FSSAI sent notification to Dabr India over '100% purity' claims; experts explained what food tests are

Recently, consumers often choose products based on prominent labels such as '100% pure' or '100% natural,' which create a sense of reliability. The presence of the FSSAI mark on the packaging also instills confidence. However, FSSAI (Food Safety and Standards Authority of India) recently issued a notification to Dabr India regarding such '100%' claims for a range of food products, including honey, ghee, and oil.

This incident has once again raised questions about the veracity of such claims on products. There is growing interest in whether medical tests exist to confirm product purity and whether having an FSSAI license number implies the absolute truthfulness of all statements on the packaging. To get answers to these questions, the authors of the appeal contacted a senior FSSAI official and the director of the medical department at Safdarjung Hospital.

According to a senior FSSAI representative, the presence of the FSSAI mark only allows a company to sell a product in the market, provided that moderate consumption does not harm health. Nevertheless, obtaining a license does not grant a company the right to make any claims about its product that contradict scientific data or FSSAI regulations.

The officer clarified that when applying for permission to sell a packaged product (be it honey, ghee, oil, milk, or biscuits), FSSAI checks the production process, compliance with sanitary standards, and raw material quality. Microbiological tests are conducted, and other parameters are assessed. Only after meeting all these criteria does the product receive permission to be sold and the FSSAI mark. Furthermore, FSSAI does not monitor the attractiveness of advertising or future marketing claims made by the company about its product, which often leads to public misunderstanding.

The FSSAI representative emphasized that the license confirms the product's compliance with all quality parameters but does not guarantee that every statement on the packaging is scientifically proven within the field of medical science. Consequently, companies cannot claim that a product is '100% natural' or '100% pure.'

The FSSAI official explained that phrases like '100% pure' are more akin to marketing tactics influencing consumer decisions. Legislation prohibits companies from misleading consumers with such claims, yet they use these terms to increase sales. This is precisely why appropriate measures are being taken.

According to FSSAI rules, the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006 is used to take action. Under this act, an explanation is requested from the company, a notice may be issued, an inspection may be conducted, and violators may face penalties. The notification sent to Dabr was related to a violation of rules because the company positioned honey and ghee as '100% pure,' which the regulator considered misleading.

The Director of the Medical Department at Safdarjung Hospital, Professor Dr. Jugal Kishor, noted that many products undergo laboratory testing, but it is important to distinguish between food and medical tests. When a company tests honey, ghee, or oil, the goal of the test is to ensure the product's safety for consumption, the absence of dangerous bacteria, and the non-use of chemical substances, as well as to determine their quantity.

If all these indicators are normal, the product can be released onto the market. However, such tests do not prove that the product is '100% pure.' Dr. Kishor explained that honey is not simply collected from hives and packaged; it undergoes various processes, including the addition of preservatives. After processing, a food test is conducted to check for impurities and food safety, but this test does not confirm the '100% pure' or 'natural' status. Thus, while each claim might be true from a quality analysis perspective, it does not meet the requirements of medical science. This is why FSSAI takes such claims seriously and requires scientific substantiation from companies.

Dr. Kishor advised consumers not to make purchasing decisions solely based on large advertising slogans. It is necessary to carefully examine the ingredient list on the back of the packaging and always check the FSSAI license number. Products should be purchased based on factual data, not on advertising promises.

The Ministry of Agriculture has made an important policy decision aimed at stimulating organic farming and improving soil conditions in the country. A draft notification was issued banning the use of the most toxic herbicide, 'Paraquat dichloride,' across the entire country, which increased pressure on the agrochemical lobby.

Shift to controlling Glyphosate

Following this step, the focus of the agricultural sector and environmentalists has shifted to a potential ban on another major herbicide—'Glyphosate.' Simultaneously, there is a growing demand for greater policy transparency and the elimination of the influence of chemical corporations within government institutions and research centers.

Government stance and the Paraquat ban

After long waits, public protests, and the death of thousands of people, the Ministry's draft decree for 2026 effectively allowed a complete ban on the production, import, sale, and use of Paraquat. Agriculture Minister Shivaj Singh Chauhan sent a strong signal in an informal conversation with farmers: 'There is no excuse for putting any chemicals into the fields that are dangerous to human life and the environment. The health of the people comes first.'

His statement emphasized that the government will not back down from any pressure to implement the vision of 'chemically pure' agriculture put forward by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Reasons for demanding a Glyphosate ban

Similar to Paraquat, the necessity of banning Glyphosate is currently being actively discussed. The main concerns relate to the fact that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) classified Glyphosate as a substance that causes cancer in humans (Group 2A). Numerous lawsuits against this chemical are being filed worldwide.

In more than 30 countries around the world, including Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Vietnam, and Austria, Glyphosate is either completely banned or its use is strictly regulated. A natural question arises as to why such a chemical, recognized as harmful to health and the environment globally, continues to be sold in India.

Damage to the country's reputation

The use of Glyphosate damages the country's reputation. In recent years, hundreds of batches of agricultural products exported from India to the European Union and other countries (such as basmati rice, tea, and spices) have been rejected due to the detection of Glyphosate residues. This has been a blow to both the international image and the agrarian economy of the country.

Corporate machinations and legal barriers

Agrochemical companies have largely neutralized the government's attempts to tighten control over Glyphosate. Previously, the government issued a directive limiting the uncontrolled use of this substance, establishing a rule that spraying must only be carried out by authorized pesticide operators (PCOs), not by the farmers themselves. The goal of this measure was to protect farmers and the population from direct contact with the poisonous substance.

However, dissatisfied agrochemical associations appealed to the High Court of Delhi. The companies argued that the necessary PCO infrastructure is absent in rural areas of India, making the proper procedure 'impractical' and leading to a sharp increase in costs for farmers. Thanks to strong lobbying and technical arguments, the High Court of Delhi stayed the notification. As a result, this important reformative step remained buried in legal disputes, and the illegal sale and spraying of this poison continued in the fields.

Link between lobby and state structures

While the Prime Minister and the Agriculture Minister speak of the country's move towards chemically pure agriculture, the reality on the ground looks different. With every attempt by the government to introduce a ban on a deadly pesticide or herbicide, a powerful internal syndicate of the agrochemical lobby strives to weaken or postpone the decision.

According to sources, some agronomists are involved in this network. Prominent scientists from state agricultural universities and research institutes depend on funding from these companies. When the issue of banning any chemical arises, these scientists prepare 'sponsored research reports' claiming that 'this chemical is absolutely safe, and without it, the country's agricultural production will stop.'

These reports are used as a weapon to keep ban files suspended for years. Chemicals declared dangerous to humans in other countries are presented by Indian scientists as safe. They create technical complexities in political decisions, giving companies a delay. As soon as there is movement on a ban file, scientists inform company owners of every change. Using this confidential information, companies manage to sell off old stocks or launch a legal siege, achieving a 'stay' from the courts just before a final decision is made.

The biggest beneficiaries of this collusion are officials after retirement: high-ranking scientists and policy developers who retire from regulatory and research institutions are often hired by large agrochemical companies as consultants or board members under very favorable terms. Such examples are easily observed in the industry.

Prospects for strengthening control

Actions taken against Paraquat serve as proof that even corporate lobbying and institutional obstacles cannot overcome the government's determination. According to sources in the Ministry of Agriculture, once the 30-day validity period of the Paraquat draft notification expires, control over Glyphosate will also be strengthened. It is clear that agrochemical companies will no longer be able to profit from the health of ordinary people.