As many as 25 samples from MDH have been lifted by FSSAI from their 11 manufacturing facilities. Image for representation purposes only. File
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Food regulator FSSAI has not found any trace of ethylene oxide in samples of spices of two major brands MDH and Everest that were tested in 28 accredited laboratories, sources said.

According to them, reports from six other laboratories are still pending.

Last month, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) started taking samples of spices in powder form of all brands, including MDH and Everest, from across the country in view of quality concerns flagged by Hong Kong and Singapore.

The Hong Kong’s Center for Food Safety (CFS) had asked consumers not to buy certain spice mix products of MDH and Everest, citing the presence of ethylene oxide beyond the permissible limit.

These products are MDH’s Madras Curry Powder, Everest Fish Curry Masala, MDH Sambhar Masala Mixed Masala Powder, and MDH Curry Powder Mixed Masala Powder.

According to sources, a pan India drive was initiated on April 22 through all the commissioners of food safety of states and Union Territories and regional directors of FSSAI.

Also Read | ‘Much ado about nothing’, says Govt., on spice export worries

It included extensive inspections of the spice manufacturing units and also sampling and testing of products manufactured for sale and distribution for consumption in the domestic market.

Sources said the samples of Everest spices were picked up from their two manufacturing facilities. As many as 25 samples from MDH have been lifted by FSSAI from their 11 manufacturing facilities, they said.

Each of the products sampled was analysed for compliance with various quality and safety parameters including pesticide residues. These samples were also analysed for Ethylene Oxide (ETO) at NABL-accredited laboratories notified by FSSAI.

The laboratory reports received so far were examined by the scientific panel at FSSAI and observed that the samples showed no traces of ethylene oxide, sources said.

Similarly, test reports of over 300 samples of spices of other brands were also examined by the scientific panel and those also conclusively indicated no presence of ethylene oxide, they added.

The scientific panel comprises eminent scientists from the Spice Board, CSMCRI (Gujarat), Indian Spice Research Institute (Kerala), NIFTEM (Haryana), BARC (Mumbai), CMPAP (Lucknow), DRDO (Assam), ICAR, National Research Centre on Grapes, (Pune).

The Spice Board has also issued guidelines to the spice exporters for using ETO as a fumigant for sterilising spices to deal with microbial contamination as per the standards of importing countries, sources said.

New Delhi:

Food regulator FSSAI has asked traders and food business operators not to use the banned product ‘calcium carbide’ for ripening of fruits.

In an official statement, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) said it has “alerted traders’/fruits handlers/Food Business Operators (FBOs) operating ripening chambers to strictly ensure compliance with the prohibition on calcium carbide for artificial ripening of fruits, particularly during the mango season”.

FSSAI has also advised Food Safety Departments of states/UTs to remain vigilant and take serious action and deal stringently against person(s) indulging in such unlawful practices as per the provisions of the FSS Act, 2006, and rules/regulations made thereunder.

“Calcium carbide, commonly used for ripening fruits like mangoes, releases acetylene gas, which contains harmful traces of arsenic and phosphorus.

“These substances, also known as ‘Masala’, can cause serious health issues such as dizziness, frequent thirst, irritation, weakness, difficulty in swallowing, vomiting and skin ulcers, etc,” FSSAI said.

Additionally, acetylene gas is equally hazardous to those handling it.

“There are chances that calcium carbide may come in direct contact with fruits during application and leave residues of arsenic and phosphorus on fruits,” the regulator said.

Due to these dangers, the use of calcium carbide for ripening fruits has been banned under the Regulation of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011.

This regulation explicitly states, “No person shall sell or offer or expose for sale or have in his premises for the purpose of sale under any description, fruits which have been artificially ripened by use of acetylene gas, commonly known as carbide gas”.

Considering the issue of rampant use of banned calcium carbide, FSSAI has permitted the use of ethylene gas as a safer alternative for fruit ripening in India.

Ethylene gas can be used at concentrations up to 100 ppm, depending upon the crop, variety and maturity.

Ethylene, a naturally occurring hormone in fruits, regulates the ripening process by initiating and controlling a series of chemical and biochemical activities.

The treatment of unripe fruits with ethylene gas triggers the natural ripening process until the fruit itself starts producing ethylene in substantial quantities.

