Tag: FSSAI

Categories
Beyond

FSSAI flags Nestlé, HUL over misleading food claims

India’s food safety regulator has issued notices to Nestlé India and Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) over alleged misleading claims and labelling issues involving several food and nutrition products. The action covers Horlicks nutrition drinks, Nescafé ready-to-drink coffee beverages and a specialised nutritional powder marketed by Nestlé.

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) said it had identified potential violations involving product claims, online descriptions, mandatory labelling and regulatory approvals. The companies have been asked to respond within the stipulated period, with further action possible depending on their explanations.

The notices bring renewed attention to how food and nutrition products are marketed in India, particularly when packaging makes claims about health benefits, pregnancy, bone strength or specialised dietary needs. Such claims can influence consumer choices, making accuracy and compliance with food safety regulations important.

FSSAI’s action against HUL concerns two Horlicks products: Horlicks Women’s Plus Chocolate Nutrition Drink and Horlicks Mother’s Plus Kesar. Nestlé India has been flagged over its Nescafé ready-to-drink beverages and Resource Renal Vanilla Flavour Powder.

In the case of Horlicks Women’s Plus Chocolate Nutrition Drink, FSSAI questioned claims including “Nutrition for Strong Bones”, “Clinically Proven to Help Improve Bone Strength in 6 Months” and “Improves Bone Health”. The regulator said these claims were misleading or did not comply with the applicable food safety regulations.

The authority also raised concerns over the use of the term “Healthy Muscles”, saying it contravened rules governing the use of the word “healthy” in food-related claims.

Another issue involved the product’s “No Added Sugar” claim. FSSAI questioned whether this statement could mislead consumers because the formulation contains maltodextrin. The regulator also flagged deficiencies in the nutritional information table and raised concerns about a claim that the product provides 100% of the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of calcium, vitamin D and K2.

The concerns highlight the importance of presenting nutritional information clearly and ensuring that health-related statements comply with prescribed standards. Consumers often rely on front-of-pack claims when comparing products, making it important that such information accurately reflects the product and its ingredients.

HUL’s Horlicks Mother’s Plus Kesar product has also come under scrutiny. FSSAI questioned claims relating to “Healthy Birth Weight” on the packaging and “For baby’s healthy birth weight” in advertisements.

The regulator said these statements could give consumers the impression that the product itself ensures a particular health outcome. It also flagged promotional descriptions used on e-commerce platforms for allegedly failing to meet applicable requirements.

These notices are significant because nutrition products marketed to pregnant and breastfeeding women may influence decisions about maternal nutrition and infant health. Such products must follow the rules governing food advertising and claims rather than imply benefits that are not permitted under the regulations.

Nestlé India’s Nescafé ready-to-drink products have faced a separate set of questions. The regulator identified inconsistencies in the descriptions of Nescafé Intense Café Cappuccino, Nescafé Choco Mocha and Nescafé Chilled Latte sold through online platforms.

According to FSSAI, the front of the packaging described the beverages as “Flavoured Milk”, while the back label and online descriptions classified them as “Proprietary Food – 1.12 Dairy Based Drink”. The regulator questioned the mismatch between the product descriptions and the declared food category.

Nestlé India has also received a notice concerning Resource Renal Vanilla Flavour Powder, intended for the dietary management of people with conservatively treated chronic kidney disease.

FSSAI said the product required prior approval under the regulations governing specialised foods for medical purposes. The regulator alleged that the necessary approval had not been obtained. It also flagged the absence of the mandatory vegetarian or non-vegetarian symbol on the product label.

These requirements are particularly relevant for specialised nutrition products intended for people managing medical conditions, as their composition, labelling and permitted use are subject to specific rules.

HUL has said its two products comply with applicable requirements and that it will provide scientific and regulatory evidence to the authorities. Nestlé India had not immediately responded to a request for comment in reports published after the notices were issued.

