In yet another crackdown, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has issued notices to over 10 companies for misleading claims and labelling violations. The regulator said these companies violated provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The notice covers exaggerated health claims, deceptive brand names, incorrect labelling, and other consumer complaints.
Food business operators have now been directed to take corrective measures. However, the bigger question is not whether labels and marketing terms such as "healthy", "natural", "immunity-boosting" or even product names themselves can mislead consumers into believing a food is safer or healthier than it actually is, but whether India's labelling laws and penalties are adequate.
On June 19th, FSSAI issued notices to manufacturers of 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. The regulator flagged claims relating to improved tolerance, brain development, weight loss, detoxification and rapid recovery as misleading or lacking scientific backing.
It also pointed to incorrect declarations of ginseng content, serving sizes and product categories, besides alleging that some products promoted unapproved health benefits.
The food regulator directed manufacturers of products such as 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 to address alleged labelling and advertising violations. These included claims on fat absorption, anti-cancer benefits, and descriptions such as "100% natural" and "organic", which the regulator said were misleading or prohibited. It also raised concerns over inaccurate vitamin information, misleading composition details, and front-of-pack claims, such as "no added sugar", which were found to be in violation of advertising regulations.
Why labels matter
The problem of deceptive marketing is more serious than you think. For those unversed, or even laymen, information on the label is what matters. Moreover, consumers rely on front-of-pack claims because, for whatever reasons, that looks and sounds appealing and serious.
When a consumer sees words like "healthy" and "natural" on products, it creates something called a "health halo", a psychologial effect where the consumer will automatically assume it is legitimate. On the other hand, the nutrition facts may tell a whole different story. But nobody digs deeper than just reading the label for nutrition values, directions to use, and how to use.
So, companies often use these terms loosely in marketing and do not always have a clear, universally accepted definition that tells consumers exactly what they are getting.
Who is most at risk?
False or misleading labels constitute "misbranding" under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and are prohibited under FSSAI's Advertising and Claims Regulations, 2018 and Labelling and Display Regulations, 2020.
Talking about those who are suffering from diabetes, hypertension, and obesity and, in general, people with allergies, misleading labels could be a game changer in the worst possible way. An incorrect “No Sugar” claim can put a diabetic person into a dangerous situation, spiking his sugar levels. Similarly, hypertensive patients may miss sodium levels, obese individuals may consume "healthy" snacks in excess and people with allergies can be affected by poor ingredient declarations.
Are existing penalties enough?
India's food safety framework is governed by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, along with the FSSAI's Advertising and Claims Regulations, 2018 and Labelling and Display Regulations, 2020.
These rules prohibit misleading or exaggerated claims and require manufacturers to ensure that labels and advertisements are truthful, scientifically substantiated and not likely to deceive consumers. Products found to be falsely labelled or misbranded can attract penalties under Section 52 of the Act, which prescribes a fine of up to Rs. 3 lakh.
However, public health experts and consumer rights advocates have often questioned whether such penalties are sufficient to deter violations, particularly for large food companies with extensive product portfolios and marketing budgets.
They argue that the financial consequences may be too small compared to the commercial gains from aggressive advertising and misleading health claims. Experts have therefore called for stricter enforcement, including frequent surveillance, faster action against repeat offenders and tougher penalties for persistent violations.
There have also been renewed demands for the introduction of front-of-pack warning labels, similar to systems adopted in countries such as Chile, Mexico and Brazil. Such labels, which prominently warn consumers when a product is high in sugar, salt or saturated fat, are aimed at helping buyers make informed choices at a glance.
Public health experts say warning labels could counter misleading marketing and improve transparency, while encouraging manufacturers to reformulate products to make them healthier.