Health Halo or Health Hazard? Why 'Millet' and 'High-Fibre' Labels Don't Make a Product Real Food
Food companies slap 'healthy', 'natural', and 'high-fibre' on packets to charge 30% more — but a long ingredient list of refined starches, additives, and emulsifiers still makes a product ultra-processed, regardless of the front-of-pack cla
Expert insights
Dheeraj Garg · Founder, I M Healthy
Dheeraj Garg is the Founder of I M Healthy and author of 'The Secret to Good Health', applying 25 years of technology-sector systems thinking to science-backed personal wellness.
The short answer
Food manufacturers are profit-driven businesses with a responsibility to shareholders, not to consumers' health. Buzzwords such as 'millet', 'protein-rich', or 'no added sugar' on packaging can command a 30% price premium while the product remains ultra-processed by any meaningful definition. Consumers are advised to read ingredient lists, disregard front-of-pack marketing, and recognise that their health is ultimately their own responsibility.
The marketing trap
When 'Healthy' on the Packet Is Just a Pricing Strategy
Walk down any modern supermarket aisle and the language is aspirational: millet cookies, high-fibre breakfast cereals, protein-enriched snack bars, no-added-sugar beverages. What the bold front-of-pack type rarely reveals is the full ingredient declaration buried on the back.
The commercial logic is straightforward. Adding a small quantity of millets, a protein isolate, or a fibre supplement to an otherwise standard formulation — and printing the right words on the outer packaging — allows a food company to charge consumers 30% more than a comparable unbranded product, according to the source commentary. Whether the nutritional upgrade is meaningful is, as the argument goes, a separate question entirely.
Food businesses are structured to deliver returns to their shareholders. That is not a criticism; it is simply how corporations operate. The problem arises when consumers conflate a marketing claim with a health outcome — and pay a premium for it.
The ultra-processed reality
A Factory Origin and a Long Ingredient List Override the Health Halo
The term ultra-processed food has a fairly consistent definition in nutrition science: a product manufactured industrially, typically containing refined starches, added flavours, emulsifiers, sweeteners, and other additives that would not appear in a home kitchen.
By that standard, the presence of millet flour or added protein does not reclassify a product. If the manufacturing process strips nutrients, and the formulation rebuilds them partially through fortification or supplementation, the product's overall nutritional architecture remains closer to ultra-processed than to whole food.
Key identifiers consumers can look for on any label:
- Long ingredient lists with unfamiliar chemical or additive names
- Refined starches listed early (indicating high proportion by weight)
- Emulsifiers, stabilisers, and artificial or 'natural' flavourings
- Multiple forms of sweetener, including those marketed as 'no added sugar'
The front-of-pack claim and the ingredient declaration on the back can tell very different stories.
If tech taught me anything, it's that every system can be optimized… including health.
The consumer's role
Read the Ingredients, Not the Marketing Copy
The practical advice flowing from this argument is deliberately simple: read the ingredient list, not the packaging design. Ingredient declarations are listed in descending order of proportion by weight — meaning the first three or four ingredients define the bulk of what is actually being consumed.
A few principles worth applying at the point of purchase:
At the shelf
- If the ingredient list is long and contains multiple items you would not find in a home pantry, treat the product with scepticism regardless of health claims on the front.
- Prioritise products whose primary ingredients are recognisable whole foods.
- Do not assume a premium price signals superior nutrition — it may only signal superior marketing.
The broader point is one of consumer agency. Food companies are accountable to shareholders; health regulators set minimum safety standards. Neither constituency has the same stake in an individual consumer's long-term wellbeing that the consumer does. Informed label-reading is one of the few direct levers available.
The agri-business angle
Millet Premiums Are Real — But Dependent on Consumer Trust
For the Indian agri-supply chain, the 'health food' trend has created tangible demand signals. Procurement of jowar, bajra, ragi, and other coarse cereals by packaged-food manufacturers has grown as brands chase the functional-food segment. Farmers in millet-growing belts have, in some cases, benefited from improved farmgate prices linked to this branded demand.
However, the sustainability of those premiums depends on consumer trust in the health positioning of millet-based products. If widespread scepticism about health halos — of the kind articulated in this commentary — gains mainstream traction, or if regulatory intervention tightens front-of-pack claim standards, demand from the branded packaged-food segment could soften.
Agri-businesses and commodity traders dealing in functional-ingredient crops should therefore watch labelling regulation developments closely, as any tightening of permissible health claims would directly affect the category's volume projections and, by extension, procurement from farmers.
Why it matters
For Indian farmers and agri-businesses, the booming demand for 'functional' and 'millet-based' packaged foods presents a genuine market opportunity — but one increasingly shadowed by greenwashing concerns. If regulators and consumers grow sceptical of health halos, commodity premiums attached to millets, seeds, and functional ingredients could erode quickly. Policymakers working on front-of-pack nutrition labelling reforms should note that voluntary health claims, absent rigorous standards, may be doing more to inflate food company margins than to improve public nutrition outcomes.
Frequently asked
- Why can food companies charge 30% more just by adding health-related words to packaging?
- Adding small quantities of ingredients like millets or protein, and printing terms such as 'healthy', 'natural', or 'high-fibre' on packaging, allows companies to position a product in a premium health segment. The source notes this can justify charging 30% more, even if the underlying product's nutritional profile has not changed significantly.
- Does a millet or protein label mean a packaged product is genuinely healthy?
- Not necessarily. According to the source, if a product is manufactured in a factory and contains refined starches, additives, flavours, emulsifiers, or sweeteners — regardless of what the front of the packet claims — it still qualifies as an ultra-processed food.
- What should consumers actually look at when buying packaged food?
- The source recommends reading the ingredient list rather than trusting front-of-pack marketing. Ingredients are listed in descending order of weight, so the first few items reveal what the product is mainly made of. Long lists with unfamiliar additives are a key warning sign.
- What does this mean for Indian agri-businesses supplying millets to packaged-food companies?
- Demand for millets from branded food manufacturers has created some farmgate price benefits for coarse-cereal growers. However, that demand is tied to consumer belief in health positioning. If trust in health-label claims erodes, or if regulators tighten permissible front-of-pack claims, procurement volumes and associated premiums could come under pressure.
This is an original IndianAgri report. The analysis and India context are IndianAgri's own.