-By Khushi Gupta
Introduction
Food labels are meant to guide consumers towards informed choices, yet increasingly, they have become tools of marketing rather than instruments of transparency. With rising health consciousness in India, packaged food companies frequently deploy selective and often misleading labelling practices to project their products as “healthy.” Labels highlighting claims like “no added sugar,”“low fat,” or “high in protein” are placed prominently on packages, while crucial nutritional details such as excessive salt or hidden sugars are either minimised or concealed.
This phenomenon has direct consequences for public health. India is grappling with lifestyle diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, all of which are aggravated by diets rich in sugar, salt, and processed additives.According to the ICMR-INDIAB study (2023), India already has over 101 million people living with diabetes, underscoring the urgent link between misleading labels and rising health burdens.At the same time, misleading food labels erode consumer trust and raise serious legal and ethical questions. This article analyses the regulatory framework under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, examines the role of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), and contextualises the discussion with case studies such as the recent Food Pharmer v. Nestlé Ceregrow controversy. It further explores judicial precedents, highlights enforcement challenges, and suggests a way forward for strengthening consumer protection.
Misleading Labels and Their Influence on Consumer Choices
Food companies know that consumers rarely have the time to study nutritional panels in detail. Instead, they rely on front-of-pack claims, which are often simplified — sometimes misleadingly so. For example, a breakfast cereal may claim “no added sugar” while containing maltodextrin or glucose syrup, which metabolise into sugar. Similarly, a snack may boast of being “baked, not fried” while containing unhealthy levels of sodium and preservatives.
Research confirms that consumers disproportionately trust front-of-pack claims, treating them as shorthand for nutritional value.[1] This distortion reduces consumer autonomy by limiting their ability to make truly informed choices. When unhealthy products are disguised as healthy, the market ceases to function fairly, and public health is put at risk.
Legal Framework Governing Food Labelling in India
- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) consolidated multiple laws relating to food safety and established the FSSAI as the regulatory body. Section 24 of the Act expressly prohibits unfair or misleading practices, including false descriptions, deceptive packaging, or claims likely to mislead consumers.[2]
- Packaging and Labelling Regulations, 2011
The Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 mandate that labels disclose essential information such as ingredients, nutritional values, and allergens. They also prohibit the use of statements that are false, misleading, or likely to deceive.[3]
- Advertising and Claims Regulations, 2018
The Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 were introduced to curb exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims. For instance, Regulation 3 prohibits misleading claims, and Regulation 4 requires that claims be capable of scientific substantiation.[4] Thus, if a manufacturer asserts “no added sugar,” it must not introduce other sweeteners that effectively negate the claim.
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and ASCI Guidelines
Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 explicitly includes misleading advertisements as an unfair trade practice. Additionally, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has issued self-regulatory codes for responsible advertising, including those directed at food and beverages. While not statutory law, ASCI’s guidelines have been relied upon by courts and regulators in assessing misleading claims.
Despite these frameworks, the practical challenge lies in weak enforcement.The FSSAI’s delay in introducing Front-of-Pack Labelling despite years of deliberation reflects both regulatory inertia and industry lobbying. FSSAI advisories often come after consumer activists or competitors raise complaints, highlighting the gap between law on paper and ground reality.
Judicial and Regulatory Precedents
Indian courts have frequently dealt with disputes relating to misleading advertisements and labelling.
- Horlicks Ltd. v. Zydus Wellness Products Ltd.[5]–
The Delhi High Court considered whether Zydus’ claims about its product Complan being “twice as fast-growing” as Horlicks amounted to misleading advertisement. While the case was framed as comparative advertising, the Court observed that exaggerated or unsubstantiated nutritional claims risk misleading consumers. - PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd.[6]–
Here, the Delhi High Court reiterated that advertising claims must not mislead consumers by exaggerating benefits or omitting critical information. - Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.[7]–
Although not a food case, the Supreme Court recognised the consumer’s right to truthful commercial speech, underscoring that misleading commercial communication undermines consumer rights.
These decisions align with the broader principle under Indian consumer protection law: that misleading advertisements are a form of unfair trade practice. Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (retained in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) explicitly includes false or misleading representations concerning the quality or standard of goods.
