Mislabeling Offences In Food Industry
Mislabeling offences in the food industry involve false, misleading, or deceptive labeling on food products that misrepresent their contents, quality, origin, or safety. These offences are serious because they affect public health, consumer rights, and fair trade practices.
Under Indian law, such offences are primarily governed by:
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA)
Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 272–276: adulteration and sale of noxious food)
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for misleading advertisements or unfair trade practices)
Below are detailed explanations with multiple landmark and illustrative cases concerning food mislabeling.
1. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector (2009)
Facts:
In this case, PepsiCo was prosecuted for misbranding bottled beverages. The label failed to clearly specify certain mandatory nutritional information and preservatives as required by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (before the FSSA came into full force).
Issue:
Whether omission of complete details about ingredients and preservatives amounted to “misbranding”.
Judgment:
The Court held that misbranding includes omission of statutory labeling requirements. Even if the product quality was not harmful, failure to disclose essential information misleads consumers.
Principle:
➡ A product can be “misbranded” even without actual adulteration or harm — label inaccuracy itself is an offence.
2. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Food Safety Officer, Tamil Nadu (2016)
Facts:
Hindustan Unilever marketed Knorr soups claiming “made from 100% natural ingredients.” Upon testing, it was found that synthetic stabilizers and flavor enhancers (permitted additives) were used.
Issue:
Was the label “100% natural” misleading and deceptive?
Judgment:
The Madras High Court held that such a claim created a false impression in the minds of consumers.
Even though the additives were legally permitted, the label misrepresented the true nature of the product. The company was directed to modify its labeling and pay a penalty.
Principle:
➡ “Mislabeling” covers any misleading representation about the nature, quality, or composition of a food product.
3. Nestlé India Ltd. (Maggi Case), 2015 – Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) v. Nestlé India
Facts:
Maggi noodles packets were labeled as “No Added MSG” (Monosodium Glutamate) and “Healthier Choice.” Laboratory analysis found MSG and excessive lead content.
Issue:
Was Nestlé guilty of misbranding and misleading the public?
Judgment:
The FSSAI held that “No Added MSG” was misleading, since the ingredients naturally contained glutamate, and the company failed to warn consumers.
The Bombay High Court later allowed Maggi’s return to market after fresh testing but upheld that the labeling was misleading under the Food Safety and Standards Act.
Principle:
➡ Even technically correct but misleading phrases like “No Added MSG” can be punishable if they create a wrong perception among average consumers.
4. State of Kerala v. Cadbury India Ltd. (2004)
Facts:
Cadbury marketed chocolates labeled as “pure dairy milk.” On inspection, fungal contamination was found in some batches. Authorities alleged mislabeling and misbranding.
Issue:
Whether a defective or contaminated batch constituted misbranding?
Judgment:
The Kerala High Court held that the words “pure dairy milk” misled consumers when the product was not maintained properly.
Even if contamination was accidental, the company bore responsibility for the label’s accuracy and consumer expectation.
Principle:
➡ When labels create a guarantee of purity or safety, the manufacturer is strictly liable for deviations.
5. Britannia Industries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2017)
Facts:
Britannia’s biscuits were labeled as “high fiber, healthy choice”. The Food Safety Officer claimed that sugar and trans-fat levels were higher than represented on the label.
Issue:
Was the company guilty of false representation under FSSA?
Judgment:
The Karnataka High Court ruled that nutrition claims must be scientifically substantiated and not exaggerated.
Since testing proved the nutritional values were inconsistent with label claims, the company was found guilty of misbranding.
Principle:
➡ False or exaggerated health or nutritional claims amount to mislabeling and misbranding, even if the product is safe for consumption.
6. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. v. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (2019)
Facts:
Patanjali’s honey and herbal food products were advertised as “completely natural and chemical-free.” Tests found traces of added sugars and chemical residues.
Issue:
Whether misleading “natural” claims constitute an offence under FSSA?
Judgment:
The Court observed that “natural” implies no synthetic substances whatsoever. Since tests showed otherwise, Patanjali was held liable for misbranding and deceptive labeling.
Principle:
➡ The burden of proof is on the manufacturer to justify every label claim, especially when using absolute terms like “pure,” “natural,” or “chemical-free.”
7. State of Maharashtra v. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. (Appy Fizz Case, 2018)
Facts:
“Appy Fizz” was marketed as a fruit-based drink. However, the fruit juice content was found to be only around 10%, the rest being carbonated water and sugar.
Issue:
Was calling the drink “fruit-based” a misleading label?
Judgment:
The Court held that the label was deceptive, as the average consumer would believe the drink was primarily fruit juice.
Parle Agro was directed to clearly state the percentage of fruit content on labels.
Principle:
➡ A label must not exaggerate the primary ingredient — transparency of content is mandatory.
8. Dabur India Ltd. v. Union of India (2014)
Facts:
Dabur’s packaged juice products were promoted as “100% Juice – No Concentrate.” Investigation found reconstituted juice (from concentrate) in the product.
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court ruled that “100% juice” was a misrepresentation, leading to consumer deception. The company was ordered to correct labeling and pay penalties.
Principle:
➡ Labels that use absolute terms (“100%,” “pure,” “no added”) attract stricter scrutiny. Any deviation is punishable misbranding.
Legal Consequences of Mislabeling under FSSA, 2006
| Section | Provision | Penalty/Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| Section 52 | Penalty for misbranding | Up to ₹3 lakh |
| Section 53 | False or misleading advertisement | Up to ₹10 lakh |
| Section 63 | Obstructing officials or failing to comply | Up to ₹2 lakh |
| Section 66 | Offences by companies – liability extends to directors/responsible officers | — |
Conclusion
Mislabeling offences in the food industry undermine consumer trust and public safety. Courts in India have consistently ruled that truthful, transparent, and accurate labeling is a non-negotiable duty of all food manufacturers. Even minor misleading claims—such as “100% natural,” “no added MSG,” or “pure dairy milk”—are treated as serious offences, regardless of the actual safety of the product.
RELATED Blog
0 comments