The notices do not, by themselves, establish the final outcome of the cases. The companies have an opportunity to explain their positions, and the regulator may decide on further action after reviewing their responses.

For consumers, the episode is a reminder to look beyond prominent claims on food packaging and check ingredient lists, nutritional information and product descriptions. For manufacturers, it underlines the need to ensure that advertising, packaging and online listings remain consistent with food safety rules.

FSSAI’s action also signals continued regulatory scrutiny of the food industry, particularly products that make health and nutrition claims. The outcome of the proceedings will determine what further steps, if any, the regulator takes against the companies.

 

Categories
Beyond

PepsiCo, Monster, Reliance get relief on energy drink labels

PepsiCo, Monster Beverage and Reliance Consumer Products have received temporary relief in their battle with India’s food safety regulator over the use of the term “energy drink” on high-caffeine beverages, easing immediate pressure on three major companies operating in the country’s fast-growing drinks market.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday put on hold the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) directive for the companies, allowing them to sell existing products carrying the disputed “energy drink” label. However, PepsiCo and Monster have been told they cannot manufacture fresh products with the same description while the legal proceedings continue. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on November 5.

The dispute dates back to June 30, when FSSAI directed manufacturers of high-caffeine beverages being marketed as “energy drinks” to stop using the description. The regulator also directed food safety officials to take action against products carrying the label.

The decision quickly turned into a business issue for beverage companies, which said they already had large quantities of finished products and packaging carrying the disputed description. Removing the label or replacing packaging at short notice could mean significant costs, while products already moving through distributors and retailers could be affected.

Reliance Consumer Products was among the first companies to challenge the action. The company told the court that the FSSAI directive had disrupted its operations and put a substantial amount of inventory and packaging at risk.

Reliance said it had 168 million cans and 120 million plastic bottles of finished products carrying the “Energy Drink” label. It also had pre-printed packaging for another 400 million cans and 360 million bottles. The company said some stock had been seized by state authorities and that e-commerce platforms had been asked to remove affected products.

The Delhi High Court had earlier granted Reliance interim protection and questioned why the company had not received a notice from FSSAI before the order was passed. The court subsequently extended relief to PepsiCo and Monster as their separate petitions came up for hearing.

The order gives Reliance more breathing room for its Campa beverage business, which has become an important part of the company’s consumer products strategy. Reliance revived the Campa brand in 2023 and has since used its large retail network and competitive pricing to take on established players such as Coca-Cola and PepsiCo.

The energy drink segment is particularly important because it has been expanding rapidly in India. Retail sales in the category are growing at about 12.6% a year, according to Euromonitor data cited by Reuters, putting India among the faster-growing major markets for such beverages. The market is projected to reach around $1.6 billion by 2028.

That growth has also increased the importance of branding and product positioning. PepsiCo sells products including Sting Energy and Adrenaline Rush, while Monster markets Monster Energy. Reliance has been building its presence with Campa Energy Drink, making the labelling dispute relevant to companies competing for a larger share of the same consumer market.

The FSSAI, meanwhile, has defended its broader regulatory approach by pointing to concerns around the way high-caffeine beverages are presented to consumers. The regulator’s action forms part of a wider food safety push involving product labelling, ingredient disclosures and consumer protection. FSSAI has argued that the “energy drink” description can create an impression that caffeine provides nutritional energy, while caffeine primarily acts as a stimulant.

The companies have challenged the regulator’s approach, particularly its implementation and the potential commercial consequences. PepsiCo had earlier told the court that hundreds of millions of labelled bottles and cans were already in circulation, making an abrupt change particularly costly.

The dispute has now expanded beyond Reliance, PepsiCo and Monster. Red Bull has also received judicial relief in a separate case, highlighting the wider uncertainty facing the energy drink industry over product descriptions and regulatory compliance.

