How well does India’s food safety rulebook protect what actually lands on your plate?

Experts say that the root of the problem may lie somewhere between the rulebook and the consumer’s plate — in licensing, inspections, testing, enforcement and traceability. The Indian Express takes a closer look at the scenario in a bid to answer one question: Are India’s food-safety laws reaching the people they are meant to protect?

Law vs enforcement

The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, is the core law that governs the manufacture, storage, distribution, sale, and import of food items in the country. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), being the central food regulator, lays down standards relating to what ingredients can be used, permissible levels of contaminants, additives, labelling, packaging, food business licensing, and other related matters.

Despite having laws, regulators, enforcement officers and testing infrastructure, gaps can emerge at multiple stages, from licensing and inspection to laboratory testing, regulatory action and the eventual accountability of food businesses. These are the gaps that can put the safety of food reaching consumers at risk.

Recently, the government also asked the FSSAI to review the performance and vacancies of food safety officers in states and Union territories as part of efforts to strengthen enforcement. FSSAI has, meanwhile, launched consumer-awareness initiatives, including campaigns on food adulteration and label literacy, such as “#NoToAdulteration” & “How to Check for Adulteration” video on its official YouTube channel.

Yet, questions remain over whether regulation is keeping pace with the rapidly advancing food market.

FDA officials raiding an eatery in Maharashtra’s Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. (File photo)

The gap, therefore, may not necessarily lie in the absence of laws. Rather, the question is whether the regulatory system, from standard-setting and inspection to testing, enforcement and consumer awareness, is functioning effectively enough to ensure that the legal protections actually reach the consumer.

We look at recent instances in which different parts of this enforcement chain reached courts and came under scrutiny, from food-business licensing and inspection to laboratory testing, regulatory delays and the traceability of expired food.

High court canteens ‘closed’

Following the Bombay High Court directions to inspect semi-government eating establishments, the FDA inspected three canteens on the Bombay High Court premises – one run by the Bombay Bar Association (BBA), another by the Advocates Association of Western India (AAWI), and a third for high court staff.

Of these establishments, the FDA allegedly suspended the operations of two after finding that they were serving food without the required FSSAI licences. The third canteen was also required to have a licence but was instead issued an improvement notice. However, the BBA claimed that it had voluntarily shut the canteen before FDA officials arrived.

The episode raises a wider question: if issues over mandatory food-business licences could arise in establishments functioning on high court premises, how effectively is licensing being monitored across the vastly larger sector of restaurants, canteens and other food businesses?

‘2 insects’ in kitchen

The Maharashtra FDA conducted a surprise inspection and reported alleged deficiencies and regulatory non-compliances in one of the hotels in Navi Mumbai and later suspended the licence of Park Inn by Radisson. The hotel’s business was affected, and they approached the Bombay High Court, which in turn reversed the suspension and said that the discovery of “two insects” in an otherwise “satisfactory” kitchen inspection report was not sufficient grounds to continue the suspension of a four-star hotel’s food licence.

The case illustrates another challenge in food-safety enforcement. Regulators are expected to act swiftly when public health is at risk, but their actions must also be proportionate and capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny.

There are also several misconceptions regarding food safety laws in India. Talking about the biggest such misconception, advocate Sathya Prasad, senior partner at FoxMandal, pointed out that the single biggest misconception among consumers is that FSSAI registration/licence or the presence of the FSSAI logo on a food package or outlet guarantees safety, purity, or overall quality of the product.

“The other important misconception is the overpromising claims made in marketing advertisements on ‘purity’ or ‘safety’ solely based on FSSAI approval,” he added.

Doctor’s 8-year battle to unmask ‘ORS’

It took eight years for Hyderabad-based paediatrician Dr Sivaranjini Santhosh’s legal battle against the marketing of sugar-laden commercial beverages disguised as Oral Rehydration Solution (ORS) to succeed. As a result, in 2025, the FSSAI prohibited all fruit-based, non-carbonated, ready-to-drink beverages using the term ORS in their trademarked names.

The paediatrician pursued the issue with the aim of ensuring that children with diarrhoea do not end up consuming flavoured, sweetened beverages in place of proper ORS, a life-saving treatment pioneered by Dr Dilip Mahalanabis. However, Dr Santosh recently resigned from the Indian Academy of Paediatrics (IAP), alleging that the body failed to address concerns over industry influence and consumer confusion.

The case points to another weak link – time. If a medical professional has to pursue concerns for years before regulatory action is taken, what does the process look like for an ordinary consumer who spots an unsafe food product or one with a potentially misleading claim?

