |
While these might superficially sound like compliments, for a dietary supplement intended for specific health outcomes, they raise an uncomfortable question: Are consumers treating these products as functional supplements or as treats?
1.2 How Candy Perception Changes Consumer Behavior
The issue is not merely semantic. A product perceived as candy rather than a supplement fundamentally changes consumer behavior in several critical ways:
Dosage compliance erosion. When a supplement is enjoyed like candy, consumers may be more likely to exceed recommended dosages. One reviewer admitted, "I could eat a handful of them at one time," suggesting that the product's palatability actively undermines the manufacturer's dosage guidance. This poses safety risks, particularly for individuals with blood pressure conditions who may be sensitive to nitrate fluctuations. Research published in the Journal of Nutrition has shown that excessive nitrate intake can lead to methemoglobinemia in susceptible individuals, though this is rare with commercial supplements.
Product substitution errors. Consumers may mentally categorize the product alongside other treats, leading them to view it as interchangeable with candy or snacks. This undermines the supplement's positioning as a health intervention and reduces the perceived seriousness of its consumption.
Health claim skepticism. There is a well-documented psychological phenomenon: when a product tastes too good, consumers often question whether it can genuinely be good for them. One reviewer expressed this tension directly: "Too good to be true?" This skepticism extends beyond the individual to the entire category, potentially damaging consumer trust in functional gummies across the board.
Value perception distortion. When a product is perceived as candy, consumers evaluate its value against candy prices rather than supplement prices. A bottle priced at USD 30–40 seems exorbitant compared to a bag of gummy bears costing USD 3–5. This mismatch creates friction at the point of purchase and may lead consumers to seek cheaper alternatives that further degrade the category's perceived value.
Regulatory attention. Products perceived as candy with health claims attract regulatory scrutiny. The FDA and FTC have increased enforcement actions against supplement companies making unsupported health claims. When products also appeal to children through their candy-like characteristics, regulatory exposure increases dramatically.
2. The Flavor Problem – Why Beets Taste Like Dirt and Why That Matters
2.1 The Science of Geosmin
To understand why the industry has gravitated toward sugar-heavy formulations, we need to address the elephant in the room: beets naturally contain compounds that many consumers find unpalatable.
Beets are rich in geosmin, a natural organic compound with a distinct earthy aroma. Geosmin is produced by soil-dwelling microorganisms, including Streptomyces bacteria and various fungi, and is concentrated in the beet root during growth. When consumers say beets taste "like dirt," they are reacting to a scientifically identifiable compound—geosmin—that triggers powerful sensory responses in humans.
Human olfactory systems are exquisitely sensitive to geosmin, with detection thresholds as low as 0.7–1.0 parts per billion. This remarkable sensitivity likely evolved as a survival mechanism, helping our ancestors avoid contaminated water sources and spoiled food. For better or worse, this evolutionary adaptation means that even trace amounts of geosmin in beet products can dominate the sensory profile.
The presence of geosmin creates a significant formulation challenge. Consumers who want the health benefits of beets often do not want to taste the earthy, musty notes that accompany them. One Amazon reviewer captured this sentiment perfectly: "Let's face it, beets kind of taste like dirt."
2.2 The Industry's Response: Masking Over Solving
To improve first-bite acceptance, many brands have adopted a straightforward strategy: increase sweetness and add stronger fruit flavors to mask the beet's natural taste. Raspberry, pomegranate, black cherry, and mixed berry are among the popular masking flavors. This approach has been validated by research into beet formulations, which notes that sweet characteristics make beets suitable for formulations where taste masking is a priority.
However, consumer feedback suggests this approach has reached a saturation point. Descriptions of beet gummies as "too sweet" and "too much like candy" are not isolated complaints—they represent a pattern that should concern the industry deeply.
| Flavor Strategy | Intended Effect | Observed Consumer Response |
|---|---|---|
| Added sugar (2–4g per serving) | Mask earthiness | "Too sweet," "candy-like" |
| Fruit flavor concentrates | Create pleasant taste | "Doesn't taste like real beets" |
| Multiple sweeteners combined | Maximize first-bite appeal | "Could eat a handful" |
| Minimal beet flavor retained | Eliminate off-notes | "Does this actually contain beets?" |
2.3 The Irony of Taste Masking
There is a profound irony in the industry's approach. In trying to make beets taste better, many brands have inadvertently created products that consumers question precisely because they taste so good. One reviewer noted:
"I like that I can still taste the beets in there, because then I know I'm truly getting the benefits of the beets for my body."
