The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has advised Food Business Operators (FBOs) to discontinue the use of the term “100%” on food labels, packaging, and promotional material. This significantly expands the scope of its earlier directive dated 03 June 2024 which had specifically targeted the phrase “100% real fruit juice.”
While the earlier directive focused narrowly on fruit juices, particularly those reconstituted from concentrate, the latest advisory on 28 May 2025 applies across all food categories. It appears to signal FSSAI’s increasing scrutiny of exaggerated or potentially misleading marketing claims.
However, the binding nature of the latest advisory remains unclear. It is worded as guidance, not as a statutory ban under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. This ambiguity has caused considerable confusion among FBOs, many of whom have used terms like “100% vegetarian” or “100% natural ingredients” as part of long-standing brand identity and advertising strategies. The absence of transitional guidelines or timelines is particularly difficult for businesses with inventory already in circulation or packaging processes underway.
Adding to the complexity is the ongoing legal battle between Dabur and FSSAI. In April 2025, Dabur approached the Delhi High Court challenging the June 2024 directive, arguing that its “100% fruit juice” claim, used for its 'Real' brand, is accurate and complies with existing labelling norms, especially since the product contains no added sugar. FSSAI, in its affidavit, has countered that the claim is misleading under the Food Products and Additives Regulations 2011, which distinguish between fresh juice and juice reconstituted from concentrate.
FSSAI’s likely intent to come up with the new advisory is to take advantage of the pendency of the issue qua June 2024 directive before the Delhi High Court. The matter being sub-judice, could have possibly led the FSSAI to test waters by not passing a similar directive and instead only come up with an advisory. The timing of the latest advisory issued while the earlier directive remains sub judice is compelling. It may be seen as an opportunistic move to reinforce FSSAI’s legal position by widening the issue beyond a single brand or product category and at the same time being cautious of not overreaching the power of the Court. Yet for FBOs, it only deepens regulatory uncertainty.
The FSSAI has consistently maintained its position that phrases like “100% real” or “100% fruit juice” may mislead consumers, especially when products are made from reconstituted juice concentrate with added nutrients or preservatives. The expanded advisory may be FSSAI’s attempt to curb blanket claims that give consumers an overly simplified, and possibly inaccurate, perception of product composition or health benefits. However, from the FBOs perspective, a blanket ban would deprive honest and bonafide claims backed by actual product ingredient/composition or scientific evidence from marketing and offering the right product based on consumer preferences. In some cases, it may be a necessity to highlight the presence or absence of a particular ingredient to assist consumers in choosing the right product based on their requirements.
The consequences of non-compliance may be serious. Section 52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 provides that any person who manufactures, stores, sells or distributes any article of food that is misbranded may be liable to a penalty extending up to INR 3,00,000. Additionally, the Adjudicating Officer may direct corrective action or even order the destruction of such food products. Continued use of the term “100%” in the absence of clear regulatory thresholds could expose FBOs to this risk, especially if such use is later interpreted as misleading or non-compliant. However, the binding nature of the advisory is questionable, considering that it is not in the form of a mandate, but is only an advisory.
While the advisory does not explicitly impose penalties, its language combined with the broad definition of “misbranding” places FBOs in a precarious position. In the absence of clearer regulatory guidance, they are expected to self-censor and pre-emptively revise labelling and advertising, even where claims may be factually accurate.
Until better clarity emerges, FBOs would do well to review their packaging and marketing claims in consultation with legal and regulatory teams. Simultaneously, industry associations/bodies may consider making appropriate representations before FSSAI, requesting clearer parameters or permissible uses of the term “100%” in different contexts.
In a space where perception often equals consumer value, regulatory ambiguity can be costly. Unless FSSAI moves toward clearer, principles-based regulation, the FBOs may soon abandon terms like “100%” not because they are inaccurate, but because it may expose them to regulatory risks.
