100% Fruit Juice’ claim by Dabur misleading, Food Regulator FSSAI tells court

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has told the Delhi High Court that advertisement of fruit juices as ‘100% fruit juice’ is not legally permissible and amounts to a misleading marketing practice. In an affidavit filed in response to a plea by Dabur, the food regulator defended its notification of June 2024 in which it directed the food business operators (FBOs) to remove such claims from their product labels.

The authority said, “The continued use of the expression 100 per cent Fruit Juice by Food Business Operators unequivocally demonstrates the ultra vires character of such claims under the prevailing regulatory framework.”

The FSSAI clarified that its notification does not impose any new legal obligation but merely reiterates existing mandates under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018.

Furthermore, the FSSAI also highlights that the law permits only qualitative descriptors to convey the nature and quality of food products. Using numerical claims like ‘100 per cent’ was deemed inherently misleading and has higher chances to create confusion among consumers, violating the principles of fair disclosure.

The affidavit was filed in response to Dabur’s petition challenging the June 2024 notification, which requires FBOs to stop marketing reconstituted fruit juices which are made by diluting fruit juice concentrates but selling as “100 per cent fruit juice”.

FSSAI maintained that such representations breach multiple provisions aimed at consumer protection and transparency in food labelling and advertising. “These claims are not only misleading but also infringe upon the right of consumers to make informed choices,” the regulator said.

In counter to Dabur’s plea, the FSSAI argued that the challenge does not disclose any violation of fundamental rights. “The grievance is, at best, a matter of commercial inconvenience arising out of lawful regulatory compliance,” the affidavit said, adding that economic interests are not protected under the Constitution unless they infringe on rights guaranteed under Part III.