Go-Luo® (Monk Fruit Extract — Layn USA)

Evidence ratings on NutraSmarts are based on the totality of human clinical research, with emphasis on randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews. The references below directly support claims made throughout this page.

1. Kaim U, Labus K Monk Fruit Extract and Sustainable Health: A PRISMA-Guided Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Nutrients. 2025;17(9):1433. doi: 10.3390/nu17091433.PubMedUsed to support: Systematic review of randomised trials of monk fruit extract published 2015-2025. Across four databases the authors identified only five eligible trials: three single-session studies of sweetened drinks or yogurt in healthy or mixed insulin-sensitivity adults, and two Chinese trials of Luo Han Guo preparations for throat symptoms. They report that monk fruit is approved for use in the United States and China while its status is still under review in the European Union, that no serious adverse effects were seen, and they conclude that long-term clinical trials are still needed to confirm efficacy and safety. Its summary figures should not be relied on: the effect sizes and sample sizes it tabulates for the individual trials do not match what those trials themselves published, so the primary trials are the better guide.
2. Tey SL, Salleh NB, Henry J, Forde CG Effects of aspartame-, monk fruit-, stevia- and sucrose-sweetened beverages on postprandial glucose, insulin and energy intake International Journal of Obesity. 2017;41(3):450-457. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2016.225.PubMedUsed to support: Randomised crossover trial in 30 healthy men comparing aspartame-, monk fruit-, stevia- and sucrose-sweetened beverages (sucrose control 65 g) as a mid-morning preload before an ad libitum lunch. The sucrose drink produced a large glucose and insulin spike in the first hour while the sweetener drinks did not, but responses after the subsequent lunch were higher for the sweetener drinks, so total 3-hour glucose (P=0.960) and insulin (P=0.216) areas under the curve did not differ between the four beverages. Lunch intake was significantly higher after the non-nutritive sweeteners (P=0.010) and the calories saved were fully compensated, leaving total daily energy intake unchanged (P=0.831).
3. Wu J, Jian Y, Wang H, Huang H, Gong L, Liu G, Yang Y, Wang W A Review of the Phytochemistry and Pharmacology of the Fruit of Siraitia grosvenorii (Swingle): A Traditional Chinese Medicinal Food Molecules. 2022;27(19):6618. doi: 10.3390/molecules27196618.PubMedUsed to support: Narrative review of the phytochemistry and pharmacology of Siraitia grosvenorii fruit. It documents the mogrosides, with mogroside V the most abundant, as the basis of the fruit's intense sweetness, and records its long use in southern China as a sweetener and traditional remedy for lung congestion, sore throat and constipation. The pharmacological activities it catalogues — antioxidant, hypoglycaemic, anti-inflammatory, hepatoprotective, antibacterial — come from cell-culture and rodent experiments, at concentrations and doses well above what a sweetening amount provides, and are not human findings.
4. Huang H, Peng Z, Zhan S, Li W, Liu D, Huang S, Zhu Y, Wang W A comprehensive review of Siraitia grosvenorii (Swingle) C. Jeffrey: chemical composition, pharmacology, toxicology, status of resources development, and applications Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2024;15:1388747. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1388747.PubMedUsed to support: Comprehensive review of Siraitia grosvenorii covering chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology and commercial use. It confirms the regulatory history of mogroside sweeteners in the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and the United Kingdom, and summarises the animal toxicology: aqueous fruit extract caused no lasting harm or organ damage in mice, but mogroside preparations at 5 g/kg and above produced small increases in bone-marrow micronucleus frequency and sperm abnormalities, leading the authors to advise caution about possible genotoxicity at high doses. The pharmacological effects it lists beyond sweetness are drawn from cell and animal studies. Six of the eight authors were employed by a monk fruit sweetener manufacturer.
5. Tey SL, Salleh NB, Henry CJ, Forde CG Effects of non-nutritive (artificial vs natural) sweeteners on 24-h glucose profiles European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2017;71(9):1129-1132. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2017.37.PubMedUsed to support: Ten healthy men drank aspartame-, monk fruit-, stevia- or sucrose-sweetened beverages in randomised crossover order with continuous glucose monitoring. Mean 24-hour glucose, incremental and total glucose AUC and 24-hour glycaemic variability did not differ between any of the four drinks, indicating that swapping a single sugar-sweetened drink for a monk fruit-sweetened one had minimal effect on the day's glucose profile.
6. Almiron-Roig E, Navas-Carretero S, Castelnuovo G, Kjølbæk L, Romo-Hualde A, Normand M, et al. Impact of acute consumption of beverages containing plant-based or alternative sweetener blends on postprandial appetite, food intake, metabolism, and gastro-intestinal symptoms: Results of the SWEET beverages trial Appetite. 2023;184:106515. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2023.106515.PubMedUsed to support: Double-blind randomised crossover trial in 60 adults with overweight or obesity comparing 330 mL beverages sweetened with sweetener blends, including one containing mogroside V with stevia RebM, against an 8% sucrose control before a carbohydrate-rich breakfast. All blends lowered the 2-hour insulin iAUC compared with sucrose, but only the stevia RebA and sucralose blends significantly lowered the glucose iAUC; small differences in fullness and desire to eat did not translate into any difference in energy intake over the following 24 hours, and gastrointestinal symptoms were mostly mild. The mogroside V arm was a blend rather than monk fruit alone.
7. World Health Organization Use of non-sugar sweeteners: WHO guideline World Health Organization (WHO Guidelines Approved by the Guidelines Review Committee). 2023;Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023.PubMedUsed to support: WHO's 2023 guideline on non-sugar sweeteners issued a conditional recommendation against using them to control body weight or reduce the risk of noncommunicable disease, based on a systematic review finding no long-term benefit for body fat in adults or children and observational signals of higher risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and death. The recommendation covers all non-nutritive sweeteners not classified as sugars, which includes monk fruit, although monk fruit is not among the sweeteners WHO names as common examples or that were separately represented in the underlying evidence. WHO notes the recommendation is conditional, does not apply to people with pre-existing diabetes, and addresses weight and disease-risk claims rather than the safety of using a sweetener in place of sugar.
8. Smeets PA, Veit R, Oosterink E, Meijboom S, Risso D, Preissl H, Kullmann S Brain and physiological responses to flavored waters with different sweeteners: a randomized crossover study in healthy young adults American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2026;124(2):101401. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2026.101401.PubMedUsed to support: Randomised crossover study in 30 healthy adults given 500 mL of water or equisweet flavoured waters containing 25 g sucrose, sucralose, stevia extract, allulose plus stevia, or monk fruit extract. Only the sucrose drink raised blood glucose and insulin; the monk fruit drink did not. Hypothalamic blood flow was unaffected by any drink, and the monk fruit and sucralose drinks differed from sucrose in a reward-related midbrain region, showing that a monk fruit-sweetened drink behaves largely like water metabolically over the short term. One of the authors is employed by a sweetener manufacturer.