Inside BENEO’s new pulse plant: pioneering sustainable protein from faba beans
Dr Rashida Vapiwala, Founder and CEO, LabelBlind
As India’s packaged food market grows more competitive and claim-driven, the scrutiny around health, nutrition, and marketing claims on food labels is intensifying. With consumers becoming increasingly label-aware and regulators tightening oversight, ensuring that on-pack claims are scientifically substantiated and compliant with regulatory frameworks has become a critical challenge for food companies.
In this context, Dr Rashida Vapiwala, Founder and CEO of LabelBlind, shares insights with NUFFOODS Spectrum on the current state of food labelling compliance in India. Drawing on data showing that 33.6 per cent of food labelling claims are non-compliant or lack substantiation, she discusses why staple categories often carry excessive claims, the risks companies face from misleading labels, and how AI-driven platforms could help move the industry towards more proactive and transparent claim governance. Edited excerpts:
What does the finding that 33.6% of food labelling claims are non-compliant or lack substantiation indicate about the current compliance landscape in India’s packaged food industry?
The data indicates that a significant portion of claims are reaching the label without regulatory or scientific validation. In our analysis, one in three claims either did not meet the regulatory criteria or lacked supporting documentation. For example, products carried “high protein” claims without meeting the minimum nutrient thresholds defined under regulations, or used “natural” or “immunity boosting” claims without verifiable evidence or defined criteria. This shows that claim governance systems within organisations are still largely manual and fragmented.
Why do everyday staples like honey, ghee, edible oils, and tea show significantly higher non-compliance in health claims compared to some emerging food categories?
Staples tend to rely heavily on traditional health perceptions rather than nutrient-based substantiation. Our study found honey averaging 14 claims per product and edible oils around 11, significantly higher than the industry average of 8.6 claims per product. However, many of these claims such as “good for heart health” on honey or “immunity boosting” on tea cannot be substantiated through nutrient composition or approved health claim frameworks. The market for these everyday staples is larger and increasingly competitive. As a result, marketing teams face growing pressure to introduce more claims on packaging to capture consumer attention.The product may contain beneficial components, but the label claim often exaggerates the health outcome beyond what the data supports.
How much of the labelling non-compliance problem stems from lack of awareness versus intentional exaggeration of health and nutrition claims by brands?
In most cases, the issue arises from fragmented interpretation rather than deliberate exaggeration. Product, marketing, and regulatory teams often work separately, and claims are adapted from global marketing language or category trends without being validated against local regulatory frameworks. For example, “high protein in every serve” claims were observed on products where the protein contribution was high per 100 gm not per serve, or “diabetic friendly” claims used without clinical evidence or regulatory approval. The issue arises when claims are created in marketing workflows but validated only at the packaging stage. Without a unified system that assesses claims, ingredients, and nutrient thresholds together, inconsistencies are likely to enter the final label.
Do you think rapid product innovation in categories like plant-based beverages and RTE meals is compromising regulatory compliance? How can companies address this challenge?
Rapid innovation can create compliance gaps when product positioning evolves faster than regulatory frameworks. For instance, plant-based beverages gained significant market presence before clear regulatory frameworks for “vegan” claims were established. As the category expanded, regulatory guidance evolved later to standardize how such claims could be used on food labels. Similarly, ready-to-eat (RTE) meals are sometimes positioned as “diabetic friendly” or “healthy meals” even though clear, standardized nutrient criteria for these claims are not always formally defined. This creates room for varied interpretations in how such claims are used on packaging. Companies need to embed regulatory checks during formulation of innovative products and categories much ahead of product launch.
What are the key gaps you observed in how brands interpret FSSAI, ASCI, and Consumer Protection Act guidelines while making health and nutrition claims?
The gap often lies in how claims are interpreted across multiple regulatory frameworks. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) takes a structured approach by clearly defining specific claims and prescribing limits or conditions for their use. In contrast, the guidelines under the Consumer Protection Act and the Advertising Standards Council of India establish broader principles governing how claims should be communicated. While they serve different purposes, these frameworks are complementary in ensuring responsible and non-misleading food labelling and advertising. So, a claim may technically fit within nutrient thresholds under the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India guidelines, but still fail under advertising or substantiation requirements under the Advertising Standards Council of India. We also observed nutrient claims made without meeting defined thresholds, health claims used without documented evidence, and qualitative claims such as “natural” or “pure” applied to processed products without clear justification.
How does misleading or poorly substantiated labelling impact consumer trust and brand credibility in the long term?
Consumers today are far more label-aware and digitally informed. When claims appear exaggerated or inconsistent with the ingredient list or nutrition panel, it creates skepticism. For example, products marketed as “Goodness of fruits” with fruit constituents instead of whole fruits or “Nutritious” claimed food with a high sugar content. Over time, repeated inconsistencies erode brand and credibility. Brands that invest in transparent, evidence-backed communication tend to build stronger and more durable consumer relationships.
From a business standpoint, what risks—legal, financial, or reputational—do companies face due to non-compliant labelling claims?
Non-compliant claims can trigger regulatory notices, advertising complaints, product recalls, or mandatory label corrections. The operational impact can include packaging redesign, reprinting costs, supply chain disruption, and delayed launches. Beyond regulatory penalties the cost of brand reputation can be significant, particularly when misleading claims attract public scrutiny or media attention. In categories with high claim density such as fortified foods, non-compliance can also trigger portfolio-wide reviews, increasing operational and financial impact. The penalties range from ₹ 2-10 Lakhs depending on the type of or severity of non-compliance.
How can AI-led platforms like LabelBlind help companies move from reactive compliance to proactive claim governance?
AI-led platforms like LabelBlind introduce a precision validation layer for food labels, helping companies verify compliance at scale. Labels are checked across 53 FSSAI parameters covering food category compliance, mandatory declarations, nutrition panels, ingredient permissibility, allergens, claims and metrology standards. The system is rule-anchored and regulation-mapped, reducing subjective interpretation. It enables automated claim validation with clause referencing, along with proofreading and consistency checks. The result is ~90% reduction in manual review time, ~95% validation accuracy, and faster go-to-market for regulated food products.
At what stage of product development should companies ideally integrate labelling compliance, and what best practices would you recommend?
Labelling compliance should be integrated during product development, before packaging design is finalised. Validate formulations, nutrition data and ingredient permissibility early. Run structured label checks before artwork approval and printing. Use automated validation tools to review claims, declarations and regulatory requirements together. Early integration helps prevent reprints, reduce regulatory risk and accelerate product launches.
With rising regulatory scrutiny and consumer awareness, how do you see the future of food labelling and compliance evolving in India over the next few years?
Food labelling compliance in India is moving toward technology-led, system-driven governance. Regulatory scrutiny on claims and disclosures will continue to increase making labels more complex with multiple claims and certifications. Companies will increasingly adopt AI-enabled validation systems to manage compliance across large portfolios. The future will rely on digital tools that verify and govern food labels, ensuring continuing regulatory updates at scale and enabling faster, more accurate compliance.
Mansi Jamsudkar Padvekar