Hype claims, face court

FSSAI initiates legal action against 15 top firms for declaring wrong nutritional value

In a first, the country’s top food regulator has initiated legal proceedings against as many as 15 top companies —  makers of some of the most popular food products — for exaggerated claims and misleading advertisements.
The move comes close on the heels of the UK banning the Kellog’s ‘Special K’ advertisement for “misleading women” about the calorific value of a typical bowl of the breakfast cereal.
The products under the scanner of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) are energy drinks like Complan, Horlicks, Bournvita and Boost; health supplements like Kellogg's Special K, Real Active Fibre+ and Nutrilite and also those such as Rajdhani Besan, Engine Vegtable Oil, Today Premium Tea and Kissan Cream Spread.
According to a senior FSSAI official, the companies have failed to substantiate their claims with scientific evidence, hence all designated officers (DO) appointed under the FSAAI Act have been instructed to launch prosecution against them in the cities where their respective headquarters are located.
Britannia Industries Ltd hasn't been able to scientifically substantiate that its Nutrichoice biscuits are indeed 'diabetic-friendly'. So did Delhi-based Rajdhani Flourmills Ltd that its product Rajdhan Besan had "no cholesterol" and "low glycaemic index". If Abbott India Ltd's heath supplement Pediasure's claims that it has all the essential nutrients (complete balanced nutrition to grow taller and also make the kid go to school) haven't been established, then GlaxoSmithkline hasn't proved how someone grew 'taller, stronger and sharper' drinking its Horlicks energy drink.
Nestle's Maggi noodles and GlaxoSmithKline's Horlicks have already been banned in Britain for their 'misleading and inaccurate' adverts making unsubstantiated health claims.
For its part, Amul has taken the Hindustan Unilever Ltd to court for its "misleading" brand Kissan Cream Spread.
"This is just the beginning. We have prepared a list of another set of companies against whom notices will be issued and then legal action will be taken," the official maintained.
If found guilty, the food companies could face penalties up to Rs 10 lakh as per provisions under the FSSAI Act, 2006. Among others, it empowers the food authority to regulate the advertising of food products and prevent the food makers from making statement "claim, design or device which is false or misleading in any particular concerning the food products contained in the package or concerning the quantity or the nutritive value implying medicinal or therapeutic claims or in relation to the place of origin of the said food products".
"What are the sugar and other components used in Nutrichoice by Britannia that makes the biscuits 'healthy'; What is the basis of the multigrain claim of Maggi (Nestle product); How Complan (Heinz) makes children grow 'taller, faster'; How Bournvita Lil Champs (Cadburys) triggers 'better brain development'? -- These were some of the questions the companies failed to substantiate with proven scientific evidences.
The move to initiate legal action came following several notices sent to the food manufacturers as well as various complaints to the FSSAI against such unchecked claims.
The authority has been, for the past few months intensively scanning the advertisements appearing in the newspapers and television and found that many food manufacturing firms were giving misleading advertisements and claims taking the people for the ride.
The legal action has come only after they failed to justify their claims with related scientific evidences. It aims to restrict them from adopting such marketing tactics "which are enough to influence the consumers at the cost of their health", the official said.
The food manufacturers have, however, completely denied the allegations of misleading adverts and exaggerated claims, he maintained.

Caveat Emptor — A step forward

When handed faulty products, consumers must fight till manufacturers are brought to book

Attracted by the ‘buy one, get one free’ offer, like any one else, Devi purchased badam mix of a reputed company from a big supermarket in the city in January. The life of the product was one year from the date of manufacture (December 2011).

In February, Devi’s husband mixed a portion of the mix in milk and drank it. Later, when Devi mixed it for herself, she was shocked to find numerous worms wriggling in the drink. Immediately, she checked her husband’s used cup and found many dead worms. She emptied the balance in the pack on to a plate and saw lots of worms squirming around. Devi’s husband had a stomach upset and nausea, and the family, a sleepless night.

The next morning, Devi called the customer care number cited on the label and narrated the incident. The call was transferred to the department of quality control and the person on the other side listened patiently, took her number and told her he would revert to her within half an hour. However, there was no response, and when she spoke to them again, after several attempts, she was told that according to ‘Factory Law’ it would take seven working days for them to comment on the issue.

Irked, Devi complained to the Health Officer of the Corporation who assured her of immediate action. After he had acted, the supermarket apologised to her for the inconvenience caused. But Devi wanted a response from the manufacturers, and so she contacted the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum over phone.

They suggested two approaches to her problem — file a complaint with the District Forum, seeking damages or get the sample tested from the Government Laboratory — King’s Institute, Guindy. Devi decided to go for the second, but the lab officials refused to take the sample stating it had to come through the Designated Officer.

The Food Safety and Standards Rules, formulated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, provides for appointment of Food Safety Officers (Food Inspectors) and Designated Officers in the States who have the authority to investigate when a complaint is given in writing and take action.

Devi gave a written complaint to the Food Inspector who visited her after she complained to the Designated Officer over phone. She handed over the opened pack and the other sealed one along with the original purchase bill.

A month later, when she contacted the Designated Officer, he invited her to his office and was full of appreciation for her determination to get justice.

Ten days later she received the action taken report from him stating that instructions were issued to the manufacturers to recall all the packets of that particular batch and destroy them.

What is of concern is that many people would have consumed the product before it was recalled.

Thus, immediate action is required in such matters. The most important lesson is for the public to know that there are food authorities waiting to act upon a complaint registered. It is for us to come forward and complain so that the culprits are brought to book.

However, the apathetic approach of the manufacturer is certainly inexcusable.