LabelBlind Solutions has found several instances of claims noncompliant with Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) regulations across staple and new food categories in India. The nation’s first AI-led digital food labeling service flags the trend, which increases the risk of consumer confusion about what is truly nutritious and healthy, especially regarding products made for children.
Nutrition Insight speaks with LabelBlind’s founder, who urges stricter governance, especially amid India’s long battle against undernutrition, while obesity, non-communicable diseases, and metabolic disorders are rising.
Furthermore, the nation is experiencing “explosive” growth in the packaged food sector, radically transforming dietary habits. LabelBlind’s latest report outlines that this sector’s market, valued at approximately US$121.3 billion in 2024, is projected to reach roughly US$225–US$284 billion by 2033-2034.
Additionally, a study in The Lancet reported a 4000% increase in the retail sales of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in India between 2006 and 2019.
Despite increased health budgets and stricter Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSAI) rules, the country faces rising diet-related health issues amid the surge in packaged foods.
Dr. Rashida Vapiwala tells us about the report’s findings, food company labelings, consumer impact, and what is needed to mitigate the harms of noncompliant labeling.
How do industry labeling and government enforcement impact public health goals?
Vapiwala: India has made significant progress in building a strong regulatory framework through FSSAI, and the intent to protect consumer health is very clear. However, the challenge lies in how labeling practices are implemented on the ground.
In many cases, labels become marketing-heavy rather than information-led, with multiple claims competing for consumer attention. For example, consumers may see “low fat,” “high fiber,” or “multigrain” claims on snack foods that still contain high sodium or energy density. While technically one nutrient claim may be correct, the label’s overall health perception can be misleading. This creates a gap between regulatory compliance and public health communication, where labels technically comply in parts but still influence consumers toward making food choices.
For public health goals to be fully supported, we need stronger claim governance within companies and more system-led validation before products reach the market.
Why do nutrition and health claims show a 52.5% gap despite FSSAI rules?
Vapiwala: Trust is one of the most valuable assets for food brands. Nutrient and health claims are now at the center of consumer choice. As the demand for nutrient-dense products rises, marketers often leverage this expectation by using claims that may not always be fully substantiated. For instance, a product may claim “high fiber” but fail to meet the minimum grams per 100 g threshold, or a “source of iron” claim may be made without meeting the required percentage of recommended dietary allowance.
India’s packaged foods overload labels with questionable claims — AI flags 52.5% nutrient and health gaps amid UPF boom.Another common gap occurs when brands apply general health statements such as “boosts immunity” or “supports heart health” without linking them to a specific nutrient responsible for that function. Even when it’s present, it’s not present in an amount to provide the said benefit. Claims often move through multiple teams — marketing, product development, and regulatory and the interpretation can vary at each stage.
In addition, the technical requirements behind nutrient thresholds, serving sizes, and claim wording are often complex. Without structured validation systems, even well-intentioned claims can fall into compliance gaps.
What makes nutrient or health claims risky, like “good for heart health” on honey or “diabetic friendly” on ready-to-eat meals?
Vapiwala: Nutrient and health claims are powerful because they directly influence consumer perception of health benefits. But they are also among the most tightly regulated claims because they must meet specific thresholds and scientific substantiation requirements.
Many brands unintentionally cross the line between nutritional information and implied health benefits. Health claims imply a physiological benefit, which requires strong scientific evidence and regulatory eligibility. For example, “good for heart health” on honey is difficult to substantiate because honey’s nutrient profile is predominantly sugars and does not directly support cardiovascular health claims. Similarly, “diabetic friendly” claims on ready-to-eat meals often appear without glycemic index data or clinical validation.
These claims cross from nutrient description into disease-related positioning, which significantly increases compliance risk if the evidence or regulatory permissions are not clearly established, leading to regulatory action, product recalls, and reputational damage bearing significant costs to the entire brand.
Moreover, this can create a false sense of assurance for consumers, who may believe the product delivers specific health benefits even when the scientific substantiation is limited. This becomes particularly concerning when claims relate to critical health parameters.
