What’s Really Inside the Packet? The Growing Challenge of Food Safety in India
The recent prohibition of sale of Compounded Hing manufactured by Everest Food Products Private Limited and Laljee Godhoo and Company’s LG Brand Unit has pushed food safety back into the national spotlight. The action by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), following laboratory findings of substandard products, has raised a larger question for consumers: How much can people rely on a familiar brand name when buying food?
The case began with a consumer complaint, prompting FSSAI to launch wider market surveillance covering major brands. Legal samples were subsequently collected from the centrally licensed Mumbai units of Everest and LG, while a joint inspection involving the Gujarat State FDA was carried out at Everest’s state-licensed unit in Umbergaon, Gujarat.
Laboratory findings showed that the tested Compounded Hing samples contained only 0–3% alcohol-soluble extract, against the prescribed minimum of 5%. FSSAI said this indicated that the products contained 30–40% less Raw Hing than required.
The findings were also significant at the LG Brand Unit, where six varieties of Raw Hing were sampled along with finished products. While the prescribed maximum starch content in Raw Hing is 1%, laboratory tests reportedly found between 15% and 32% starch in the samples. Raw Hing is also required to contain at least 12% alcohol-soluble extract.
Based on the findings, FSSAI issued Prohibition of Sale orders, directed the businesses to submit a corrective action plan and advised them to initiate a voluntary recall of substandard products already in the market.
But the controversy goes beyond hing.
Adulteration, Substandard Food and Fake Products Are Not the Same
One of the biggest challenges in India's food-safety debate is the tendency to describe every violation as adulteration.
In regulatory terms, however, the categories are different. An adulterated product may contain prohibited, harmful or undesirable substances. A substandard product fails prescribed quality or composition standards. A misbranded product may carry misleading labels or claims. Businesses can also face action over licensing and regulatory compliance, while counterfeit products are illegally manufactured goods designed to imitate established brands.
The Everest-LG case is primarily about substandard composition and quality. It is not the same as a finding that the products were counterfeit, nor did the action primarily allege unsafe working conditions or unhygienic manufacturing premises.
That distinction is important because FSSAI action can take several forms, including a prohibition of sale, recall, licence suspension, compliance notice or action against misleading claims.
A Wider Problem Reflected in Food Testing Data
The scale of India's food-safety challenge becomes clearer from government data.
During 2025–26, authorities analysed more than 2.23 lakh food samples, with over 40,000 found non-conforming. India also has more than 74 lakh active food business licences and registrations, illustrating the enormous scale of the market regulators are expected to monitor.
In Telangana, 3,576 food samples were analysed in 2025–26, with 398 found non-conforming.
However, these figures need careful interpretation. A non-conforming sample is not automatically an adulterated or dangerous product. Failures can involve composition, quality, labelling or other regulatory requirements. Yet, the data highlights the continuing challenge of ensuring compliance across a market that includes millions of businesses and countless products.
The Country Delight Case: A Different Kind of Violation
The controversy involving Country Delight in Telangana in 2023 provides an important comparison.
Food-safety authorities reportedly seized around 1,500 litres of ghee worth approximately ₹52 lakh amid concerns relating to licensing and regulatory permissions. The case was different from the current hing controversy because it was primarily linked to regulatory and licensing compliance, rather than an established laboratory finding that the ghee was adulterated or unsafe.
Country Delight had also earlier faced criticism over an advertisement suggesting that more than 68% of milk in India was adulterated, based on an FSSAI survey. The company later acknowledged that the survey had been misinterpreted, as non-compliance and adulteration are not the same thing.
The episode demonstrates why consumers need to understand the precise reason behind a regulatory action instead of assuming that every case involves unsafe food.
The Label Is Now Part of the Food Safety Debate
Increasingly, the battle over food safety is also being fought on the front of the packet.
FSSAI has stepped up scrutiny of misleading food and health claims, including claims suggesting special health benefits or absolute purity. Consumer and public-health advocates argue that terms such as “100% pure”, “natural”, “healthy” and “immunity boosting” can strongly influence buying decisions and must be backed by appropriate evidence.
The debate has gained further momentum with moves towards front-of-pack nutrition warnings for foods high in sugar, salt or fat. Advocates argue that consumers should not need specialist knowledge to understand what they are buying.
The larger principle is simple: consumer protection is about both what is inside the packet and what is written on it.
Counterfeits Add Another Layer of Risk
The problem is further complicated by fake products sold under the names of popular brands.
A counterfeit product is different from a genuine product that later fails a quality test. One involves an illegal imitation of a trusted brand, while the other may involve a genuine manufacturer whose product fails prescribed standards.
Research on India's counterfeit market suggests that fake goods remain a serious consumer concern. For food and FMCG buyers, this makes traceability, reliable retail channels and careful examination of packaging increasingly important.
A familiar logo alone is not always enough.
What Experts and Consumer Advocates Want
The broader food-safety debate is increasingly focused on making enforcement preventive rather than reactive.
Public-health and consumer advocates have called for more frequent random sampling, surprise inspections, stronger laboratories, faster testing, better supply-chain traceability and transparent disclosure of serious violations.
They also want effective recall systems when products fail standards, clearer labels and stronger action against misleading claims and counterfeit supply chains.
For consumers, the advice is relatively straightforward: check labels, verify product details, buy from reliable sources and look beyond advertising claims.
The central challenge for India is that food safety is not a one-time approval process. A company may hold an FSSAI licence, but products must continue to comply with standards relating to ingredients, composition, additives, contaminants, labelling and other requirements.
A Lesson Beyond Hing
The action against Everest and LG has become more than a controversy involving two spice brands.
It has reopened a broader debate about what reaches Indian kitchens, how it is monitored and whether problems are being detected early enough.
The latest case began with a consumer complaint. That alone raises an uncomfortable question: How many problems are detected only after a product has already reached the market?
The challenge now is to build a system where stronger surveillance, independent testing, transparent enforcement, clear labelling and effective recalls work together to prevent problems rather than merely responding to them.
For consumers, the message is equally important.