This comment reveals a critical insight: for some consumers, a product that tastes too good may raise doubts about its authenticity. Excessive flavor masking can inadvertently signal that the manufacturer is hiding something—perhaps poor ingredient quality, weak potency, or both. In contrast, a product that retains some connection to its botanical source may be perceived as more genuine and effective.
3. Technical Solutions – Where Real Innovation Lives
3.1 Addressing the Problem at Its Source
While many brands have focused on masking, a more sophisticated approach exists: addressing the flavor issue at its source. Recent innovations in beet processing have focused on reducing geosmin content before it reaches the final product, fundamentally changing the formulation landscape.
Heat treatment and pH control. Patent filings describe methods involving controlled heat treatment and pH adjustment to permanently inactivate the enzymes responsible for color formation while simultaneously reducing earthy off-notes. These methods can achieve a geosmin content of less than 0.05 mg/g—the threshold below which earthy notes are no longer perceptible to most consumers.
Physical purification processes. Industry suppliers have developed specialized ingredients like deodorized beet red powder, which undergoes a physical purification process designed specifically to eliminate geosmin while preserving the beet's nutritional profile. The result is a beet-derived ingredient that delivers color, flavor, and nutritional value without the earthy aftertaste, enabling formulators to achieve flavor neutrality in their finished products.
Varietal selection. Not all beets are created equal. Certain beet varieties naturally contain lower geosmin levels than others. By carefully selecting raw material sources, manufacturers can reduce the masking burden before any processing begins.
3.2 The Ingredient-Driven Alternative
This represents a fundamental shift in approach. Instead of fighting the problem after the fact with sugar and artificial flavors, these solutions address the root cause—literally and figuratively.
| Approach | Method | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional masking | Add sugar and fruit flavors | Candy-like product, consumer skepticism |
| Geosmin reduction | Heat treatment, pH control | Cleaner taste, less sugar needed |
| Physical purification | Deodorized beet powder | Neutral flavor, flexible formulation |
| Varietal selection | Low-geosmin beet strains | Better raw material from the start |
3.3 The Taste-Trust Connection
Interestingly, some consumers explicitly connect the earthy taste of beets with the authenticity of the product. As noted earlier, one reviewer valued the ability to "still taste the beets" as a signal that they were genuinely receiving the health benefits.
This insight has significant implications for product development. A completely neutral flavor profile may actually be counterproductive for certain consumer segments. Instead, a balanced approach—retaining some of the beet's natural character while reducing harsh earthy notes—may build greater trust than either heavy masking or complete neutralization.
4. The Business Case for Better Ingredient Quality
4.1 What Google EEAT Tells Us About Industry Credibility
The tension between taste and trustworthiness directly impacts how consumers—and search engines like Google—evaluate supplement brands. Google's EEAT framework—Experience, Expertise, Authority, and Trustworthiness—rewards content that demonstrates genuine expertise and addresses real user needs authentically.
When a brand's product is described as "candy" by its own customers, what does that say about the brand's expertise or trustworthiness? It suggests a company that has prioritized palatability over purpose—a short-term strategy that may yield initial sales but risks undermining long-term credibility.
Search engine rankings reflect this reality. According to Ahrefs research, the average word count of top-10 ranking content is approximately 2,476 words. More importantly, top-ranking content must provide unique, valuable insights that address specific user needs. The brands that succeed in this environment are those that demonstrate genuine understanding of their products and their customers.
4.2 Consumer Trends Pointing to Change
Multiple market trends suggest that the "candy" approach will become increasingly problematic:
Sugar sensitivity is growing. The World Health Organization recommends keeping free sugars below 10% of total energy intake, with additional health benefits observed below 5% (approximately 25 grams per day). As consumers become more label-aware, sugar-heavy gummies face increasing scrutiny. Industry analysts note that "low-sugar reformulation is the latest trend reshaping the beet gummies market," driven by stronger public health messaging and tighter label scrutiny.