Further, the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIB & RC) have approved Ethephon 39 per cent SL for the uniform ripening of mangoes and other fruits. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

The story so far: A crisis of confidence assails the Indian spice export industry. At least five countries — including Singapore, Hong Kong and the U.S. — have announced an investigation into possible contamination of spice mixes sold by top Indian brands, MDH and Everest. The complaints cite the presence of ethylene oxide, a toxic chemical used as a food stabiliser, beyond permissible limits. The Spices Board of India in response has initiated mandatory testing of products shipped abroad and is reportedly working with exporters to identify the root cause of contamination. The international scrutiny has also stirred a demand for the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India to ensure stringent quality checks on spices and curry powders sold in domestic markets.

The incident isn’t isolated. Controversies have engulfed protein drinks, fruit juices, health drinks and imported Nestle baby products, drawing attention to regulatory lapses and heightening health concerns. “Consumers are increasingly questioning the safety and quality of trusted brands, and wonder what the food regulator in India is doing,” notes Simi T.B., who works with CUTS International, a global advocacy group for consumer welfare.

Why are Indian spices facing the heat? | Explained

Which countries have flagged safety of Indian spices? 

The domino first shook on April 5, when Hong Kong’s Centre for Food Safety suspended the sale of three MDH spice blends (Masala curry powder, Sambhar masala and curry powder masala) and an Everest fish curry masala. The spice mixes contained high levels of ethylene oxide, the regulator said, and advised consumers against purchasing these products. Days later, Singapore ordered a recall of the Everest spice mix, stating: “Ethylene oxide is a pesticide that is not authorised for use in food,” adding that the pesticide makes the spices unfit for human consumption and posing a cancer risk if exposed for too long. 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has previously rejected food and spice imports from India, told Reuters that it is “aware of the reports and is gathering additional information about the situation”. 

Regulatory bodies in Maldives, Australia and Bangladesh have announced similar plans. “We are working with international counterparts to understand the issue…and to determine if further action is required in Australia,” said Food Standards Australia New Zealand in a statement. Maldives’s FDA in a statement on X said it has suspended the sale of spices produced by Everest and MDH. Bangladesh is gathering information on companies importing the possibly contaminated products into Bangladesh and plans to carry out examinations “if necessary”, an official told The Business Standard. 

The spice mixes flagged in question are manufactured by Everest and MDH, major players in India’s spice export industry. The top three importers of India’s curry powders and mixtures, in the fiscal year 2022-23, include the U.S. (₹196.2 crore), U.A.E (₹170.6 crore) and U.K. (₹124.9 crore); followed by Saudi Arabia, Australia, Bangladesh, Oman, Canada, Qatar and Nigeria, as per provisional data by the Indian Spices Board. Overall, China, U.S. U.A.E, Bangladesh and Thailand are the top importers of all spcies and spice mixes originating from India.

What are the health concerns?

MDH and Everest’s spice mixes allegedly contain high levels of a prohibited pesticide called ethylene oxide (ETO). ETO is a colourless, flammable, and in many ways, a remarkable gas that was originally intended for sterilising medical devices. It is used as a chemical in industrial settings, agriculture, and as a sterilising agent in food products, including spices, dried vegetables and other commodities. The chemical lends life to the spice industry: it reduces microbial contamination, and in turn, extends products’ shelf life and makes their storage safe.   

This process is not always airtight. The improper and excessive use of ETO may leave behind residues, causing toxic and even carcinogenic compounds to form, thus contaminating the product. One such compound is ethylene glycol, an ingredient found in Indian-made cough syrups which were linked to the deaths of more than 300 children in Cameroon, Gambia, Indonesia and Uzbekistan. Long-term exposure to ethylene oxide is associated with cancers including lymphoma and leukaemia, some evidence shows.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has banned the use of ETO and earlier flagged ETO contamination in Indian spices. A recent EFSA report also showed carcinogenic chemicals were found in 527 products (including herbs and spices) linked to India between September 2020 and April 2024. Possible reasons for ETO traces found in excess included the use of non-approved pesticides and processing techniques aimed to reduce microbiological contamination. They were “found to lead to not approved residues unsanitary processing techniques (e.g. ethylene oxide in guar gum and curry powder from India)”.  

MDH has called allegations over ETO contamination “baseless and unsubstantiated”. “We reassure our buyers and consumers that we do not use ethylene oxide at any stage of storing, processing, or packing our spices,” the company said in a statement. It added that neither the Spices Board nor the FSSAI have received communication or test reports from Singapore or Hong Kong authorities. 