Tuesday’s court intervention does not settle the underlying question. It simply gives companies time to continue selling affected inventory while the legal challenge proceeds. The distinction between existing stock and new manufacturing is also significant, particularly for companies planning production and packaging schedules.

The outcome could have wider implications for India’s beverage industry. A final ruling may influence how manufacturers describe caffeinated drinks, how packaging is designed and how companies manage regulatory changes across their supply chains.

The immediate focus will be keeping Campa products moving through its extensive retail network without another major disruption. PepsiCo and Monster face a similar challenge as they manage existing inventory while waiting for greater clarity.

The November 5 hearing could therefore become an important point for the industry. Until then, the court’s interim relief offers the beverage companies some stability, but the larger question over how India should regulate and label high-caffeine drinks remains unresolved.

 

Categories
Beyond

FSSAI proposes warning labels on packaged foods

The next time shoppers pick up a packet of biscuits, breakfast cereal, snacks or a ready-to-eat food, a red warning on the front could make an important part of the choice much easier.

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has proposed a single-phase rollout of Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling (FoPNL) for packaged foods that exceed prescribed limits for nutrients such as added sugar, added fat and salt. The proposal was placed before the Supreme Court as the regulator responded to questions raised by the court over its earlier two-phase plan.

Under the revised proposal, a packaged food product could carry a warning even if it is high in just one nutrient of concern. This marks a change from FSSAI’s earlier approach, under which the first phase would have covered products high in two or more specified nutrients, followed by a second phase for products exceeding the limit for any one nutrient.

The proposed warning will appear as a red hexagon on a white square background on the front of the package. It would identify the nutrient that crosses the prescribed limit, with possible declarations such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR” and “HIGH SALT”. Specified sweetened beverages could also carry a warning.

The thresholds are proposed to be based on the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN). FSSAI has proposed distinguishing between added sugar and total sugar, as well as added fat and other forms of fat, while deciding the applicable limits.

The label is intended to be prominent enough to catch a consumer’s attention before the product reaches the checkout counter. FSSAI has proposed that the warning text be displayed in a font size at least one point larger than the font used in the nutrition information table on the back of the pack.

The proposal comes amid a Supreme Court case concerning mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling. In its September 10 order, the court sought greater clarity from FSSAI on several aspects of the proposed system, including nutrient thresholds, the design and size of warnings, pictorial representations, sweetened beverages, additives and nutritional awareness among children.

The court had also questioned the logic of initially warning only products that crossed the limit for two or more nutrients. That prompted FSSAI to reconsider the rollout and propose a single-phase system covering products high in even one nutrient of concern.

Nutrition labelling has become a growing part of the public health debate as consumers increasingly look for clearer information about the contents of packaged food. Front-of-pack labelling is designed to make such information easier to understand without requiring shoppers to study the detailed nutrition table on the reverse side.

The Supreme Court has also raised questions about children’s nutritional literacy, including how schools could help young people understand nutrition information and make sense of food labels.

The proposed rules will not come into force immediately. FSSAI has said it would need around four months to prepare and finalise the draft regulations. The draft would then go through a mandatory 60-day consultation process, including stakeholder and World Trade Organization consultations, before the regulations are finalised and notified.

Once the final rules are notified, food businesses would get 365 days to comply with the new front-of-pack labelling requirements.

FSSAI said the transition period is intended to prevent commercial difficulties for food businesses that already have large quantities of pre-printed packaging. The regulator has also indicated that the timeline takes into account the need to avoid unnecessary disruption to trade and manufacturing.

The questions system could therefore bring a visible change to supermarket shelves, but the exact rules are still being worked out.

Several remain, including the final nutrient thresholds, the precise design and size of the warning, treatment of saturated and trans fats, the classification of sweetened beverages and how ultra-processed foods should be handled. The Supreme Court has also sought clarity on whether reformulation to reduce sugar, salt or fat could lead manufacturers to increase other ingredients or additives.

