Healthy development

Consumer watchdogs must be more proactive

Even as domestic Ayurvedic products company Patanjali has drawn the Supreme Court’s ire for misleading advertising, multinational companies (MNCS) like Mondelez are facing threats to entrenched markets following a commerce ministry order that e-commerce companies stop listing all drinks and beverages under the “health drinks” category on their portals. The order is the result of a yearlong inquiry by the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) centred on Mondelez’s 78-year-old brand Bournvita. The advisory follows the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI’S) recent request to online shops not to categorise dairy, cereal or malt-based drinks as “health drinks” or “energy drinks” on grounds that such a categorisation misleads consumers. Online advertisements making these claims were also required to be removed. The latest notice is likely to apply to other popular drinks that claim some form of nutritional value for consumers. The principal objection, however, is a semantic one: The NCPCR found that there was no official definition of “health drinks” under the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act of 2006. It should be added that these brands do not label their products as health products on the packaging.

But this development points to a growing concern among health professionals about a range of food and drink promotions in India targeting children, a popular strategy deployed by domestic corporations and MNCS. The commerce ministry’s notice on “health drinks” has its origins in a controversy raised a year ago by Revant Himatsingka, a social media influencer who reviews packaged food items. He uploaded a video pointing to Bournvita’s high sugar content and its impact on children. Mondelez sent him a legal notice directing that the video be deleted. Lacking the resources to fight a case against the MNC, Mr Himatsingka complied and issued an apology. The food company also clarified that the sugar content in Bournvita was much lower than the daily recommended intake limit. But Mr Himatsingka’s video had gone viral by then, prompting complaints to the NCPCR, which directed Mondelez to withdraw Bournvita’s “misleading” advertisements, packaging and labels. Contrary to the company’s claims, the NCPCR said Bournvita appeared to have bypassed the added sugar limit by using such labels as “Maltodextrin” and “Liquid Glucose”, which needed to be displayed under the title of “added sugar”, under the FSSAI’S Labelling and Display Regulations, 2020. In December, the company reduced the amount of added sugar in Bournvita.

Both the NCPCR and commerce ministry actions are unexceptionable, but the question that arises is why the public custodians of consumer welfare have not been more proactive. The category of “health drinks” has been around for several years, but it took an activist influencer’s campaign for the government to act. At the same time, hundreds of other influencers, a rapidly growing marketing category, extol the virtues of dubious food and drink products without regulatory checks and balances. The case before the Supreme Court involving Patanjali Ayurved highlights a similar gap. It was brought by the Indian Medical Association, when, as the apex court pointed out, the government was sitting “with its eyes closed”. Given that the market for alternative medicine and packaged foods, especially those targeting children, is growing rapidly, a more robust consumer welfare watchdog is urgently needed.