Misleading health claims on packaged food products pose a unique challenge to consumer protection, especially where children are the target audience. Critically examine with reference to recent FSSAI actions.

Unlike adulteration, a misleadingly marketed food is usually safe but oversold — the harm lies in the claim, not the ingredient. The Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 address exactly this gap [1], and FSSAI's recent notice drive shows growing regulatory will, though protection remains incomplete.

Why children make this a distinct challenge

• Split consumer: the child consumes, the parent purchases — "growth", "immunity" and nutrient-comparison claims persuade the buyer while the health cost falls on the user.
• WHO's 2023 guideline holds that food marketing demonstrably distorts children's diets and urges mandatory curbs on marketing of high fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) foods [4].
• Harm is chronic (sugar load, obesity) rather than acute, so it evades the conventional food-safety trigger of contamination under the FSS Act, 2006 [6].

Strengths of recent FSSAI action

• Scale and reach: over 150 notices to leading food and beverage firms; Mondelez India withdrew Bournvita's health and nutrient-comparison claims and related e-commerce advertisements in August 2026 [3].
• Preventive standard-setting: advisories discontinuing "100%" claims, A1/A2 dairy claims and misuse of the term "ORS" [3].
• Statutory teeth: Section 53, FSS Act, 2006 makes deceptive claims punishable with fine up to ₹10 lakh, with licence action for repeat offenders [1].

Critical limitations

• A ₹10 lakh ceiling is negligible against national advertising budgets; the CCPA's parallel ₹50 lakh penalty for repeat misleading ads creates overlapping, asymmetric jurisdictions [5].
• Enforcement is post-facto — claims are pulled only after sales; a similar 2023 crackdown [2] did not prevent recurrence.
• Absence of mandatory pre-clearance, a government-led nutrient-profile model and front-of-pack labelling leaves persuasion largely self-regulated.

FSSAI's sweep marks a welcome shift from policing ingredients to policing persuasion. Institutionalising it — statutory nutrient profiling, front-of-pack warning labels, deterrent penalties and a clear FSSAI–CCPA protocol — would convert episodic enforcement into durable protection, honouring the child's right to health under Article 21.