Food companies are implementing comprehensive systems to detect product issues before they reach consumers. These systems cover raw material testing, batch storage, and conducting simulated product recalls.
Recently, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) issued over 150 notices to food companies regarding false advertising, misleading claims, and non-compliance with labeling regulations. Among the companies that received such notices were major food and beverage producers, including Nestlé India, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola India, Mondelez India, Abbott India, and Ferrero India. In August, FSSAI banned the sale of all types of ghee produced by SDP Industries from Daman after several samples were found to be non-compliant. The regulator also issued notices to e-commerce platforms and food service chains, confiscated products, and in some cases, suspended licenses.
These actions indicate that the industry is under close scrutiny regarding its food safety assurance systems—from what they produce to what they tell consumers, and how they attempt to prevent problematic products from entering the market.
Every package on the supermarket shelf goes through a chain of checks that begins with suppliers and raw materials, and then continues through production, testing, packaging, and shipping. Companies must determine when raw materials can be used in production, when a batch should be held, whether a deviation can be corrected, and when a product must be scrapped. If an issue arises after the product leaves the factory, there must be a way to identify the affected batch and trace its journey.
There is a basic regulatory level for these systems. FSSAI licensing conditions require food industry enterprises, among other things, to maintain established sanitary and hygienic standards, keep daily records of production and raw material usage, guarantee the origin and standards of raw materials, and conduct testing for relevant chemical or microbiological contaminants in their own or accredited NABL/FSSAI notified laboratories. Such testing must be conducted as often as historical data and risk assessment require, and no less than once every six months.
However, this does not mean that every company must follow exactly the same testing program. Enterprises can conduct additional supplier checks, by batch, by lot, or during the production process depending on the product and the risks identified by them.
Methods of monitoring manufactured packages vary among FMCG companies depending on the product type. A spice producer faces agricultural raw material, contamination, and cross-contamination. A dry snack producer must monitor moisture, temperature, and seasonings. A ghee producer may need to check quality at farms supplying milk.
Business Standard surveyed The Healthy Binge, a packaged snack producer, which reported that its quality control system starts with the supplier. Tukaram Bade, Production Head at The Healthy Binge, stated: 'We evaluate the supplier, check their relevant license, and understand how ingredients and raw materials are handled. We also review their laboratory reports and Certificate of Analysis (CoA)'.
Then, the company takes samples of incoming material and tests them in its own laboratory. The results are compared with the company's technical specifications and the supplier's CoA. Only material that passes inspection is allowed into production, according to him.
The company claims to have 40 quality control points at various stages. Monthly internal food safety audits use the applicable FSSAI checklist and cover areas such as premises, operations, sanitation, personal hygiene, training, and complaint handling. Checks range from raw material inspection and counterfeit testing to in-process control and finished product testing.
For ZOFF, a spice and food producer, the first check happens even before the raw material batch is unloaded. Abhishek Jetli, Plant Manager at ZOFF, noted: 'We have a checklist to ensure that the incoming material is safe and meets the required food safety standards.' The vehicle is checked for basic hygiene, including the presence of covering and visible signs of mold, scattered material, or poor handling.
Then, material is sampled from different parts of different bags before being tested for physical contamination and chemical characteristics. Jetli reported that testing takes about eight hours, after which the material is released for grinding, cleaning, sorting, and packaging, depending on the product. This control is important because the final product can only be as reliable as the raw material supplied to the factory.
For Bharat Vedica, a ghee brand, the quality chain starts even further upstream. A significant portion of its ghee is sourced from partner farms. According to Shivanand Solapure, Senior Quality Assurance/Quality Control Specialist at Bharat Vedica, a member of the company's advisory team visits the supplier's production site weekly.
The audit examines the housing conditions of Gir breed cows, including their feed, water, and general management, as well as farm hygiene practices. He stated: 'The quality and safety of milk depend on what happens before it reaches the processing stage.'
Samples are taken from each batch of ghee received and sent to an external lab approved by FSSAI. Bharat Vedica checks parameters such as color, odor, and moisture, as well as potential contamination and adulteration, comparing the results with its specifications.
The company also has controls at the packaging stage. Workers handling the product are issued hygiene kits and are required to wear gloves and masks, as well as adhere to cleaning and sanitation protocols, Solapure reported. A batch can also be held or rejected due to changes in color or odor. Bharat Vedica explains some such changes as natural variations in milk caused by factors such as animal hormones, feeding, and daily routine. The company investigates such deviations instead of simply releasing the batch to meet the production schedule.
