Decode Civils CAShorts
Current affairs Open app
NationalGS3GS2

FSSAI issues notices over misleading labels on coffee-flavoured milk drinks

By CAShorts DeskPublished Sources: All India Radio News; FSSAI (statement on X, 17 Oct 2026; FSS Act, 2006; Labelling and Display Regulations, 2020; Advertising and Claims Regulations, 2018)

FSSAI issues notices over misleading labels on coffee-flavoured milk drinks
Illustration (AI-generated)

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) said on 17 October 2026 it had issued notices over coffee-flavoured milk drinks labelled “Flavoured Milk” on the front but “Proprietary Food” on the back, and advertised differently online. Their makers must explain why action should not be initiated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Syllabus: GS3 · Food Processing; GS2 · Statutory & Regulatory Bodies; GS2 · Health, Education & Human Resources

Why this matters for UPSC

GS2 statutory and regulatory bodies, and GS3 food processing: Prelims can ask what the FSSAI does under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and what its labelling and advertising regulations require; Mains, how well India regulates misleading food claims.

Why it matters

A shopper picking up a chilled coffee drink reads the front of the pack or the online listing, rarely the small print on the back. If the front says flavoured milk, the buyer expects a drink made to that standard; if the back says something else, the label stops telling them what they are paying for. Online, where the pack cannot be turned over, the listing is all the buyer sees, so a claim there that differs from the label misleads at the moment of purchase. Consistent labels and advertisements let families compare drinks, trust milk and health claims, and complain when a product falls short. The larger question is whether food regulation can keep pace with e-commerce marketing.

Prelims pointers

  • FSS Act, 2006, section 4: the Centre establishes the FSSAI by notification as a body corporate; its head office is at Delhi.
  • FSS Act, 2006, Second Schedule: repealed the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the Fruit Products Order, 1955 and the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992, among others.
  • FSS Act, 2006, section 22: “proprietary and novel food” is an article of food for which standards have not been specified but which is not unsafe.
  • Labelling and Display Regulations, 2020: made under sections 92 and 23 of the FSS Act, 2006, superseding the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011.
  • FSS Act, 2006, sections 52 and 53: misbranded food draws a penalty of up to Rs 3 lakh; a misleading advertisement, up to Rs 10 lakh.
  • FSS Act, 2006, sections 68 and 70: an Adjudicating Officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate imposes penalties; appeals go to the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal.
  • Labelling and Display Regulations, 2020: vegetarian food carries a green filled circle in a green-outlined square; non-vegetarian food, a brown filled triangle in a brown-outlined square.
  • Advertising and Claims Regulations, 2018, regulation 15: the Food Authority may order a violating advertisement stopped and a corrective advertisement issued within 30 days in the same medium.

Practise a UPSC-style question

With reference to proprietary food in India, consider the following statements:

1. A proprietary food made from standardised or permitted ingredients needs separate product approval from FSSAI before it is sold.

2. Under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, proprietary and novel food is food for which standards have not been specified.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. (a) 1 only
  2. (b) 2 only
  3. (c) Both 1 and 2
  4. (d) Neither 1 nor 2
Show the answer

Answer: (b) 2 only

Answer: (b) 2 only. The Act defines proprietary food by the absence of a standard, and one made from permitted ingredients needs no separate approval.

Statement 1: incorrect. FSSAI's proprietary food page says a product made from ingredients that are standardised or permitted in standardised products does not require any separate approval.

Statement 2: correct. Section 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 defines proprietary and novel food as food for which standards have not been specified but which is not unsafe.

Eliminate: Judge statement 1 first: no separate approval is needed for such a proprietary food, so statement 1 is incorrect. Out: (a), (c).

Eliminate: Judge statement 2: section 22 defines it by the absence of a standard, so statement 2 is correct. Out: (d).

Trap: Sounds right. A pre-launch approval for every new food sounds like sensible regulation, but the proprietary route exists so that such foods need no separate approval.

Remember: Standardised food: meet the standard and use its name. Proprietary food: no standard exists; permitted ingredients, no separate approval.

More from the 19 October 2026 edition

All stories of 19 October 2026

More National current affairs