everykind

Flavour enhancers, maltodextrin and ultra-processed food

· 3 min read

Flip a packet of flavoured chips or makhana and you'll often see something like "flavour enhancers (INS 627, INS 631), maltodextrin, nature-identical flavouring substances." It's tempting to treat each of these as a problem. The evidence points somewhere more useful.

What the INS numbers mean

Indian labels list additives by their class and an INS number. FSSAI requires this, so you might see "Preservative (INS 211)" for sodium benzoate. A few common ones on snacks:

  • INS 621: monosodium glutamate (MSG).
  • INS 627 and 631: disodium guanylate and disodium inosinate. They're often used alongside MSG or yeast extract.
  • INS 551: silicon dioxide, an anti-caking agent.
  • INS 330: citric acid.

Is MSG harmful?

Probably less than its reputation suggests. When EFSA reviewed glutamates in 2017, it set a safe daily intake level. It couldn't find reliable evidence for the "MSG symptom complex" at normal intakes, though some very high consumers might exceed the limit. In India, packs with added MSG must say it's not recommended for infants under 12 months or pregnant women.

Maltodextrin

Maltodextrin is a starch broken down into short chains. It digests about as fast as glucose. In seasonings it's a carrier, used in small amounts. It isn't harmful in itself, but it shows up mostly in highly formulated foods.

"Nature-identical flavouring"

FSSAI recognises three kinds of flavouring: natural, nature-identical and artificial. Nature-identical means made in a lab, but chemically the same as a molecule found in nature. There's no specific safety signal here. It's simply a sign that the taste comes from flavouring, not only from the ingredients.

Why the pattern matters more

No single one of these additives has strong evidence against it at normal intakes. But together they're markers of ultra-processed food (UPF): products formulated mostly from refined ingredients and additives.

  • A 2024 umbrella review in the BMJ pulled together 45 meta-analyses. It found consistent links between eating more UPF and poorer outcomes for heart health, metabolic health and mental health. These are observational studies, but the pattern held across many of them.
  • In a controlled inpatient trial, people offered ultra-processed meals ate about 500 more calories a day than when offered unprocessed meals matched for sugar, salt, fat and fibre.
  • ICMR-NIN's 2024 Dietary Guidelines for Indians specifically ask people to minimise ultra-processed foods and those high in fat, sugar and salt.

Emulsifiers: an area to watch

Some emulsifiers, such as carboxymethylcellulose and polysorbate 80, changed gut bacteria in mice. A small 11-day human trial found similar effects from carboxymethylcellulose. Large French cohorts have linked some emulsifiers with heart disease and diabetes. These are early signals, not settled conclusions.

How Everykind labels it

Our amber "Ultra-processed markers" tag appears when a product contains flavour enhancers, added flavourings, maltodextrin, emulsifiers, colours or sweeteners. It doesn't say any one ingredient is unsafe. It tells you the product is built more in a factory than in a kitchen. Right now, one product in our catalog carries it: a seasoned makhana whose seasoning lists maltodextrin, flavourings and flavour enhancers.

Sources

This is a summary of published research, not medical advice. Related tags on our standard: Ultra-processed markers.