Berry Misleading: What’s Really Inside Your ‘Healthy’ Foods

You had me at buckwheat.

I’m a sucker for nutrient-dense grains with ancient origins and a modern health halo. Buckwheat is earthy, naturally gluten-free, and quietly powerful—a true hero among grains. So when I spotted a box of waffles boldly labeled “Buckwheat Wildberry,” I was sold. The name alone hit all the right notes: wholesome, functional, and even a little rustic. Add in the promise of wild berries, and it felt like a win.

But it turns out, the only wild thing here was the stretch in marketing.

Waffles with a Side of Misdirection

One common tactic in food marketing is spotlighting trendy or wholesome-sounding ingredients in the product name—even when those ingredients play a minor role in the actual recipe. Take Nature’s Path Gluten Free Buckwheat Wildberry waffles. The name suggests buckwheat is the primary grain and that the waffles contain a medley of wild berries. But a closer look tells a different story.

Buckwheat flour is buried seventh on the ingredient list—behind water, brown rice flour, potato starch, tapioca starch, cane sugar, soy oil, and yellow corn flour. Several other flours and starches are present in larger quantities, making the “buckwheat” emphasis potentially misleading.

The “wildberry” part doesn’t hold up much better. Despite the name and the front-of-pack photo featuring blueberries and raspberries, the only berry mentioned in the ingredients is blueberry, and it appears as part of a fruit purée blend that includes apple juice concentrate. There’s no raspberry at all—and certainly no indication of wild sourcing.

This is a classic case of ingredient inflation, where product names elevate minor ingredients into starring roles they simply don’t play. While technically legal, it walks a fine line between marketing and misrepresentation—especially for health-conscious shoppers trying to make informed decisions.

This wasn’t the only time I got duped.

Same Brand, Same Berries, Same Trick

I love a good berry spread—but not when it turns out to be sugar water in disguise.

When my usual fruit spread wasn’t on the grocery shelves, I reached for a familiar brand: Smucker’s. I picked up a bottle labeled “Reduced Sugar,” featuring the same comforting red checkered lid, juicy strawberries, and a promise of “no artificial sweeteners.” I assumed I was getting the same quality, just in a different format.

Think again.

My regular go-to, Smucker’s Low Sugar Strawberry Preserves, lists strawberries as the first ingredient, followed by sugar and water. But the bottle I grabbed—Smucker’s Reduced Sugar Strawberry Fruit Spread—lists water and sugarfirst, with strawberries only in third place. Despite nearly identical sugar content and calories per serving, the foundations of the two products are entirely different. One is fruit-forward. The other is, quite literally, sugar water thickened with gums and gel agents.

This subtle switch is easy to miss. Both products promise 50% less sugar, both use nostalgic packaging, and both sit on the same shelf. Yet one gives you whole fruit as the base, and the other dilutes it.

Food Labels, Lawsuits, and the Cost of Convenience

Unfortunately, these aren’t isolated cases. Major food and beverage brands regularly walk the line between clever marketing and outright deception—sometimes crossing it entirely.

Kellogg’s recently faced a class-action lawsuit for prominently featuring images of strawberries on cereals like Frosted Flakes and Rice Krispies that contain no strawberries at all [1]. Consumers argued the imagery gave a false impression of fruit content, and the case highlighted how powerful packaging visuals can override what's actually in the box.

Clif Bar, long branded as a wholesome snack, settled a $12 million lawsuit after being accused of marketing its bars as nutritious while failing to disclose that a significant portion of calories came from added sugar [2]. The bars were positioned as fuel for energy and performance—but for some, it was more like a sugary disguise.

Even newer health-focused brands aren’t immune. Poppi, a trendy prebiotic soda company, was sued for falsely advertising its drinks as supporting gut health, despite each can containing only 2 grams of prebiotic fiber—far below the threshold typically associated with digestive benefits [3].

Don’t Just Trust the Label—Interrogate It

These examples—from waffles to fruit spreads to sodas—are part of a larger trend: health-washing. That’s when brands dress up processed products in “natural,” “reduced sugar,” or “superfood” language while downplaying the less appealing truth. They rely on our assumptions, our shopping habits, and our trust in branding to do the heavy lifting. And we’re left with food that looks healthy on the outside but doesn’t deliver on the inside.

Your best defense? Read past the front. The ingredient list doesn’t lie—it just waits patiently to be noticed. If water and sugar beat out the ingredient in the name, that’s a red flag. And if the product relies on nostalgic branding or vague health claims, it’s worth a second thought.

Because in the food industry, familiar packaging doesn’t guarantee familiar values. And sometimes, your favorite berry product turns out to be more syrup than strawberry.

References

[1] Top Class Actions – “Kellogg’s class action alleges cereal packaging falsely advertised strawberries.” January 21, 2025.
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/kelloggs-class-action-alleges-cereal-packaging-falsely-advertised-strawberries/ topclassactions.com

[2] The Sun – “Clif Bar fans to get cash payment from $12 million settlement after company was sued over information on food labels.” October 3, 2024.
https://www.the-sun.com/money/12599874/clif-bar-settlement-cash-payment-lawsuit/ the-sun.com

[3] People – “Poppi ‘Prebiotic Soda’ Sued on Claims of Consumer Fraud, ‘False and Misleading Advertising’.”June 3, 2024.
https://people.com/poppi-soda-sued-for-claims-of-consumer-fraud-8657408