FSSAI Questions Health Claims Made by Nestlé and Hindustan Unilever
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has recently issued notices to food major Nestlé India and Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) for some of their food products which were considered misleading and in violation of food safety regulations. The FSSAI action is on the dates 17 and 18 October 2026.
HUL didn’t find its claims on health benefits challenged by the regulator in the case of Hindustan Unilever. The regulator challenged claims made on Horlicks Women’s Plus Chocolate Nutrition Drink and Horlicks Mother’s Plus Kesar, such as stronger bones; and improvement in bone health and healthy birth weight.
The regulatory body also flagged Nestlé India’s Nescafé ready-to-drink drinks and Resource Renal Vanilla Flavour Powder meant for dietary management of the people with chronic kidney diseases.
The regulator has asked for the companies’ responses. The notices charge that the companies have broken some rules; however, as notices of civil penalty, they alone do not prove that the companies have committed an offence. .
What is provided in section 24 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006?
Section 24 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 deals with false or misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices relating to food products. It makes it illegal to make false or misleading claims relating to food.
Need Help With Your PhD or LLM Thesis?
Explore our thesis and dissertation writing support services for PhD and LLM students. Get subject-specific academic assistance for your research project.
Explore Our Services →This clause is of particular relevance where a food manufacturer makes a health claim about the food. It is not permissible for a company to state anything about a food that has not been substantiated.
Section 24 extends to guarantees of efficacy that are not sufficiently scientifically supported. A person who asserts a guarantee of efficacy, but is able to justify that guarantee scientifically, has the onus of proof on the person claiming that guarantee.
Thus when a food product is being promoted by way of certain claims relating to health or nutrition, the law demands more than enticing marketing copy. Those claims have to follow the rules of the relevant regulations and have the necessary evidence.
Strength and Healthy Birth Weight Being Questioned?
FSSAI questioned claims on Horlicks Women’s Plus Chocolate Nutrition Drink. The regulator also flagged claims around a healthy birth weight on the ad and labelling of Horlicks Mother’s Plus Kesar.
Safety and health-based claims related to pregnancy and infant health must be made with care because consumers might take these claims into account in deciding what is a good diet during pregnancy. An assertion that a food or product is going to help make a baby healthier may be misleading if the benefit is not established in the way the law says it must be established.
Regulations on Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 specify the criteria for nutrition and health claims. They specify that the claims shall be truthful, accurate, unambiguous and consistent with the applicable standard.
FSSAI had also earlier clarified that claims making specific links between health benefits to product require relevant scientific evidence along with human based studies, where necessary.
Thus, a claim may breach the rules if, for example, it overstates the advantages of a product, misleads consumers into thinking it is more efficacious than it actually is, or does not satisfy all the requirements, even where the product itself can lawfully be placed on the market.
What are the Violations FSSAI Has Accused Nestlé India Of?
The regulator had flagged that some Nescafé ready-to-drink drinks being sold online were using non-compliant descriptions. The recounted notices stated that all descriptors, such as of flavoured double-toned milk, were inconsistent with the declared composition or food category.
Food businesses should make sure that any description of a food is not misleading. A description that conveys the wrong impression of the ingredients or category of a food may breach the labelling and advertising requirements.
Meanwhile, FSSAI has also sought a response from Nestlé India’s Resource Renal Vanilla Flavour Powder. The regulator said the item used to cater to the dietary management of persons having chronic renal disease was being offered for sale without the necessary prior approval.
FSSAI also expressed concerns over the product label not bearing the vegetarian or non-vegetarian symbol as required.
There are however separate regulatory obligations involved here. Nescafé issues are mainly to do with product descriptions and classifications, whereas the Resource Renal matter is also about prior approval and compusory labelling.
What Penalties Can Companies Face for Misleading Food Advertisements?
Section 53 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 states that a person liable to a penalty of up to ₹ 10 lakh can be imposed for such false advertisements.
The provision applies to false or deceptive advertisements of foods, or false or deceptive advertisements that are likely to induce consumers to purchase a food. This includes advertisements that give false guarantees or are otherwise misleading.
FSSAI may investigate complaints, require supporting documentation from the food business and take corrective action as per the law. The law in some cases allows, for certain violations, action such as withdrawing or modifying claim or levying fines and other penalties or regulatory measures.
The regulator has also stated that persistent or serious violations could trigger action on food business licences under the relevant legislation.
But the imposition of a penalty is not automatic once notice has been issued. The authority must weigh the explanation offered by the company and then go through the prescribed statutory procedure before concluding that the offence was committed and what penalty is appropriate.
Can Companies Challenge FSSAI Notices and Enforcement Action?
If a company is the subject of a regulatory notice it has an opportunity to tell its side of the story with what allegations it agrees with, submit evidence and explain that its ads, product descriptions or labelling are legally compliant.
In this case the response can refer to, for example: scientific studies, nutritional analysis, number of product approvals, or other evidence supporting the claims made.
With the information received, the regulator can choose to send a reasoned decision on the challenged claims. In case of disagreement on a regulatory order in a negative form, the legal recourses will vary according to the legally invoked provision and form.
As such, the show cause notices to Nestlé India and Hindustan Unilever are merely the opening salvo of a regulatory process, and not an end point on liability.
The case will come down to whether the challenged claims are in accordance with the legal requirements for truthful advertising, scientific substantiation, accurate classification of food and mandated product labelling under India’s food safety law.
