Industry Odisha Bureau, Sep 06: India’s consumer watchdog is scrutinizing “100%” claims on food products. Such claims can suggest absolute purity or completeness. Actual ingredient composition may differ from that impression. FSSAI has separately advised against using these claims. Regulators increasingly examine how consumers interpret prominent packaging representations.
The core question involves numerical accuracy in labeling. Can companies claim “100%” without matching ingredient content? Recent CCPA orders offer clarity on this issue.
In June 2026, CCPA penalized two companies significantly. Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities and Storia Foods paid ₹1 lakh each. Both were penalized for misleading “100%” claims. They must stop using these claims across platforms. This includes packaging, websites, and digital advertising.
Mrs. Bectors marketed bread as “100% Atta Bread.” It also used “100% Whole Wheat Bread” labeling. The bread actually contained 87% whole wheat flour. The company argued wheat was the only grain used. CCPA rejected this reasoning entirely. It treated “100%” as an exact numerical claim. The “Zero Maida” label alongside “100%” heightened this concern.
Storia faced similar scrutiny over its beverages. Its coconut water was labeled “100% Tender Coconut Water.” The actual formula included water and coconut concentrate. Concentrate made up just 9.6% of ingredients. CCPA found this prominent claim misleading to consumers. Storia’s “100% Juice” products faced comparable objections. The pomegranate variant contained juice concentrates, not pure juice. The mango variant similarly blended pulp with water and concentrate.
CCPA’s reasoning suggests fine print cannot cure misleading claims. Consumers typically see front-of-package claims first. Detailed ingredient lists often go unread initially. Regulators now assess overall packaging impressions, not just accuracy buried in fine print.
This approach extended to McVitie’s Wholewheat Marie biscuits. The product contained just 19.5% whole wheat flour. Refined flour actually dominated the recipe at 52%. Prominent “Wholewheat” branding and imagery misled consumers, CCPA said. Manufacturer Pladis India cited its registered trademark defense. It also pointed to a packaging disclaimer. CCPA rejected both justifications as insufficient protection.
FSSAI has independently addressed this “100%” trend. In May 2025, it advised against such labeling entirely. The term lacks definition under current food regulations. FSSAI warned it implies false purity or superiority. Earlier, in June 2024, it targeted reconstituted juice specifically.
CCPA and FSSAI serve distinct regulatory functions. FSSAI handles food safety and labeling standards. CCPA addresses whether advertising misleads consumers directly. Under Section 21, CCPA can discontinue misleading advertisements. Penalties can reach ₹10 lakh for manufacturers. Repeat violations may attract ₹50 lakh fines.
For companies, packaging elements now face holistic scrutiny. For consumers, ingredient lists remain essential reading material.
