FSSAI crackdown revives debate over food labels, health claims and consumer protection - ChiniMandi
India’s food regulator has issued notices to more than 10 companies over alleged misleading claims and labelling violations, renewing concerns about whether current food labelling rules and penalties are. . .
India’s food regulator has issued notices to more than 10 companies over alleged misleading claims and labelling violations, renewing concerns about whether current food labelling rules and penalties are strong enough to protect consumers. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) said the companies were found to be in violation of provisions under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The action covers exaggerated health claims, deceptive branding, inaccurate labelling and complaints related to consumer information, The New Indian Express reported. Manufacturers have been directed to take corrective measures following the notices. The latest action, announced on June 19, covered products including Incipro Gold Power Vanilla, Korean Ginseng, Orville Mountain Bawarchi Baransh Squash, Alkaline Nutrient Water, Raw Pressery Alphonso Mango Drink and AS-IT-IS ATOM PWR Whey XL. According to the regulator, these products carried claims related to improved tolerance, brain development, weight loss, detoxification and faster recovery that were either misleading or lacked adequate scientific support. FSSAI also raised concerns over inaccurate declarations regarding ginseng content, serving sizes and product categorisation, while alleging that some products promoted health benefits not approved under existing regulations. Separate notices were issued in relation to products including Marico Saffola Total Heart Oil, Silken Tofu, MasterChow Ramen Noodles, Kinder Joy Coated Wafer Biscuits with Cocoa Spread, Pluckk Mango Fruit Juice and Natural Paneer. The regulator highlighted concerns over claims linked to fat absorption, anti-cancer benefits and descriptions such as “100% natural” and “organic”, which it said were misleading or not permitted under current rules. Additional observations included inaccurate vitamin disclosures, misleading composition details and front-of-pack statements such as “no added sugar”. The action has again drawn attention to the growing influence of packaging and front-of-pack messaging on consumer decisions. Consumer experts note that labels often shape purchasing behaviour, especially when products carry terms such as “healthy”, “natural” or “immunity-boosting”. Such descriptions can create a perception that products are inherently better choices even when nutritional information may suggest otherwise. Health concerns linked to misleading claims can be particularly significant for people managing conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, obesity and food allergies. Incorrect nutritional declarations or incomplete ingredient information may lead consumers to make choices that conflict with their dietary needs. India’s food safety framework is governed by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, along with the Advertising and Claims Regulations, 2018 and Labelling and Display Regulations, 2020. These rules require that labels and promotional material remain truthful, scientifically supported and not misleading. Products classified as misbranded can face penalties under Section 52 of the Act, which allows fines of up to ₹3 lakh. However, consumer rights groups and public health experts continue to question whether existing penalties are sufficient to discourage violations, particularly among large companies with extensive marketing budgets. Experts have called for stronger enforcement measures, more frequent monitoring, quicker action against repeat offenders and stricter penalties for repeated non-compliance. There have also been renewed calls for introducing front-of-pack warning labels similar to systems adopted in several countries, where products high in sugar, salt or saturated fat carry clear visual warnings intended to help consumers make faster and more informed choices. Public health advocates argue that such measures could improve transparency, reduce the impact of misleading marketing and encourage manufacturers to improve product formulations over time.