Have the U.S. authorities rejected Indian spices before?

U.S. FDA rejections: common reasons, common spices, manufacturers 

How has India responded?

The Spices Board, tasked with developing, promoting and regulating the export of spices and spice products, operates under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. On April 25 it announced a slew of corrective measures – including initiating mandatory testing of consignments shipped to Singapore and Hong Kong, and gathering technical details and analytical reports from the relevant food and drug agencies. also reportedly working with exporters whose consignments have been recalled getting to the root of the issue and “propose corrective measures”. “Thorough inspections at exporter facilities are also underway to ensure adherence with regulatory standards,” they said.  

A circular dated April 30 contains guidelines to exporters on preventing ETO contamination, prepared “after detailed discussions with the Indian spice industry”. Measures include voluntary testing of ETO during raw and final stages; ETO treated products to be stored separately; to “identify ETO as a hazard and incorporate critical control points in hazard analysis”. Exporters are also “encouraged to use alternate methods” such as steam sterilization or irradiation. The Spices Board issued a similar advisory in September 2021, after the EU flagged the presence of ETO in spices exported from India.  

The public disquiet about safety standards has floated into domestic markets. More than seven in 10 Indians are worried about the quality and safety of the spices they consume, according to a recent Local Circles survey that documented responses from 12,300 people across 293 districts. Almost 36% of them “had no confidence” that the FSSAI had the capacity or willingness to uphold its mandate.

The FSSAI has directed state regulators to collect samples of major spice brands, including MDH and Everest, to test for the presence of ETO. The body also plans to carry out a nationwide surveillance in 2024-25, “for fruit and vegetables, salmonella in fish products, spice and culinary herbs, fortified rice and milk and milk products”, according to a Union Health Ministry statement. The samples tested so far don’t paint a promising picture. In the last three years, nearly one-fourth of samples tested failed regulatory standards, the FSSAI said in its latest release. The body has reportedly tested over four lack samples in the current fiscal year, but the final data is still being collected. 

Activists have called for stringent safety checks of curry powders and spices; to detect and control the use of ETO in food products; and ensure proper implementation of regulatory norms. A recent CUTS report also recommended regularly updating food safety standards to align with global practices, and improving information flow to food industries to that they better comply with regulations.

What does the incident say about food safety in India?

Despite stringent food laws in place, the recent controversies “collectively underscore the persistent nature of food safety challenges across various sectors of the food industry”, notes Ms. Simi.

One challenge is operational: India’s diverse food landscape, the lack of standardised recordkeeping and intentional food fraud may prevent manufacturers from efficiently tracing ingredients and assessing potential risks. Other challenges are operational. “Many companies struggle to trace ingredients, especially raw agricultural commodities, due to the lack of standardised recordkeeping and intentional food fraud. This prevents manufacturers from assessing potential risks, compromising the safety of the entire food supply chain. Traceability is particularly challenging for small and medium sized businesses with limited resources. 

Some are logistic barriers. At least 10 States/Union Territories lack government or private notified food testing labs, as mandated under the FSS Act. These labs are distributed unevenly across regions; have insufficient number of food safety officers; and were found to operate ineffectively due to resource contraints, showed the FSSAI Annual Report of 2021-22. The absent accountability and consequences often mean enforcement agencies fail to penalise unscrupulous food operators, which fuels the issue, experts say. For samples found sub-standard, the maximum penalty is of up to ₹5 lakh. Under Section 59 of the FSS Act, food businesses found guilty of selling, storing or manufacturing sub-standard foods can be penalised with a ₹3 lakh penalty and a three-month jail term. 

FSSAI’s operations often lack transparency, which “hinders efforts to meet safety standards”, build accountability and trust, adds Ms. Simi. The regulator conducted another pan-India testing of spices two years ago, results of which were never put out in the public domain. Surveys that flagged contamination in products like milk and jaggery “have not resulted in positively addressing the rampant practice of adulteration”.

The malodor of mistrust thickens around FSSAI., revealing a growing appetite stricter regulatory measures and transparency in food production and safety industry standards. Ms. Simi adds, “There should be a commitment to proactive monitoring and enforcement, rather than reactive responses to individual incidents.”

