AI-assisted research analysis by FutureKnowledge. Sources checked 18 October 2026. This is not investment advice.
India’s food regulator has put two of the country’s largest consumer companies on notice in the same week that it moved to tighten rules on sugar in baby food. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has issued notices to Nestlé India and Hindustan Unilever (HUL) over health claims and labelling on several nutrition products, and separately published a draft rule that would bar added sucrose and fructose in foods for infants up to six months old. Neither step is a final penalty or law, but together they show how strictly nutrition claims are now policed.
What happened
The notices to Nestlé India and HUL
According to Business Standard, FSSAI found problems with three Nescafé ready-to-drink beverages: Intense Café Cappuccino, Choco Mocha and Chilled Latte. The front of the pack calls them “Flavoured Milk”, but the back declares them a proprietary dairy-based drink. FSSAI’s view is that they belong in the standardised flavoured-milk category, so the proprietary label is wrong. Business Today reported that two contract dairies make them.
A second Nestlé product, Resource Renal, is a vanilla powder meant for the dietary management of chronic kidney disease. FSSAI said it lacked the prior approval required under the 2022 regulations for foods for special medical purposes. Its label also lacked the mandatory vegetarian or non-vegetarian symbol, according to an IANS report carried by The Hans India.
HUL’s notices cover two Horlicks variants. On Horlicks Women’s Plus Chocolate, FSSAI questioned claims including “Clinically Proven to Help Improve Bone Strength in 6 Months”, “Healthy Muscles” and a “100% RDA” claim for calcium and vitamins D and K2. It called the “No Added Sugar” claim potentially misleading because the product contains maltodextrin,. On Horlicks Mother’s Plus Kesar, the regulator flagged the “Healthy Birth Weight” label claim and related advertising as potentially misleading, along with e-commerce product titles that referred to protein, birth weight and DHA.
The same announcement covered two smaller firms, and here reports differ. Business Standard said Bala Ji Food Products’ licence was cancelled and Sukhdarshan Pharma’s was suspended, and IANS also reported the Bala Ji cancellation. Business Today described both as suspensions. We follow the majority account. Reports also differ on timing: IANS and Business Today date FSSAI’s announcement on X to 17 October, while Business Standard says the posts went up on Friday, 16 October. None of the reports we checked carried a response from Nestlé India or HUL.
The draft rule on sugar in infant food
Separately, FSSAI notified the draft Food Safety and Standards (Foods for Infant Nutrition) Amendment Regulations, 2026. The draft notification, reproduced by TaxGuru, is dated 15 October and was signed by FSSAI chief executive Rajit Punhani. It adds a single proviso to the 2020 infant nutrition rules: sucrose and fructose “shall not be added in the products intended for infants up to the age of 6 months.” Business Today reported that it appeared in the Gazette on 16 October. Stakeholders have 60 days to object or comment before the regulator decides on a final version.
Current rules already prefer lactose and glucose polymers as carbohydrates. ANI, citing an FSSAI release, said the aim is to limit early exposure to added sugars, which the release linked to childhood obesity risk, and to support exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months.
Why this is happening now
The notices fit a long enforcement drive. Kashmir Life reported in August that FSSAI said it had issued more than 150 notices in recent months over misleading claims and labelling, naming companies such as PepsiCo, Coca-Cola India, Abbott India, Mondelez India and Nestlé India. In June, Business Today listed notices to firms including Marico and Ferrero India under the 2018 Advertising and Claims Regulations.
Malted drinks and baby food have been sensitive for some time. In April 2024, ETV Bharat reported that HUL had renamed its “health food drinks” category “functional nutritional drinks”. after a commerce ministry advisory to e-commerce platforms. The same report noted a Public Eye and IBFAN investigation that alleged Nestlé added sugar to some infant products sold in lower-income countries, including India.
How it affects businesses
For packaged food companies, the issue is marketing more than ingredients. Nutrition drinks, maternal and women’s products and medical nutrition sell on specific benefits such as stronger bones or healthy birth weight, which supports premium prices. FSSAI’s position is that such claims need approval or evidence, must fit a defined product category and must look the same on the pack, in advertising and on e-commerce listings. Rewording claims, changing categories or redoing packs adds cost and can weaken the selling points behind those premiums.
The focus on e-commerce titles matters too. Online listings are often written by sellers or platforms, and because FSSAI asked platforms to act, marketplaces may face more pressure to check them.
On infant food, the draft as written covers products for babies up to six months, which in practice are mostly infant formula. Cereal-based complementary foods are usually labelled for older infants, so they appear to fall outside this proviso unless the final text widens it. That is our reading of the draft text, not a regulatory statement.
Who is more exposed, and who is less
As a general pattern, not a view on any company:
- More exposed: brands whose positioning rests on specific health or clinical claims, especially in maternal, women’s, children’s and medical nutrition, and products sold heavily online.
- Mixed: contract manufacturers and e-commerce platforms, which may face extra checks without owning the claims.
- Less exposed: staple foods that are sold mainly on price and make few health claims.
Scenarios to watch
These are conditional scenarios, not predictions.
| Scenario | What would have to happen | Likely direction for the sector |
|---|---|---|
| Quiet resolution | Companies reword claims and fix labels; FSSAI accepts replies | Limited cost; claim-heavy marketing becomes more cautious |
| Formal penalties | Replies are rejected and FSSAI pursues action under the FSS Act, 2006 | Fines, product withdrawals or corrective notices; reputational pressure |
| Wider rule-making | The infant sugar draft is finalised, and later extended to older infants | Reformulation costs for complementary foods; stricter labelling across baby food |
What to watch next
- Formal responses from Nestlé India and HUL, and any stock exchange disclosure.
- Comments filed during the 60-day consultation on the infant nutrition draft, and whether the final text widens its scope.
Bottom line
Neither step is final, but FSSAI’s expectations are clear: health claims must be backed and approved, products must sit in the right category, and online listings must match the pack. For brands that charge more for nutrition benefits, the risk is steady pressure on the claims those premiums depend on.
Method: this article compares reporting from Business Standard, Business Today, IANS (via The Hans India), ANI, Kashmir Life and ETV Bharat with the text of FSSAI’s 15 October 2026 draft notification. Where reports conflicted on licence actions and dates, we say so. Exposure and scenario sections are FutureKnowledge analysis. Corrections: see our corrections page.