Claims of honey (14), snacks (13), and edible oils (11) exceed the 8.6 average per product. Why do staples pile on claims?
Vapiwala: Staple foods often rely on traditional health perceptions rather than clear nutrient-based substantiation, making packaging an important differentiation tool. Categories like oils or honey have limited product differentiation, which pushes brands to rely heavily on claims to stand out. These products also carry a strong “health halo,” which companies often leverage extensively in their marketing.
Vapiwala says LabelBlind AI found 52.5% of nutrient/health claims failed as UPF sales surged.For example, honey products often carry claims like “immunity booster,” “useful in weight management,” or “good for heart health.” In reality, honey’s nutrient composition is largely simple sugars, and these health benefit claims are rarely supported by clinical evidence or permitted health claim frameworks.
Edible oils frequently highlight “cholesterol-free” and “heart-healthy,” while vegetable oils are naturally cholesterol-free. The claim can create a misleading perception of superior heart health. Snack products may display “baked, not fried,” “multigrain,” or “source of fibrer.” However, the nutrition panel may still show high sodium or refined carbohydrate levels, meaning the highlighted claim does not reflect the overall nutritional quality. As staple foods are already trusted, additional claims are used to reinforce perceived benefits.
Over time, labels start accumulating multiple claims like nutritional, lifestyle, purity, and health-related, to influence consumer choice at the shelf. The problem is that as claim density increases, the risk of incorrect interpretation or incomplete substantiation also rises. When products carry 11–14 claims on pack, even small wording or threshold errors can push them into non-compliance.
Protein powders average 17 claims per product with 45.5% gaps, and plant beverages at 29% non-compliance. How should innovators balance health positioning with rules?
Vapiwala: Innovation-driven categories often rely heavily on health positioning to explain their value proposition to consumers. That’s understandable, but it also means these products tend to carry a very high number of claims. For example, plant-based beverages may carry “high protein” or “nutritionally equivalent to milk” claims, but their actual protein levels can be significantly lower than dairy milk.
Similarly, protein powders sometimes combine performance, immunity, and weight management claims on the same label, without substantiating each claim individually. Innovators should anchor health positioning directly to verified nutrient composition and permitted claims, rather than aspirational marketing language.
The key is to build claims from the product’s formulation and nutrition data rather than from marketing narratives. Innovators need to treat claim validation as a structured process, ensuring every claim has clear regulatory backing, scientific support, and appropriate nutrient thresholds. This requires strong substantiation, placing the responsibility on innovators to ensure claims are accurate, compliant, and credible.
Snacks and beverages show over 27% non-compliance in kid-targeted products. Does this demand tighter governance versus adult categories?
Vapiwala: Yes, absolutely. Snacks and ready-to-eat meals attract a lot of attention from children. And such categories need to be looked at differently, like ketchup and jam. With metabolic disorders rising in children, the products consumed by them deserve a higher level of scrutiny as they combine strong health cues with indulgent formulations.
Noncompliant honey and kids’ snacks risk confusion, underscoring the need for stronger public health validation.For example, snacks marketed with “high calcium,” “energy for growth,” or “brain development” messaging may still contain high levels of sugar, sodium, or refined carbohydrates. The claim draws attention to one nutrient while masking the overall nutritional quality. Claims in these categories can strongly influence parental decisions and children’s long-term dietary habits. When snacks or ready-to-drink (RTD) beverages carry health or nutrition cues that are not fully compliant, the impact is much wider. Child-centric categories should have stricter internal governance and more careful evaluation of how claims are framed.
What practical steps should companies take for claim validation?
Vapiwala: Companies need to shift from last-minute label checks to structured validation earlier in the product lifecycle. That means linking claims directly to formulation data, verifying nutrition calculations, and evaluating claim wording before packaging design begins.
It also helps to use rule-anchored and regulation-mapped validation systems like FoLSol 2.0 that check labels against regulatory parameters such as ingredient permissibility, nutrition thresholds, mandatory declarations, and claim rules. When these checks are embedded early, companies can reduce risk while also speeding up product launches.