Boxes of Everest fish curry masala are stacked on the shelf of a shop at a market in Srinagar
| Photo Credit: Reuters

India, the world’s largest producer, consumer and exporter of spices, has sought details from food safety regulators of Singapore and Hong Kong, which has banned certain spices of Indian brands MDH and Everest due to quality concerns.

The commerce ministry has also directed Indian embassies in both Singapore and Hong Kong to send a detailed report on the matter.

The ministry has also sought details from the Indian firms — MDH and Everest, whose products have been banned for allegedly containing pesticide ‘ethylene oxide’ beyond permissible limits.

“Details have been sought from the companies. Root cause of the rejection and corrective actions will be determined along with the exporters concerned,” a commerce ministry official said.

Technical details, analytical reports and the details of the exporters whose consignments have been rejected have been sought from Embassies at Singapore and Hong Kong, the official said.

Details have also been sought from Singapore Food Agency and Centre for Food Safety, and Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Hong Kong, the official added.

The ministry official mentioned that an industry consultation is also scheduled to discuss the issue of mandatory testing of ethylene oxide in spice shipments to Singapore and Hong Kong.

Meanwhile, the Spices Board of India is looking into the ban imposed by Hong Kong and Singapore on the sale of four spice-mix products of Indian brands MDH and Everest.

The Food safety regulator of Hong Kong has asked consumers not to buy these products and traders not to sell, the Singapore Food Agency has directed a recall of the products.

In 2022-23 fiscal, the country exported spices worth nearly ₹32,000 crore. Chilli, cumin, spice oil and oleoresins, turmeric, curry powder and cardamom are major spices exported.

Food safety regulator FSSAI has started taking samples of spices in powder form of all brands, including MDH and Everest, from across the country in view of quality concerns flagged by Singapore and Hong Kong, a government source said.

“In view of the current development, FSSAI has taking samples of spices of all brands, including MDH and Everest, from the market to check whether they meet the FSSAI norms,” the source told PTI.

Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) does not regulate quality of exported spices, they said.

FSSAI, which operates under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, takes samples of spices regularly from the market to check the quality of product sold in the domestic market.

Meanwhile, the Spices Board of India is looking into the ban imposed by Hong Kong and Singapore on the sale of four spices-mix products of Indian brands MDH and Everest, which allegedly contain pesticide ‘ethylene oxide’ beyond permissible limits.

“We are looking into the matter. We are at it,” Spices Board of India Director A B Rema Shree told PTI.

The companies could not be contacted immediately.

The Hong Kong’s Center for Food Safety (CFS) has asked consumers not to buy these products and traders not to sell, while the Singapore Food Agency has directed a recall of such spices.

These products are MDH’s Madras Curry Powder (spice blend for Madras curry), Everest Fish Curry Masala, MDH Sambhar Masala Mixed Masala Powder, and MDH Curry Powder Mixed Masala Powder.

On April 2, 2024, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India directed all e-commerce food business operators to ensure appropriate categorisation of food products being sold on their websites. Photo: X/@fssaiindia

The government has asked all the e-commerce companies to remove drinks and beverages, including Bournvita, from the health drinks category from their portals.

“National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), a statutory body constituted under section (3) of the Commission of Protection of Child Rights (CPCR) Act 2005 after its inquiry under Section 14 of CRPC Act 2005 concluded that there is no ‘health drink’ defined under FSS Act 2006, rules and regulations submitted by FSSAI and Mondelez India Food Pvt Ltd,” the Commerce and Industry Ministry said in an advisory to all e-commerce companies.

The order is dated April 10, 2024.

It said that all e-commerce companies or portals are advised to remove drinks and beverages, including Bournvita, from the category of health drinks from their platforms or sites.

On April 2, food safety standards regulator FSSAI directed all e-commerce food business operators (FBOs) to ensure appropriate categorisation of food products being sold on their websites.

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has noted that instances of food products licensed under ‘Proprietary Food’ with the nearest category Dairy-Based Beverage Mix or Cereal-Based Beverage Mix or Malt-Based Beverage being sold on e-commerce websites under the category Health Drink, Energy Drink, etc, it added.

Mumbai:

An executive at McDonald’s biggest Indian franchisee Westlife Foodworld said on Tuesday the country’s top food standards authority had verified its claims of using real cheese in its products after a crackdown by Maharashtra state.