Clean-label expectations are rising. Consumers increasingly expect supplements to feature recognizable, minimal ingredients. Products that rely on heavy masking agents, artificial flavors, and excessive sweeteners may struggle to meet these expectations. The clean-label movement, which gained significant traction in the food industry over the past decade, has now firmly arrived in the supplement space.
Value perception is shifting. Price remains a significant barrier for many consumers. One reviewer noted that SuperBeets cost "a dollar a day," calling it "pricey." As household budgets tighten, consumers are evaluating whether premium-priced products genuinely deliver value beyond their candy-like appeal. Products that cannot articulate their ingredient quality and health benefits face an uphill battle in justifying their price points.
Regulatory scrutiny is intensifying. The FDA has increased its oversight of dietary supplements, particularly those with drug-like claims. In 2023, the FDA issued multiple warning letters to supplement companies for making unsubstantiated cardiovascular health claims. Products that also exhibit candy-like characteristics may face additional scrutiny under regulations designed to prevent the marketing of supplements as conventional foods.
4.3 The Cost of the Candy Perception
The financial implications of the candy perception extend beyond consumer skepticism. Consider the following:
Reduced brand loyalty. When a product is perceived as candy, consumers are more likely to switch brands based on taste preferences alone. Brand loyalty, which is typically higher in the supplement category, erodes when differentiation is based on flavor rather than efficacy.
Increased price sensitivity. Candy is a low-involvement purchase; supplements are high-involvement. When consumers mentally categorize a gummy as candy, their willingness to pay a premium decreases. This puts downward pressure on margins across the category.
Regulatory risk. Products that blur the line between supplements and conventional foods attract regulatory attention. The FDA's regulatory framework distinguishes between dietary supplements and conventional foods based on intended use. When a product looks and tastes like candy but claims to be a supplement, it invites scrutiny about its classification.
Legal exposure. Class action lawsuits have targeted supplement companies for misleading claims, including those related to sugar content and health benefits. Companies whose products are perceived as candy may face increased legal exposure from both regulators and consumers.
5. A Framework for Better Beet Gummies
5.1 The Ingredient-Driven Alternative
We believe a different approach is possible: improving the ingredient at its source rather than masking it after the fact. This approach has several distinct advantages:
Lower sugar content. By reducing the need for masking flavors, formulators can create products with less added sugar, addressing consumer health concerns and regulatory pressures.
Cleaner labels. Products that rely on high-quality, naturally appealing ingredients can feature shorter, more recognizable ingredient lists. This builds consumer trust and meets clean-label expectations.
Authentic positioning. Brands can position their products as genuine supplements rather than candy with health claims. This differentiation helps command premium pricing and build lasting brand equity.
Better consumer trust. When consumers understand that the product works with the natural characteristics of beets rather than fighting them, trust increases. This trust translates into repeat purchases and positive word-of-mouth.
Regulatory readiness. As regulatory scrutiny of supplement claims and ingredients increases, products with cleaner formulations are better positioned to withstand scrutiny.
5.2 Practical Framework for Brand Evaluation
For brands considering a shift toward ingredient-driven quality, here is a practical framework:
| Dimension | Current Candy-First Approach | Ingredient-Driven Alternative |
|---|---|---|
| Flavor strategy | Mask earthy taste with sugar and artificial flavors | Source beets processed to reduce geosmin content |
| Sugar content | 2–4 grams per serving | 0.5–1 gram per serving |
| Ingredient list | Long, with artificial components | Short, with recognizable ingredients |
| Product positioning | "Tastes great!" | "Delivers results, with natural taste" |
| Consumer perception | Candy-like treat | Functional supplement |
| Competitive advantage | Flavor variety | Ingredient quality and transparency |
| Consumer segment | Sweet-tooth consumers | Health-conscious functional users |
5.3 Questions Every Brand Should Ask
Rather than asking "How can we make these gummies sweeter?" brands should consider:
What geosmin-reduction technologies are available in our ingredient supply chain?
How can we reduce sugar content by at least 50% while maintaining acceptable palatability?
Does our flavor profile signal "supplement" or "candy" to consumers?
Are we competing on quality or on taste alone?
What would our label look like if we prioritized ingredient integrity?
Would a clinical trial validate the effectiveness of our current formulation?
What percentage of our customers repurchase within 90 days?
Are our reviews primarily positive about taste, or about results?