If finalised, the new front-of-pack warning labels would give consumers a quicker way to identify packaged foods high in key nutrients of concern. For food companies, meanwhile, the proposed system could mean changes to recipes, packaging designs and product communication as India moves towards a more prominent nutrition labelling framework.

 

Categories
1 Minute-Read

Nestle baby food faces FSSAI scrutiny

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has initiated three cases against Nestlé India over alleged violations involving infant nutrition products.

Two cases concern claims made for NAN Excella Pro Stage 1 and Lactogen Pro 1, including statements about human milk oligosaccharides and whey protein.

A third case involves a follow-up formula sample that allegedly failed prescribed biotin levels even after re-testing. Nestlé has said its products comply with applicable regulations and that the claims were scientifically supported and approved by an FSSAI expert committee.

The cases will now go through the regulatory adjudication process.

Categories
Beyond

FSSAI acts against Nestle baby food

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has initiated three separate cases against Nestlé India over alleged regulatory violations involving infant nutrition products. The action covers promotional claims made for two baby food products and a separate issue involving the biotin content of a follow-up formula.

The regulator examined products and promotional material available on e-commerce platforms before taking action. The cases involve NAN Excella Pro Stage 1, Lactogen Pro 1 and a follow-up formula.

Two cases relate to the way NAN Excella Pro Stage 1 and Lactogen Pro 1 were promoted. FSSAI has questioned claims associated with five human milk oligosaccharides, or HMOs, and whey protein in NAN Excella Pro Stage 1.

HMOs are complex sugars naturally found in breast milk and are increasingly used in infant nutrition products. FSSAI has also objected to a claim on Lactogen Pro 1 that described its whey protein as easy to digest.

The regulator has said such promotional claims are restricted under India’s rules governing infant food and milk substitutes. These rules are designed to ensure that marketing does not encourage the sale of infant milk substitutes through claims or presentation that could influence parents’ feeding choices.

The issue is particularly sensitive because infant formula is not treated like an ordinary packaged food in India. The Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992, places strict limits on advertising and promotion of these products.

The Food Safety and Standards (Foods for Infant Nutrition) Regulations, 2020, provide additional requirements for infant nutrition products. Together, the rules cover areas including labelling, nutritional composition and promotional claims.

The third case involves a different concern. FSSAI said a sample of a Nestlé follow-up formula was found to have non-conforming levels of biotin during laboratory testing. The sample was subsequently sent for re-analysis, and the referral laboratory also found that it did not meet the prescribed requirement.

Biotin, also known as vitamin B7, is a water-soluble vitamin that plays a role in several metabolic processes. Infant foods are required to meet specified nutrient levels because babies and young children have particular nutritional requirements during early growth.

The biotin finding is separate from the promotional claims involving NAN Excella Pro Stage 1 and Lactogen Pro 1. One set of cases concerns how products were marketed, while the other concerns the nutritional composition of a tested sample.

Nestlé India has rejected any suggestion that its infant nutrition products do not comply with regulations. The company has said NAN Excella Pro and Lactogen Pro are fully compliant with applicable requirements. It has also said the labels under scrutiny were approved by an FSSAI expert committee and that the claims were supported by scientific evidence.

The company has said it will continue to cooperate with the regulator and has submitted its response to the proceedings.

The cases are now part of the regulatory adjudication process. The initiation of legal action does not, by itself, amount to a final finding of guilt or establish that the products are unsafe. The proceedings will determine whether the alleged violations are established and whether any penalty or further action is required.

The development has brought fresh attention to the importance of labelling and marketing in India’s infant nutrition market. Parents often rely on information printed on packaging or displayed on shopping websites when choosing formula and other baby food products. Claims about digestion, nutrients and ingredients can therefore have a direct influence on how a product is perceived.

The FSSAI action also highlights the growing importance of monitoring online marketplaces. Product descriptions and promotional material on e-commerce platforms can reach consumers just as directly as advertisements or packaging. Regulators are increasingly examining such information as part of food safety and compliance checks.