Maharashtra in November suspended the licence of a McDonald’s outlet in the east of Mumbai for allegedly using cheese alternatives made of vegetable oil instead of real cheese, and misleading consumers.

The state revoked the suspension after an appeal by Westlife, which dropped the word “cheese” from some of its products including burgers and nuggets in December.

Following a decision by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), Westlife can use the word cheese in product names where it is one of the key ingredients, Managing Director Saurabh Kalra said at a press conference on Tuesday.

The FSSAI and Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“The verification confirms the brand’s assertion that it uses 100% real cheese and that it does not use any cheese analogues or substitutes in any of its products,” Westlife said in a statement.

Westlife, which operates McDonald’s outlets in western and southern India, added that a nationally accredited independent lab had also confirmed it used real cheese in its products.

Kalra said the FSSAI’s decision was binding on all local authorities, including Maharashtra’s, adding that Westlife was working with the state agency to close the issue.

Shares in Westlife reversed an early fall of 1% to stand 9.4% higher after the press conference. They sank 6.7% on Feb. 27 when Reuters reported Maharashtra would inspect all its McDonald’s outlets in the state.

Kalra described the incident as a “bump” in Westlife’s long-term plans.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Watch | What are the regulations around misleading food ads?

On the 29th of April, the food safety and standards authority of India flagged 32 fresh cases of food business operators or food manufacturers making misleading claims and advertisements. regulators also stated that a total of 170 such cases have been reported in the last six months.

While the regulator did not take any names it stated that the violators include manufacturers of Neutraceutical products refined oils pulses flours milk products and ghee.

It asked them to refrain from making such claims and ads in the larger consumer interest and avoiding enforcement actions. This happened days after a social media influencer had made certain allegations against health drink Bournvita’s health attributes.

So, when can you call a produce ‘pure’, or ‘natural’, or ‘fresh’? We decode nutritional claims in food ads.

Read the full story here.

Reporting and presentation: Saptaparno Ghosh

Production: Shikha Kumari

The story so far: On April 29, the Advertisement Monitoring Committee at the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) flagged 32 fresh cases of food business operators (FBOs) making misleading claims and advertisements. They were found to be in contravention of the Food Safety and Standards (Advertisements & Claims) Regulations, 2018. As per the regulator, the cumulative count of such offences has shot up to 170 in the last six months. It urged FBOs to “desist from making any unscientific and/or exaggerated claims and advertisements to promote their product sales to avoid enforcement actions and in larger consumer interest.” 

What has been FSSAI’s initial response?  

While the food regulator did not name the violators, it confirmed that they scrutinised products in varied categories such as health supplements, organic products, fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) products and staples, each endorsing certain health and product claims. The alleged violators include manufacturers and/or marketers of nutraceutical products, refined oils, pulses, flours, millet products, and ghee.

The cases have now been referred to the concerned licensing authorities to issue notices and subsequently, withdraw the misleading claims or scientifically substantiate them. In the event of an unsatisfactory response, the claims/advertisement would either have to be withdrawn or modified. Failure to comply with the provisions thereafter would invite penalties of up to Rs 10 lakh apart from stringent punishments including the suspension or cancellation of licenses for repeated offences.  

Making deceptive claims or advertisements are punishable offences under Section-53 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 

Last month, an uproar ensued after allegations were made against health drink Bournvita. The FSSAI in a statement, without naming any entity, said the health benefits attributed to a product must be based on “statistically significant results from well-designated human intervention studies, conducted by or under the guidance of established research institutions”. They must be in consonance with principles of Good Clinical Practices (GCP) and peer-reviewed or published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. 

The allegations, made by an influencer, were later withdrawn, with the company stating that the product adheres to a “scientifically designed formula made with ingredients that are approved for use and all ingredients are declared on the pack”. 

What have we recently observed in the food advertising ecosystem?  

Manisha Kapoor, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary General at the self-regulatory organisation Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) told The Hindu that food advertising has been a “fairly violative sector”.  

“Close to 788 ads that we processed against food advertising, about 299 are related to (non-disclosure by) food influencers. So, we still have about 490-odd ads where the content of what was being said in the ad was found to be misleading,” Ms Kapoor said.  

On which product category has the most number of violators, Ms Kapoor stated, “It is pretty much across all categories, I would not say that one subcategory is a dominant violator, it is pretty much spread across a bunch of different food categories and food.” 

What are the regulations for tackling misleading ads and claims?  