5.4 Implementation Roadmap
For brands ready to make the shift, we recommend a phased approach:
Phase 1: Ingredient audit. Review current supply chain for geosmin-reduction capabilities. Identify suppliers offering deodorized beet powder or low-geosmin varieties.
Phase 2: Formulation optimization. Reformulate with a target of reducing added sugar by at least 50%. Test consumer acceptance of formulations that retain some natural beet character.
Phase 3: Clinical validation. Invest in clinical studies to validate health claims. Consumers trust claims backed by science, and clinical validation helps justify premium pricing.
Phase 4: Label and positioning update. Revise packaging and marketing to emphasize ingredient quality, not just taste. Train sales and customer service teams on the new positioning.
Phase 5: Consumer education. Educate consumers about why ingredient quality matters through blogs, videos, and social media. Share the story behind the ingredient improvements.
6. The Role of Content Strategy in Building Trust
6.1 Why EEAT Matters for Supplement Brands
In the digital age, a brand's online presence is its primary interface with consumers. Search engines like Google have developed sophisticated ranking algorithms that reward content demonstrating Experience, Expertise, Authority, and Trustworthiness (EEAT).
For supplement brands, EEAT is particularly important. Consumers searching for health-related information are seeking reliable, evidence-based guidance. Google's search quality rater guidelines explicitly state that medical and health-related content must demonstrate high levels of expertise and authority.
When a brand's content is primarily focused on flavor rather than ingredients, efficacy, and science, it fails the EEAT test. The brand may rank well for "tasty gummies" but poorly for "best beet supplement for blood pressure." This mismatch between search intent and content strategy represents a significant missed opportunity.
6.2 Content That Builds Trust
Effective content strategy for beet gummy brands should address the questions consumers are actually asking:
| Consumer Question | Trust-Building Content Response |
|---|---|
| "Do beet gummies actually work?" | Clinical study summaries |
| "Are beet gummies safe?" | Safety data, dosage guidance |
| "What's in beet gummies?" | Transparent ingredient explanations |
| "How much sugar?" | Clear nutritional information |
| "Why do beets taste bad?" | Explanation of geosmin and processing |
| "Which brand is best?" | Comparative quality analysis |
6.3 The Content Commitment
Research from HubSpot shows that companies that consistently publish 16+ blog posts per month generate approximately 3.5 times more traffic than those publishing fewer. For new websites, Google's crawl cycle typically ranges from 3 to 7 days. Maintaining a consistent publishing schedule of 2–3 posts per day trains the search engine crawler to visit regularly, improving indexing speed.
However, consistent publishing is not enough. Content must be substantive, well-researched, and genuinely helpful. According to Semrush data, the average word count of content appearing on page one of Google is approximately 1,447 words, with longer content generally performing better for informational queries.
Conclusion
The one-star reviewer who threw away "delicious candy" was making a point the industry should take seriously. When a supplement is perceived as candy, it ceases to function as a supplement in the consumer's mind. And in the end, the product—like the remainder of that "candy"—may end up in the trash.
The beet gummy industry stands at a crossroads. One path leads further down the candy road—more sugar, more masking flavors, and ultimately less credibility. The other path leads toward ingredient integrity—cleaner formulations, better processing, and products that consumers trust.
The choice should be clear. Market trends favor the ingredient-driven approach. Consumers increasingly demand clean labels, lower sugar, and authentic products. Regulators scrutinize supplement claims more closely than ever. And Google's EEAT framework rewards brands that demonstrate genuine expertise and trustworthiness.
Flavor may earn the first purchase. But ingredient quality earns long-term trust. The brands that will succeed in the evolving beet gummy market will be those that recognize this distinction. They will invest in better ingredients, cleaner formulations, and authentic positioning. They will understand that the goal is not to make beets taste like candy—it is to make beets taste like high-quality beets, with all their nutritional benefits intact.
The alternative is a category that takes its identity seriously: delicious, yes, but not just candy. A functional food that delivers genuine health benefits without sacrificing integrity. A product that earns trust one serving at a time.
That is the future we should be working toward. The industry has a choice: continue chasing the sugar rush, or invest in the ingredient quality that builds lasting consumer trust. The evidence is clear. The market is ready. The only question is whether brands will have the courage to change.