FSSAI cracks down on unsubstantiated claims in baby food and nutrition products

FSSAI has issued show-cause notices to four major nutrition companies, Nestle, Abbott, Mead Johnson Nutrition, and Zydus, demanding scientific evidence for health and developmental claims made on baby food and children's nutritional drinks, as reported by Telangana Today on 22 October 2026.

The action covers a pattern that has run largely unchecked for years. Companies selling infant formula and toddler nutrition drinks have routinely printed claims about enhanced brain development, superior growth, and immunity support on their packaging, backed by internal studies or selectively cited research rather than independent peer-reviewed trials. FSSAI's notices require these companies to explain, with verifiable evidence, how each claim was substantiated before it reached a label or an advertisement.

The timing is not accidental. India's Supreme Court has recently made pointed remarks about deceptive advertising in the food sector, criticising both companies that manufacture misleading claims and regulators that have been slow to act. The court specifically questioned whether pressure from large food manufacturers has delayed the rollout of clear front-of-pack warning labels, a policy FSSAI has been developing for several years. The notices to Nestle, Abbott, Mead Johnson, and Zydus appear to be a direct response to that judicial pressure.

What changed

The notices shift the burden of proof in a concrete way. Until now, a company could launch a product with a claim like "clinically proven to support brain development" and treat the absence of a regulator's objection as tacit approval. FSSAI is now saying that regulatory silence was never approval, and that claims must be evaluated by the authority before they go to market, not after a complaint surfaces.

The regulator has also extended its scrutiny to social media. Influencers and content creators who post promotional reels or unboxing videos recommending specific baby milk substitutes, framed as personal lifestyle choices rather than paid promotions, are now explicitly named in the regulatory warnings. This closes a gap that brands have exploited aggressively. A company could avoid direct advertising restrictions on infant formula by routing the same message through a parenting influencer on Instagram or YouTube. That route is now under the same regulatory lens as a television commercial.

The Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992, commonly called the IMS Act, already prohibits the promotion of breast milk substitutes to the general public. FSSAI's action suggests the regulator is treating influencer content as a form of promotion covered by that prohibition, though the authority has not yet published a formal amendment or circular spelling out exactly how digital content will be classified and penalised. That detail matters, and FSSAI has not released it yet.

The four companies named are not small domestic players. Nestle India is a subsidiary of Nestle S.A. and sells products including NAN infant formula and Nestogen. Abbott India markets PediaSure and Similac. Mead Johnson Nutrition, now owned by Reckitt, sells Enfamil. Zydus, through its wellness arm, markets Complan. Each of these brands has spent decades building parental trust through advertising that leans on scientific-sounding language, and each now faces the task of producing the underlying data that language was meant to imply.

Public health researchers have pointed out for years that many claims on children's nutrition products in India are borrowed from studies conducted in populations with different nutritional baselines, or from trials funded by the manufacturer itself. Peer-reviewed, independently conducted research on the specific formulations sold in India is far thinner than the packaging suggests.

What buyers and cooks should do

For parents currently buying any of the named brands, the notices do not mean the products are unsafe to use. FSSAI has asked for evidence, not ordered a recall. The practical implication is that the health claims printed on the tin or carton, whether about DHA supporting brain development or a specific protein blend aiding growth, have not been independently verified to FSSAI's satisfaction. Treat those claims as unconfirmed until the regulator publishes its findings.

When comparing infant formula or toddler nutrition drinks, look past the front-of-pack language entirely. The ingredients list and the nutritional information table are regulated disclosures and carry more weight than marketing copy. If a product claims to contain a specific nutrient at a beneficial level, check whether that level actually meets the FSSAI-prescribed standard for that age group under the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011.

For parents who follow paediatrician recommendations, this is a good moment to ask your doctor whether the specific product they recommend has any independent clinical data behind it, and whether the recommendation is based on that data or on familiarity with the brand. Paediatricians in India are also subject to guidelines from the Indian Academy of Pediatrics on accepting promotional material from formula companies, though enforcement of those guidelines varies.

On the influencer side, if a parenting account you follow has been recommending a specific formula or nutrition drink, check whether the post carries a paid partnership disclosure. Under the Advertising Standards Council of India guidelines and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, paid promotions must be labelled. If they are not, that is a separate violation worth reporting to ASCI.

FSSAI has not published a timeline for when it will respond to the companies' submissions or what penalties it is considering. The full scope of the action, including whether additional brands will receive notices, remains unclear.