Maggi row: Questioning testing procedures

Few food-safety controversies in India have received as much attention as the 2015 Maggi row. The instant noodles, familiar to generations of Indians, became the subject of regulatory action following findings related to the presence of lead and MSG (monosodium glutamate) in it. The episode began when an officer of the UP Food Safety and Drug Administration, based in Barabanki, ordered tests on a dozen samples of Nestlé India’s Maggi instant noodles at the state laboratory in Gorakhpur in 2015.

Later, the FSSAI ordered a nationwide recall and ban on nine variants of Maggi noodles. However, the Bombay High Court later lifted the ban, holding that the principles of natural justice had not been followed, as the manufacturer had not been given an opportunity to be heard.

Between May 25 and July 31 this year, over 3,000 food safety inspections were conducted across Maharashtra, resulting in 165 licence suspensions, as per FDA records. (Source: Express Archives)

This whole episode of the ban and its subsequent lifting on Maggi highlighted the need to standardise food-testing procedures across the country.

Talking about this case, advocate Rahul Hingmire, managing partner at Vis Legis Law Practice, said the row demonstrated that even “scientifically significant findings” can face a legal challenge if sampling or testing procedure is defective. “Reliable food regulation requires both good laboratories and legally defensible processes. India now needs standardised protocols, stronger proficiency audits and faster referee-testing mechanisms nationwide”.

Advocate Alay Razvi, managing partner at Accord Juris, added that India has a formal food testing structure supported by FSSAI-recognised laboratories and accreditation requirements. “However, accreditation alone does not make every report conclusive,” he pointed.

‘Kitchen not beyond law’

Another case before the Karnataka High Court has raised questions about how companies operate under the garb of legitimate business operations. The court was looking into the functioning of Earth Recycler Pvt Ltd, which was allegedly engaged in the collection, segregation and disposal of expired food products, damaged consumer goods and other waste materials.

The court, however, noted that the company allegedly diverted stocks meant for recycling and instead re-labelled and repacked them before pushing the items back into the market to the unsuspecting public at extremely lower prices.

Pointing out that such conduct, if proved, amounted to a “deception dressed as commerce”, the court observed that food safety requires constant vigilance and rigorous traceability of expired stock. It said that “the kitchen of a hotel may remain beyond the customer’s sight, but it can never remain beyond the reach of the law”.

The case highlights perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of food-safety enforcement: traceability. Once expired or damaged products leave the authorised disposal or recycling chain and re-enter the market through repackaging or relabelling, identifying them before they reach consumers becomes significantly harder.

Quick delivery vs regulation

The food market has changed dramatically in recent years, but has regulation kept up with 10-minute delivery platforms and the like?

Advocate Hingmire said the law must move from traditional inspection to technology-led, risk-based monitoring, pointing out that while a food item can now reach a consumer in 10 minutes, regulatory inspection remains periodic. “India has a strong statutory framework, but enforcement has not fully kept pace with instant-delivery models…Faster commerce cannot mean diluted compliance,” he added.

The key regulatory gap is not a lack of rules, but the absence of a continuous, risk-based, tech-enabled supervision across the food supply chain, from digital platforms to the consumer, said Delhi-based Senior Advocate Krishna Grandhi. “The appropriate policy direction is not necessarily to create an entirely new legal regime for 10–20-minute delivery. Rather, the existing FSSAI framework should be strengthened through clearer allocation of responsibilities, enhanced inspection capacity, digital traceability, data-assisted risk assessment, cold-chain monitoring and specific last-mile controls,” he emphasised.

While quick-commerce platforms ensure that a food item can now reach a consumer in 10 minutes, regulatory inspection remains periodic. (File photo)

According to advocate Razvi, the priorities should be stronger platform accountability, digital traceability, cold chain monitoring, coordinated inspections, effective recalls and clearer responsibility across the delivery chain.

Ultimate question

The existing legal framework can only “partially monitor” the informal food sector and does not provide for continuous, comprehensive and effective oversight, advocate Prasad said.

Comparing FSSAI with the FDA in the United States, Prasad said they maintain different lists for approved chemical additives and synthetic food colours. “Indian consumers may end up paying the same price as consumers in the United States for products that are subject to comparatively lower quality standards.”

Shedding light on the FSSAI’s actions against quick commerce platforms this year, advocate Ashutosh K Srivastava, partner at SKV Law Offices, said it was triggered by consumer complaints, not routine inspection.

India’s food-safety framework is extensive, but the above cases show that the strength of a law ultimately depends on how effectively it is enforced. From licensing and inspections to laboratory testing, regulatory delays, traceability and the rise of quick-commerce, the weak links are spread across the food-supply chain. The challenge, hence, is not simply to have more rules, but to ensure that existing safeguards work consistently, swiftly and transparently.

For the consumer, it all boils down to one question: whether the food that appears safe on paper is actually so by the time it reaches the plate.