Nestlé has faced regulatory scrutiny in India before, most notably during the 2015 Maggi noodles controversy. That episode involved allegations over lead levels and resulted in a temporary ban on the product before it returned to the market after subsequent testing and legal proceedings. The present matter concerns infant nutrition and involves different regulatory questions.

The latest action comes as food safety authorities continue to focus on product standards, labelling and claims made to consumers. Infant nutrition remains one of the most closely regulated parts of the food sector because of the vulnerability of the consumers involved.

The outcome of the three FSSAI cases will determine what action, if any, Nestlé India faces. Until then, the regulator’s allegations and the company’s response remain part of an ongoing legal and regulatory process.

 

Categories
Beyond

FSSAI stops Wai Wai bhujia production

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has ordered CG Foods India to stop making its Veg Bhujia Namkeen after an inspection at its factory in Roopangarh, Ajmer, Rajasthan, found several food safety and hygiene violations.

The regulator said inspectors found broken noodles collected from the factory floor being reused to make bhujia without heat treatment. The unit was also accused of using packaging with earlier dates and making two bhujia products without the required licence.

The products named by FSSAI are Wai-Wai MaMa and Wai-Wai Mama Punte. The regulator said their manufacture violated Section 31(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which requires food businesses to have the necessary licence.

The inspection also found gaps in hygiene and records. FSSAI pointed to inadequate pest-control records and other shortcomings linked to food handling and safety.

Authorities seized 32,107.2 kg of stock, including loose and broken noodles, during the inspection. They also detained 1,925 boxes of expired finished products found at the facility. Samples of noodles, bhujia, cooking oil and ready-to-eat noodles have been sent for laboratory testing.

FSSAI has started legal proceedings against the food business operator and directed the company to stop production of the affected Veg Bhujia Namkeen products until the required approvals and safety measures are in place.

The regulator said further action will depend on the laboratory test results and findings from the inspection. This means the current action is focused on the products and practices identified at the Rajasthan facility, rather than a blanket ban on the entire Wai Wai range.

CG Foods India is part of CG Corp Global, the business group led by Nepalese billionaire Binod Chaudhary. The company is widely known for Wai Wai instant noodles, which have a strong presence in India and other markets.

The inspection has put the spotlight on a basic but important issue in the packaged food industry: what happens inside a factory before food reaches consumers.

Food manufacturers are expected to maintain clean production areas, properly handle ingredients, follow approved processes and keep accurate records. Licensing is also an important part of the system because it allows authorities to monitor what products are being made and under what conditions.

The discovery of floor-collected noodles being reused has raised particular concern because such material can come into contact with dirt and other contaminants. FSSAI’s finding that the noodles were reprocessed without heat treatment has therefore become a central part of the enforcement action.

The seizure of expired products has added another concern. While detention does not by itself mean the products were sold to consumers or were unsafe, it shows why proper stock management and expiry controls are important in food manufacturing.

The laboratory tests will now provide more information about the materials and products collected during the inspection. Until those results are available, the regulator has not said that the entire stock seized from the factory was unsafe.

The action also serves as a reminder that a familiar brand name does not remove the need for strict food safety controls. Large food companies operate through multiple factories and product lines, making regular inspections and compliance checks an important part of consumer protection.

The company will now have to address the concerns raised by the regulator and meet the required food safety and licensing conditions. Further action could follow once the laboratory reports and inspection findings are reviewed.

The episode has once again brought food safety, hygiene, expired food, licensing and quality control into focus, while putting greater attention on how packaged snacks are manufactured before they reach store shelves.

 

Categories
Beyond

FSSAI sets 90-day deadline for energy drink labels

India’s food safety regulator has directed beverage manufacturers to stop using the term “energy drink” on product labels, packaging and promotional material within the next 90 days. The order, issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), impacts several popular brands including Red Bull, Sting, Monster, Campa Energy and Adrenaline Rush. The move is aimed at ensuring food labels accurately reflect recognised product categories under Indian regulations.