The next challenge is preventing contamination or mixing inside the plant. At ZOFF, raw materials are stored on pallets, with separate zones for allergens such as peanuts. The company also uses multi-layer packaging for incoming material to limit contamination. Jetli noted that spices create another problem, as strong aromas can transfer between products if materials are not processed or stored properly.
The Healthy Binge applies a similar approach. Its warehouse team is informed in advance about incoming material to prepare suitable space. Ingredients are stored separately, and random samples are collected upon receipt. Batch and date storage also helps maintain traceability.
The food safety system also depends on how consistently employees adhere to hygiene procedures. For ZOFF, this is one of the biggest practical challenges. Jetli reported that the factory employs about 120–140 permanent and contract workers, with significant turnover among contract staff. He noted that new employees require frequent training on the basics of food safety practices and proper use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The company conducts weekly training, including basic workplace hygiene and handwashing techniques.
The FSSAI food safety training and certification program, or FoSTaC, recommends that licensed food enterprises have at least one trained and certified food safety supervisor for every 25 food production workers at each facility. Food safety supervisors must train and oversee other food production workers. Therefore, weekly on-site training at ZOFF is a company-level practice within this broader training framework.
Industry representatives believe that one of the most critical tests of a food safety system is what happens when quality assurance goals conflict with production/shipping goals. Pranav Korke, Co-founder of The Healthy Binge, admitted that a 'dispute' can arise between production and quality, as production has targets while the quality team has grounds to reject material. 'The final decision rests with the quality team,' he said. If quality rejects material, production must stop, and if it rejects a produced batch, shipment will not occur, even if it leads to loss of production or sales.
At ZOFF, production and commercial teams cannot override a hold or rejection based on food safety concerns, according to Co-founder Akasha Agrawal. He reported that over the last year, about 5 percent of batches were placed on hold due to moisture-related issues, and the affected stock was kept at the factory until the issue was resolved and necessary checks were completed.
However, a hold does not automatically mean the product is unsafe. It might mean a test is pending, a requirement was not met, or a deviation investigation is needed.
Depending on the issue, the quality team may require reprocessing, further testing, or scrapping. According to The Healthy Binge and Zoff, moisture-related discrepancies have been one reason for batch holds. Companies claim to rectify this by drying, after which the reprocessed material can only be used after completing necessary checks. But if the problem occurs during extrusion or seasoning and alters the characteristics of the final product, the batch is discarded, the company says.
This distinction matters. A quality hold or rework is an intermediate control, whereas a test determines whether the material ultimately meets applicable specifications before release. FSSAI recall rules similarly provide for withdrawal, destruction, or reprocessing as possible outcomes after food enters the recall process.
This also incurs business costs. The company notes that normal production waste accounts for 7–9 percent. This figure covers normal production losses and should not be considered a share of production rejected for food safety reasons. They track these losses in production and quality records to identify recurring problems.
Consumer complaints trigger another level of investigation and the CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) process. Jetli reported that the company aims to respond within seven days, and the action depends on the nature of the complaint. A complaint about a foreign object, such as hair, may lead to stricter PPE requirements and additional staff training.
According to Jetli, the company conducts quarterly market sampling and independent laboratory testing. He added that test reports are also uploaded to the Food Safety Compliance System (FoSCoS) portal.
After the product leaves the factory, traceability is not just an internal management tool. The FSSAI Recall Rules 2017 require food enterprise operators to maintain distribution records containing information such as suppliers and customers, batch or lot numbers, package size, brand, manufacturing date, and expiry or best-before date. Manufacturers, importers, and wholesalers are also required to maintain an up-to-date recall plan.
The Healthy Binge conducts quarterly simulated recall and traceability drills. Its records link raw material batches, production lots, warehouse inventory, and shipping information. The exercise checks both backward traceability, from the finished product to its ingredients and production records, and forward traceability through the distribution chain.
During a recall, the company must locate inventory, coordinate with distributors, cease further sales, and account for withdrawn goods. The time limit becomes stricter as soon as the enterprise determines that the food requires a recall. The 2017 rules require the food enterprise operator to notify the relevant authority immediately, but no later than 24 hours after becoming aware of the need for a recall. Distribution must be stopped.