There are varied regulations to combat misleading advertisements and claims, some are broad, while others are product specific. For example, FSSAI uses the Food Safety and Standards (Advertisements & Claims) Regulations, 2018 which specifically deal with food (and related products) while Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)’s regulations cover goods, products and services.  

Further, the Programme and Advertising Codes prescribed under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 stipulate that advertisements must not draw inferences that it has “some special or miraculous or supernatural property or quality, which is difficult of being proved.” 

FSSAI seeks that the advertisements and claims be “truthful, unambiguous, meaningful, not misleading and help consumers to comprehend the information provided”. Claims must be scientifically substantiated by validated methods of characterising or quantifying the ingredient or substance that is the basis for the claim.  

Product claims suggesting suitability for prevention, alleviation, treatment or cure of a disease, disorder or particular psychological condition is prohibited unless specifically permitted under the regulations of the FSS Act, 2006.  

When can a product be referred to as ‘natural’? 

A food product can be referred to as ‘natural’ if it is a single food derived from a recognised natural source and has nothing added to it. It should only have been processed to render it suitable for human consumption. The packaging too must be done sans chemicals and preservatives.  

Composite foods, a mixture of plant and processed constituents, cannot be called ‘natural’, instead, they can say ‘made from natural ingredients’.

What about ‘fresh’? 

‘Fresh’ can be used for products which are not processed in any manner other than washing, peeling, chilling, trimming, cutting or irradiation by ionizing radiation not exceeding 1 kGy or any other processing such that it remains safe for consumption with the basic characteristics unaltered. Food irradiation is a physical process that utilises a controlled amount of radiant energy to achieve effects like sprouting, delay in ripening, and killing of insects/pests, parasites and spoilage microorganisms.  

The regulations forbid the ‘fresh’ reference if the processing endeavours to achieve an extension in the shelf-life of the product (usually achieved through medium-dose applications for meat). Those withadditives (or subject to any other supply chain process) may instead use ‘freshly frozen’, ‘fresh frozen’, or ‘frozen from fresh’ to contextualise that it was quickly frozen while fresh. 

What about ‘pure’ and ‘original’? 

‘Pure’ is to be used for single-ingredient foods to which nothing has been added and which are devoid of all avoidable contamination, while unavoidable contaminations are within prescribed controls. Compound foods cannot be described as ‘pure’ but can be referred to as ‘made with pure ingredients’ if they meet the mentioned criteria.  

‘Original’ is used to describe food products made to a formulation, with a traceable origin that has remained unchanged over time. They do not contain replacements for any major ingredients. It may similarly be used to describe a unique process which has remained essentially unchanged over time, although the product may be mass-produced. 

What about ‘nutritional claims’? 

Nutritional claims may either be about the specific contents of a product or comparisons with some other foodstuff.  

Claims of equivalence such as “contains the same of (nutrient) as a (food)” or “as much (nutrient) as a (food)” may be used in the labelling provided that the amount of nutrient in the foodstuff is enough for it be claimed as a similar ‘source’ of the nutrient as the reference food; in other words, it provides equivalent nutritional value as the reference food.  

According to Ms Kapoor, most complaints of misleadingwere related to the nutrition of a product, its benefits and the ingredient mix not being based on adequate evidence.  

“A lot of claim data is to be based on technical data. For example, if you say, that there is Vitamin D in my product, we need evidence to substantiate that there indeed is Vitamin D in your product,” she says, adding, “then if you claim that Vitamin D in your product can also help reduce fatigue, improve stamina or another claim like that – then there needs to be enough literature to substantiate that the ingredient does what is being stated”.  

However, the Secretary-General elaborates, if the claim revolves around the composition of the product, saying that a product with all its elements achieves a certain outcome, companies needto provide clinical data about the outcomes pertaining to the control group, the administered group and the observed period of the claimed outcomes. 

Lastly, another important aspect of scrutiny entails the expectation from a consumer’s point of view. For example, a product may claim that it offers the same energy as a glass of milk. From a kilocalorie point of view, the product indeed offers the energy equal to the glass of milk – thus making the claim technically correct. However, Ms Kapoor states, from a customer’s perspective, ‘energy’ may imply the body’s ability to carry out certain tasks or be energetic and not necessarily the kilocalorie input.  

In such situations, the advertisement needs to be modified in a “way (that) a consumer would be able to interpret”.