FSSAI said there is currently no approved food standard in India that recognises “energy drink” as an official product category. Since the category does not exist under the Food Safety and Standards Regulations, companies have been instructed to remove the description from all labels and marketing material. The regulator has clarified that while these beverages can continue to be sold, they cannot be marketed under a category that is not officially recognised.

The directive follows notices issued earlier this month to leading beverage companies over alleged misbranding. According to FSSAI, products containing caffeine are permitted for sale, but manufacturers must describe them using terms that comply with existing food safety standards. The regulator believes consumers should receive clear and accurate information instead of labels that may create a misleading impression about a product’s purpose or benefits.

The order has triggered concern across the beverage industry, where the term energy drink has been used for years as a widely recognised product category. Manufacturers reportedly requested additional time to comply, arguing that changing labels, redesigning packaging and updating advertising campaigns across the country would involve significant costs. However, FSSAI has decided to retain the 90-day deadline.

During discussions with industry representatives, FSSAI officials reportedly maintained that the decision would not be reconsidered. Companies were informed that they could challenge the order through legal channels if they disagreed with the regulator’s interpretation. Despite their objections, manufacturers have indicated they will begin preparing to comply while continuing discussions with the government.

The regulator’s concerns extend beyond the product name itself. FSSAI has also questioned marketing claims commonly associated with these beverages, including phrases suggesting they improve energy levels, reduce fatigue or enhance physical and mental performance. Officials believe such descriptions may give consumers an exaggerated impression of the products unless they are supported by recognised scientific standards and regulatory approval.

For consumers, the change is unlikely to affect product availability. Popular caffeinated beverages will continue to be sold across retail stores and online platforms. The biggest difference will be on the packaging, where familiar terms such as “energy drink” may disappear and be replaced with descriptions like “caffeinated beverage” or other regulator-approved classifications.

The decision comes at a time when India’s energy drinks market is witnessing strong growth, fuelled by rising urbanisation, changing lifestyles and increasing demand among young consumers. International brands have expanded their presence in the country, while domestic companies have also entered the fast-growing segment with affordable offerings. The sector has become one of the most competitive categories in the beverage industry.

Health experts have long urged consumers to consume high-caffeine beverages in moderation, particularly children, teenagers and people with certain medical conditions. Although FSSAI‘s latest order is focused on product labelling rather than health restrictions, it reflects a broader push towards transparent food labelling and responsible marketing practices.

The move also follows recent action by state food safety authorities, which have increased scrutiny of beverages marketed as energy drinks. Regulators have also reportedly advised online marketplaces to avoid listing products under the disputed category until labelling complies with national food safety norms.

Over the next three months, beverage manufacturers will need to redesign packaging, update labels and revise promotional campaigns to meet the new requirements. While the drinks themselves will remain on store shelves, the branding consumers have become familiar with is set to change. FSSAI says the objective is simple, ensure that product labels are transparent, scientifically accurate and fully aligned with India’s food safety regulations, helping consumers make informed choices while strengthening confidence in food labelling standards.

Categories
Beyond

FSSAI sends notices to beverage firms

India’s food safety regulator has issued notices to six leading energy drink manufacturers over what it describes as misleading promotional claims made on product labels and in advertisements. The action is part of a wider effort by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to ensure that companies do not exaggerate the health or performance benefits of their products.

Among the companies that received notices are Red Bull India, PepsiCo India, Campa Energy, Monster Energy, Celsius and Hell Energy. The regulator has asked the companies to explain claims suggesting that their drinks improve energy, boost physical performance or enhance mental alertness without adequate scientific evidence.

According to officials, the notices were issued after a review found that several marketing messages could mislead consumers into believing the products offer health or performance benefits beyond what has been scientifically established. FSSAI has directed the companies to justify these claims or modify them to comply with food safety and labelling regulations.

