What’s in a word? For India's FMCG brands, it's increasingly everything

A packet of atta promising “100%”, a snack calling itself “healthy”, or a drink selling “energy” has long been familiar territory for FMCG marketers. A few words on the front label can reassure a shopper, set one product apart and help make the sale.

But these very words are now attracting a different kind of attention.

Across packaged food and beverages, regulators are looking more closely at what companies say about their products — from “natural” and “fresh” to “immunity”, “100%” and “no added sugar”. What was once largely a branding decision is increasingly becoming a matter for lawyers, regulatory specialists and senior officials.


The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) said in August that it had issued more than 150 notices in recent months over misleading advertisements, false claims and non-compliance with labelling rules. Nestle India, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola India, Mondelez India and Abbott India were among several large companies that received notices.

The regulatory push has also taken a broader turn, with FSSAI proposing a new front-of-pack warning system for packaged foods.

According to a PTI report, the regulator told the Supreme Court that it had proposed to provide a prominent front-of-pack warning label in red for food products that are high in added saturated fat, added sugar and salt. In a compliance affidavit filed before the apex court, the regulator said it is proposed that front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FoPNL) would be implemented in phases to facilitate consumer acceptability and provide industry adequate time for reformulation.

Also Read: FSSAI open to stricter warning labels as SC presses for food safety

It said that phase I would cover products high in two or more specified nutrients — added saturated fat, added sugar and salt — and specified sweetened beverages, while phase II would extend the warning to products high in any one of these nutrients.

Where does the legal line lie?

The sharpest risk, lawyers say, comes with absolute claims.

“Brands that use absolute superlative claims such as ‘100% Organic’, ‘No Sugar’, ‘Chemical-Free’ or ‘Whole Wheat’ are facing increased regulatory scrutiny,” said Ankush Bhardwaj, Managing Partner at Ace Lex (Advocates & Solicitors).

“Companies and brands should obtain independent claim verification from credible, reputable third-party agencies to substantiate their claims,” he said, adding that comparative claims should be backed by market surveys or consumer research and be “accurate, evidence-based and compliant with regulatory requirements”.

The question of how far such claims can go is playing out in the courts. According to an ET report, in August 2026, the Delhi High Court restrainedthe FSSAI from taking any steps to cancel ITC's licence for failing to comply with its order to remove the claim "100% Atta, 100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat, 0% Maida" from the label of its Aashirvaad MP Chakki Atta.

Also Read: Food and beverage cos rush to revise recipes ahead of warning labels

ITC had challenged the FSSAI's May 28, 2025 advisory, which asked food business operators (FBOs) to discontinue the use of the term "100%" on food product labels, packaging and promotional material, arguing that it is arbitrary and beyond the regulator’s powers.

ITC did not provide any comments by the time of publication.

For consumers, the concern is what these claims ultimately communicate about a product. Revant Himatsingka, popularly known as FoodPharmer, expects companies to become more guarded. “With stricter regulations, companies will have no choice but to be a little more cautious and paint a more accurate picture of what they’re providing,” he said.

On the changing labelling landscape, a Nestlé India spokesperson told ET Online: “We believe consumers should have access to clear and meaningful information to make informed choices. We have consistently supported this through our ongoing GDA declaration initiatives. We remain committed to complying with all applicable regulatory requirements and providing transparent product information in line with prevailing laws and regulations.”

What scrutiny means for companies

In August, FSSAI said somecompanies had taken corrective action following notices over misleading labels and claims, including withdrawing claims, revising packaging, delisting products and removing advertisements.

For companies asked to change or withdraw claims, the consequences can go beyond regulatory penalties.

“If a company is unable to substantiate the claims made about its product and the regulator directs that the claims be modified or withdrawn, it may face significant consequences beyond regulatory penalties,” Bhardwaj said. These can include the cost of revising packaging and labels, withdrawing advertisements and a possible hit to brand goodwill.

Also Read: Consumers deserve nutritional information on food packs; industry backs FSSAI move: Orkla India

Smaller and D2C companies may feel the burden more because they often have fewer legal, scientific and regulatory resources, although Bhardwaj said many are now hiring specialists or using external advisers.

“With the advent of technology in the compliance landscape, product claims can now be verified within reasonable and commercially acceptable timelines,” he said.

From packaging desk to boardroom

Food safety, compliance and label claims are also increasingly becoming CEO- and board-level discussions, with some companies putting more resources into compliance and quality checks as reputational risks rise, according to an Economic Times report.

Executives mentioned that global headquarters of many multi-national companies are now diverting funds from marketing in order to improve regulatory compliance. Ashwin Bhadri, founder of Equinox Labs, told Economic Times, "We have some founders telling us they're reducing budgets on marketing to allocate toward quality checks, since they believe these are non-negotiable, and they don't want to take risks on vigilance."

A revealing example is the mandatory water potability test by FSSAI as per the official IS 10500 standard. Bhadri saidthat earlier, most companies employed cheaper tests but recently, more and more companies are complying to the IS 10500 test standards.

According to a LabelBlind Solutions study, a food labelling solutions platform, which analysed 5,058 labelling claims across 586 packaged food products available between January and June last year, found that 33.6% of claims were either non-compliant or lacked adequate substantiation under FSSAI regulations, ASCI advertising guidelines, and relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Of the total claims analysed, 21.3% were classified as non-compliant and 12.3% required brand verification.

The study highlighted that while non-compliance was not unique to any specific category, some categories did stand out. Plant based beverages recorded a staggering 29% non-compliance and snacks 27.3%. These categories are worryingly everyday staples which are consumed by children and families.

How does India compare?

Regulatory approaches vary across countries, and Himatsingka said the reasons behind those differences are many and fairly complex.

The EU’s food regulations are viewed as among the strictest in the world, with a precautionary approach to food safety. Even an indication of a potential safety concern in scientific research can prompt restrictions on an ingredient while further research is carried out.

Also Read: From Maggi to Thums Up, India's food debate turns to what global brands sell here

The US permits a wider range of food additives than the EU. Its approach is more permissive, with an additive generally remaining allowed unless strong scientific evidence comes out showing it’s harmful. Red No. 3 offers one example of how the two systems can move differently. The EU restricted its use in 1994, while the US has moved to phase it out of their food supply by 2027. Erythrosine remains permitted for specified uses in India.

In India, Himatsingka said, the approach tends to be more reactive, with changes often coming after an issue has attracted significant public attention. But there are signs of movement. FSSAI’s proposed FoPNL system for foods high in added sugar, salt and saturated fat marks a significant policy shift and something a lot of countries still don’t have.

The way forward is to look at the back

For Himatsingka, stricter rules are only one part of the answer.

“I would simply turn the pack around and look at two things, namely, the ingredients and the nutrition facts label,” he said.

The ingredient list, he said, gives shoppers a clearer sense of what makes up the product, while the nutrition panel shows sugar, sodium, protein, fibre and calories. Serving size matters too, because what someone actually eats may be more than the quantity used for the nutrition numbers on the pack.

For years, the biggest words on the front of the packhave done much of the selling. Increasingly, consumers may need to look beyond those claims to the ingredients and nutrition information on the back.