FSSAI crackdown sends food, beverage firms back to drawing board

India’s food and beverage companies are revisiting product labels, packaging and marketing claims as regulators intensify scrutiny of how everyday products are described to consumers.

From atta, paneer, tea and juices to biscuits, ghee, honey, chocolates and energy drinks, a widening range of consumer products is coming under the regulatory lens. The scrutiny is also extending beyond packaged foods to alcoholic beverages, including whisky.

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has stepped up action against claims and labelling practices that it considers potentially misleading. Companies are responding by reviewing packaging and marketing communication, while some have challenged regulatory action in court.


Also Read: Delhi HC stays FSSAI ban on Dabur's '100% purity' claims

Dabur and Diageo are among companies that have taken legal recourse against regulatory orders.

Much of the recent enforcement, however, does not stem from newly introduced regulations. Instead, companies are increasingly facing the implementation of standards that were framed and notified years ago, according to a TOI report by Rupali Mukherjee and Supriya Roy. Better testing infrastructure and a more developed regulatory ecosystem have also enabled authorities to monitor compliance more closely.


“When I joined FSSAI in 2016, only about 10-15% of the regulatory framework was in place. By the time I left four years later, nearly 90% of the regulations were in place. The gap between framing, notification and enforcement takes over a couple of years plus there was disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

“We are now seeing those regulations being implemented as the country’s food regulatory ecosystem evolves,” said former FSSAI chief executive Pawan Agarwal, speaking to TOI.

Agarwal said provisions dealing with misleading claims have existed in law for years, but are now receiving greater attention as regulators focus on how consumers interpret product claims.

Also Read: FSSAI directs PIE FOODS to immediately stop selling two products

“If regulators are questioning terms such as ‘energy’ or claims like ‘100% pure’, it is because they could create an impression that may not be fully substantiated, particularly for children in the case of energy drinks, for example. In a highly competitive market, brands often try to differentiate themselves through strong marketing claims, and that is where regulatory scrutiny is increasing.”

The scrutiny is also being amplified by changes in consumer behaviour. Consumers are paying closer attention to labels, while social media influencers, nutrition experts, consumer groups and independent testing are increasing scrutiny of products.

“Consumers today are reading labels far more closely than they did a few years ago. Social media influencers, nutrition experts and consumer groups are actively scrutinising products and questioning claims. Independent product testing has also become more common. For companies, the consequences go well beyond the regulatory notice,” an industry veteran told TOI.

For companies, regulatory action can have consequences beyond compliance costs. Packaging may have to be redesigned, marketing campaigns altered and product launches delayed. Companies could also face disruption to sales, reputational damage and a loss of consumer confidence.

The impact is already visible in online retail. Court documents show that Blinkit told Dabur it would disable listings of products affected by regulatory action, including honey, coconut water, coconut milk and apple cider vinegar.

Energy drinks are another major flashpoint.



FSSAI has directed Red Bull, Sting Energy and Hell Energy to remove the term ‘energy’ from their labels, marketing material and advertisements within 90 days. The move has put the spotlight on a beverage category estimated at Rs 13,000 crore.

Industry players maintain that the dispute is about the clarity of product labelling rather than the safety of the products themselves. In the case of energy drinks, an industry player pointed out that caffeine levels of 70-80 mg per 250 ml are within limits permitted under Indian and international regulations.

The industry has indicated that companies could strengthen warnings on cans, including clearer messaging that such drinks are not recommended for children, pregnant or lactating women and individuals sensitive to caffeine, if required by the regulator.

The wider direction of regulation appears to be towards simpler and more transparent communication, with companies facing increasing pressure to ensure that product descriptions and claims can be clearly understood and supported by evidence.

“As the regulatory landscape evolves, the industry will continue to adapt. We see this as an opportunity to further strengthen consumer confidence through responsible, fact-based and transparent communication and labelling. Any communication with consumers should be consistent with applicable regulations and supported by evidence,” a Nestlé India spokesperson said.

The debate is also moving towards front-of-pack disclosures and the nutritional composition of packaged foods.

“The bigger issue remains unresolved. India still does not have clearly defined nutrient thresholds for foods high in sugar, salt or saturated fat (HFSS),” said Arun Gupta, paediatrician and convener of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest, a national think tank on nutrition.

Public health experts, parliamentary committees and the Economic Survey have in recent years pushed for stronger front-of-pack information to help consumers make more informed choices about packaged foods.

In February this year, the Supreme Court also recommended prominent front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods high in sugar, salt or saturated fat, Gupta said.

For the food industry, this raises a broader question over how much companies will need to change their labels, claims and marketing practices as enforcement intensifies.

The regulatory scrutiny is not confined to food and non-alcoholic beverages. The liquor industry has also raised concerns over FSSAI action involving alcoholic products.

Industry representatives argue that such products have been sold for years under FSSAI licences and state excise label registrations. Their contention is that if the regulator wants companies to change labels or product descriptions, firms should receive clear directions and sufficient time to redesign packaging and manage products already in the market.

InBrew Beverages’ Bagpiper Deluxe Whisky and Old Cask Deluxe XXX Rum have also come under FSSAI scrutiny. The company has maintained that the dispute concerns the regulator’s interpretation of existing rules on flavouring rather than compliance with a newly introduced standard.

With enforcement becoming more visible across categories, companies are increasingly being pushed to reassess how they describe and market products, while regulators face the challenge of balancing stricter consumer protection with clear, predictable compliance requirements for industry.

With inputs from TOI