Case Study: The Nestlé Ceregrow Controversy
In 2024, nutrition activist Revant Himatsingka (popularly known as Food Pharmer) exposed Nestlé’s cereal brand Ceregrow for prominently claiming “no added sugar” while containing maltodextrin and other sugar derivatives.[8] While technically compliant with the narrow wording of the claim, the product misled consumers into believing it was sugar-free. The controversy gained traction on social media, forcing the FSSAI to take cognisance.
This case exemplifies two systemic issues:-
(a) companies exploit technical loopholes to make misleading yet “legally compliant” claims, and
(b) regulatory enforcement often reacts to public outcry rather than proactively monitoring.
Public Health Implications
Misleading labels are not just a matter of consumer deception; they are a public health concern. India ranks among the top ten countries with the highest number of people living with diabetes.[9]Excessive consumption of sugar, salt, and fat in processed foods contributes significantly to this burden. The World Obesity Federation also projects that by 2035, over 1 billion people worldwide will be obese, with India contributing significantly to this global trend unless preventive measures are enforced.
Beyond health, the economic impact is considerable. Consumers pay a premium for products marketed as superior health alternatives, often without receiving the promised benefits. This results in an erosion of consumer trust in the food industry as a whole.
International Perspectives
Globally, regulators have taken stronger measures against misleading food labelling. For example:
- European Union – Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 mandates comprehensive nutritional labelling and prohibits ambiguous health claims.
- United States – The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued strict guidance on nutrient content claims such as “sugar-free” or “low-fat.”
- Chile – Pioneered Front-of-Pack Warning Labels (FoPL) with bold symbols indicating high sugar, salt, or fat content. Studies show FoPL significantly reduces the purchase of unhealthy foods.[10]
- United Kingdom – Introduced a ‘traffic light’ labelling system, where red, amber, and green colours denote high, medium, or low levels of fat, sugar, and salt, giving consumers instant visual clarity.
India has taken steps toward introducing FoPL, but industry pushback has slowed implementation.
The Way Forward
To strengthen consumer protection in India, the following reforms are critical:
- Mandatory Front-of-Pack Labelling (FoPL): Clear warnings, such as red symbols for high sugar, must be introduced to give consumers instant clarity.
- Stricter Penalties: Fines under current regulations are insufficient to deter large corporations. Enhanced penalties, including criminal liability for repeated violations, may be considered.
- Independent Monitoring: An autonomous body under the FSSAI could regularly audit food labels and claims rather than relying solely on complaints.
- Consumer Education: Awareness campaigns must empower consumers to read labels critically and not be swayed solely by front-of-pack claims.
- Corporate Accountability: Misleading labelling should attract not only regulatory penalties but also liability under consumer law, including compensation claims and class actions.
Conclusion
Food labels are meant to safeguard the consumer’s right to know. Yet, as the Nestlé Ceregrow controversy illustrates, companies often exploit technical loopholes to present an incomplete or distorted picture of their products. India’s legal framework under the FSSA, 2006, the 2011 Labelling Regulations, and the 2018 Advertising and Claims Regulations provides a strong foundation. However, without strict enforcement and consumer empowerment, misleading practices will persist.
Ultimately, transparent labelling is not only a regulatory necessity but also flows from the consumer’s right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Strengthening regulatory oversight, adopting international best practices such as FoPL, and holding corporations accountable are essential steps toward restoring consumer trust and protecting public health. Ultimately, transparent labelling is not just a legal requirement — it is a moral imperative.
[1]Kaur, Gurmeet et al., Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling in India: A Public Health Imperative, 44 Indian J. Community Med. 189 (2019)
[2]Food Safety and Standards Act, No. 34 of 2006, INDIA CODE (2006).
[3]Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011, Gazette of India, Part III, Sec. 4 (June 1, 2011).
[4]Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, Gazette of India, Part III, Sec. 4 (Nov. 19, 2018).
[5]Horlicks Ltd. v. Zydus Wellness Prods. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8083.
[6]PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2507.
[7]Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., (1995) 5 SCC 139.
[8]Food Pharmer Exposes Nestlé’s “No Added Sugar” Claim on Ceregrow, The Hindu (Apr. 25, 2024), https://www.thehindu.com.
[9]Int’l Diabetes Fed’n, IDF Diabetes Atlas (10th ed. 2021).
[10]Reyes, M. et al., Changes in Consumer Purchases After the Implementation of Front-of-Package Food Labelling in Chile: A Longitudinal Study, 22 PLOS Medicine e1003015 (2020).