Discuss the regulatory framework governing food advertising and claims in India. How effective has FSSAI's recent enforcement drive been in curbing misleading marketing practices?

Food advertising in India is regulated not for safety alone but for truthfulness of communication — whether a nutritional or health benefit claimed on a pack is scientifically provable. FSSAI's 2026 drive, covering over 150 notices, tests this distinct mandate [6].

The regulatory framework

• Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 created FSSAI under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as the single food regulator; Section 53 makes misleading advertisements punishable with a fine up to ₹10 lakh [1].
• FSS (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 prohibit deceptive claims and require every nutrition, health or non-addition claim to rest on sound scientific evidence, verifiable on demand by Licensing-cum-Designated Officers [2].
• Advisories tighten specific terms: FSSAI's 2025 advisory barred use of "100%" on labels as implying absolute purity [3]; A1/A2 descriptors were ordered off milk and dairy packaging [4].
• Overlapping consumer law: the CCPA's Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements, 2022 separately penalise endorsers and restrict unsubstantiated health claims aimed at children [5].

Effectiveness of the enforcement drive

• Successes: notices to Nestlé, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Abbott, Danone and others signal a systemic sweep, not token action; Mondelez withdrew Bournvita's health and nutrient-comparison claims and pulled e-commerce ads [6]; Amway dropped its "100% Pure Coconut Oil" and "Energy Drink" labelling [3].
• Limitations: enforcement is reactive — claims are withdrawn only after wide circulation; the ₹10 lakh ceiling is modest against FMCG advertising budgets [1]; Bournvita's reappearance after its 2023 controversy suggests weak deterrence [6]; and split jurisdiction between FSSAI, CCPA and self-regulatory ASCI diffuses accountability.

The drive marks a welcome shift from policing contamination to policing persuasion, but withdrawal-after-notice cannot substitute for structural reform. Pre-vetting of health claims, graded penalties linked to turnover, and a single-window FSSAI–CCPA protocol would align the framework with Article 21's right to informed, healthy living.