The Crackdown on Vague Claims
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has recently intensified its efforts against what it deems misleading advertising. In a notable move in August 2026, the regulator ordered major companies like Dabur to cease using absolute claims
such as "100% Pure" or "100% Natural" on products ranging from honey to coconut water. The FSSAI argued these terms are often ambiguous, unverifiable, and likely to mislead consumers. This follows a broader push to sanitise labels, including a directive against using terms like "fresh" for processed foods that are not, by any reasonable definition, fresh from the farm. The regulator's stance is that any claim made on a package must be truthful, unambiguous, and scientifically substantiated, a rule that many brands have historically bent.
The High-Protein Parallel
If terms like "fresh" and "natural" are under the scanner, it casts a revealing light on another, more lucrative claim: "high-protein." This label is slapped onto everything from biscuits and breakfast cereals to atta and instant noodles. The problem is that the definition can be murky for the average consumer. According to FSSAI regulations, for a solid food to be labelled "high in protein," it must contain at least 12 grams of protein per 100 grams. While this seems straightforward, the reality is more complex. Studies have shown a significant gap between what labels promise and what products deliver. A 2024 analysis of 36 popular protein supplements found that nearly 70% were mislabelled, with protein content falling short of the advertised amount.
Why Labels Can Be Deceiving
The incentive for brands to make bold claims is immense. In a market projected to be worth over US$225 billion by 2033, standing out is crucial. Words like "high-protein" act as a health halo, allowing brands to command premium prices. However, enforcement has struggled to keep pace. A recent report found that products with nutrient or health claims had a noncompliance rate of 52.5%. The issue is compounded by loopholes like the "serving size" trap. A product might seem healthy on a per-serving basis, but the company defines the serving size, which is often unrealistically small. A biscuit packet may list nutrition for three biscuits, even though a consumer is likely to eat the whole row, unknowingly consuming double or triple the stated calories and sugar.
Reading Between the Lines
For consumers, this means vigilance is key. The first rule is to ignore the marketing on the front of the pack and turn straight to the back. Look at the ingredients list, which is always in descending order by weight. If sugar or refined flour (maida) are among the first few ingredients, it's not a health food, regardless of any protein claims. Next, check the nutritional information per 100g, not just per serving, for an accurate comparison between products. If a product claims to be "high-protein," it should have at least 12g of protein per 100g. If a so-called protein bar has more sugar than protein, you’re essentially eating a candy bar.
The Regulator's Next Move
FSSAI's recent actions against misleading claims, including for healthy foods and even alcohol, signal a more aggressive posture. The introduction of FSSAI Amendment Regulations for 2026 points towards stricter compliance, updated labelling requirements, and heavier penalties for non-compliance. However, the path forward isn't entirely clear. In a recent Supreme Court filing, FSSAI proposed a nutrition table rather than clear front-of-pack warning labels for foods high in salt, sugar, and fat, a move some experts fear leaves the interpretive burden on consumers. This suggests that while the regulator is keen on accuracy, making labels truly simple and easy to understand for everyone remains a work in progress.