The move comes amid growing concern over the rising popularity of energy drinks, especially among teenagers and young adults. Health experts have repeatedly cautioned that many of these beverages contain high levels of caffeine and sugar, which may pose health risks if consumed excessively.

The regulator’s action is aimed at promoting greater transparency in food marketing and ensuring consumers receive accurate information before making purchasing decisions. Officials said food businesses are responsible for ensuring that product labels and advertisements are truthful, evidence-based and do not mislead the public.

The companies are expected to respond to the notices within the stipulated timeframe. Depending on their replies, FSSAI may direct changes to product packaging or promotional material and could initiate further regulatory action if violations are established.

Also Read: Wipro ADRs fall 17% on AI headwinds

Categories
Beyond

FSSAI issues notices to KFC, Nestlé and Flipkart

India’s food safety regulator has issued notices to three major brands , KFC India, Nestlé India and Flipkart, following consumer complaints related to food hygiene and alleged pest contamination.

The action was taken by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India after complaints were received through the National Consumer Helpline. The regulator said the notices were issued to seek responses from the companies regarding grievances raised by consumers.

According to reports, the complaints involved concerns about hygiene standards and the presence of foreign objects or pests in food products supplied or sold through the companies. While the exact details of individual complaints have not been publicly disclosed, the regulator has asked the firms to investigate the issues and provide explanations.

The move highlights growing scrutiny of food safety practices as authorities seek to strengthen consumer protection and improve confidence in food products and services. FSSAI regularly monitors complaints received through various channels and can seek clarification from companies when concerns are raised about product quality or safety.

The notices do not amount to a finding of wrongdoing. They are part of the regulator’s process of examining complaints and gathering information before deciding whether any further action is required. The companies concerned may respond with details of their internal investigations, quality-control procedures and corrective measures, if any.

Consumer complaints relating to food quality, packaging and contamination have increasingly come under the spotlight as online food delivery and e-commerce platforms expand their reach across the country. Regulators have stressed the importance of maintaining strict safety standards throughout the supply chain, from manufacturing and storage to delivery.

Also Read: Wikipedia rolls out history trivia game on iPhone

Categories
Beyond

Newspaper packaging poses health risk, warns FSSAI

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has directed food business operators across the country to stop using newspapers for packaging, wrapping and serving food, citing potential health hazards linked to newspaper ink and printing chemicals.

The advisory targets a long-standing practice commonly seen at street food stalls, eateries and small food outlets, where items such as samosas, pakoras, vadas and snacks are often wrapped in newspaper sheets. According to FSSAI, newspapers are not food-grade materials and may contain harmful substances that can contaminate food.

The regulator warned that printing inks used in newspapers contain chemicals, pigments and solvents that may transfer to food, particularly when it is hot, oily or moist. Such contamination can expose consumers to substances that may have adverse health effects over time.

FSSAI officials said recycled paper used in newspaper production may also contain residues of chemicals, dyes, adhesives and other contaminants. These substances can migrate into food and compromise food safety standards. The authority emphasised that consumers are often unaware of the risks associated with direct contact between food and printed paper.

The food safety regulator has instructed food business operators, including restaurants, street vendors, caterers and food delivery services, to discontinue the use of newspapers and similar printed materials for food packaging and serving purposes. Businesses have been advised to use food-grade packaging materials that comply with safety regulations.

FSSAI stated that ensuring safe packaging is an important part of maintaining food hygiene and protecting public health. The authority also urged state food safety departments to create awareness among food vendors and encourage compliance with food safety norms.

Food safety experts have welcomed the advisory, noting that the practice of using newspapers for food packaging remains widespread despite repeated warnings over the years. They said the move could help reduce the risk of chemical contamination and improve overall food safety standards.

Also Read: Domestic LPG prices up by ₹29 per cylinder