FSSAI Questions Horlicks Health Claims and Nestlé Labels as Companies Prepare Responses

Birth weight claims and kidney nutrition powder face scrutiny

India's food safety regulator has asked Hindustan Unilever and Nestlé India to explain alleged violations involving Horlicks nutritional drinks, Resource Renal powder and three Nescafé drinks. The action, publicly announced on October 17, 2026, covers claims about a baby's birth weight, bone strength, product approval and conflicting descriptions on packaging and online shopping pages.

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) questioned the words "Healthy Birth Weight" on Horlicks Mother's Plus Kesar 400 g BIB and "For baby's healthy birth weight" in an advertisement. It said the wording could mislead consumers by suggesting that the food itself delivers the stated health benefit.

Nestlé India's Resource Renal vanilla powder faces a different challenge. FSSAI said the product, intended for dietary management of people with conservatively treated chronic kidney disease, lacked required prior approval and the prescribed vegetarian or non-vegetarian symbol.

Hindustan Unilever rejected the allegations and said it would provide scientific and regulatory evidence. Nestlé said it would respond to the authorities over the Nescafé labelling issue and maintained that those drinks were safe to consume. Its response concerning Resource Renal was not immediately available.

The companies have been asked to explain their positions before further decisions. FSSAI has also taken action against other food businesses, including cancelling one licence, suspending another and authorising prosecution in separate cases. Those measures give this enforcement round a wider reach, from the promises consumers read on a packet to conditions inside food factories.

Why Mother's Plus wording drew a notice

FSSAI examined a complaint, the Horlicks Mother's Plus label, advertisements and an online product listing. Its objection concerned both the statements themselves and the way health claims were incorporated into the product name displayed to shoppers.

The regulator cited the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, when questioning the birth weight wording. A health claim connects a food or one of its ingredients to a benefit for the body. Here, FSSAI's concern was that the wording presented a benefit relating to a baby's birth weight as something the product itself could provide.

The online listing went further than the short name on the packet. It included the wording "For Pregnancy and Lactation with Protein for Birth Weight and DHA for Brain Development - No Added Sugar" as part of the product name. FSSAI said that presentation did not meet the applicable requirements.

Lactation means producing breast milk. DHA is a fatty acid involved in brain development. Naming an ingredient and linking a finished product to a particular outcome are different steps in a marketing message. FSSAI is examining the wording used to make those connections, while Hindustan Unilever says it has evidence supporting its products and communications.

Women's Plus faces a broader set of objections

Horlicks Women's Plus Chocolate Nutrition Drink 400 g was also cited. FSSAI questioned claims including "Nutrition for Strong Bones", "Clinically Proven to Help Improve Bone Strength in 6 Months" and "Improves Bone Health", describing them as misleading or inconsistent with the rules.

The authority also objected to "Healthy Muscles" under provisions governing the use of "healthy" in food claims. It questioned "No Added Sugar" because the product contains maltodextrin, an ingredient made from starch, and said the nutrition information table was not presented in the prescribed format.

Another claim, "100% RDA of Calcium, Vitamin D & K2", was found not to meet applicable requirements. RDA means recommended dietary allowance, a reference amount used to describe daily nutrient needs. A percentage claim needs enough context for a shopper to understand the amount of product and nutrient being described.

FSSAI asked the relevant licensing authorities and online shopping platforms to take necessary action on the Women's Plus issues. That extends the case beyond the manufacturer: the wording displayed at the point of purchase is also under scrutiny.

Hindustan Unilever says it will submit evidence

Hindustan Unilever maintained that Mother's Plus and Women's Plus comply with regulatory requirements. A company spokesperson said both products were developed using established nutritional science and manufactured under stringent quality and safety standards.

The spokesperson also defended the company's communications and described its planned response:

All product communication is developed in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and governance processes. We will share all the scientific and regulatory evidence with the authorities as per normal process of review.

FSSAI has directed the company to respond within the stipulated period and warned that an unsatisfactory explanation could lead to further action under food safety laws. No exact response deadline or date for a final decision was given publicly.

The immediate task for Hindustan Unilever is to support the particular statements being challenged. The regulator's objections cover several different messages, from a claim about bone strength over six months to nutrient percentages and the use of "healthy". Each concerns what a consumer is being told about the product.

Resource Renal raises an approval issue

Resource Renal is intended for people with chronic kidney disease receiving conservative treatment, meaning management without dialysis. Its stated purpose is dietary management of a specific medical condition, placing it within a specialised regulatory category.

FSSAI said prior approval was required under the Food Safety and Standards (Health Supplements, Nutraceuticals, Food for Special Dietary Use, Food for Special Medical Purpose, and Prebiotic and Probiotic Food) Regulations, 2022. According to the notice, Nestlé India had not obtained that approval.

The regulator separately cited the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, over the missing vegetarian or non-vegetarian symbol. That symbol gives consumers a standard way to identify the relevant dietary classification of a packaged food.

Nestlé has been asked to explain both alleged failures. For people using the powder to manage a medical diet, the case concerns the approval required for its stated purpose and information that should appear on the label.

Three Nescafé drinks carried conflicting descriptions

FSSAI issued separate notices concerning Nescafé Intense Café Cappuccino, Nescafé Choco Mocha and Nescafé Chilled Latte. The notices named Nestlé India and manufacturers Schreiber Dynamix Dairies and Lotus Dairy Products.

The regulator identified three descriptions across packaging and online sales pages. The front of the packs said "Flavoured Milk". The back used "Proprietary Food - 1.12 Dairy Based Drink". Online listings described the products as "Coffee Flavoured Milk".

FSSAI said the drinks belonged in the standardised flavoured milk category under the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. It therefore considered the proprietary food declaration incorrect. A standardised category has a defined regulatory description; selecting the right category determines how the product must be presented.

The authority also questioned online wording about the goodness of flavoured double toned milk, saying it was inconsistent with the declared composition or category. It cited the 2018 advertising rules and the 2020 labelling rules.

The companies were asked to explain why action should not be taken under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Possible further measures described in the proceedings include stopping advertisements that breach the rules and requiring corrective advertising.

Nestlé responds on the Nescafé case

Nestlé India said the communication it received concerned label declarations and classification of the Nescafé drinks. In its statement, the company defended their safety and described how it would respond:

Mentioned products are safe to consume and meet all applicable food safety requirements. We will be submitting our response to the authorities and will be engaging with them as per due process established under law.

The company's statement addressed the Nescafé range. FSSAI's Resource Renal notice concerns another product, with separate approval and labelling requirements.

The Nescafé case also brings manufacturers and the brand owner into the same proceeding. FSSAI's questions follow the product from the wording printed on its pack to the description shown on an online shopping page, where consumers may make their purchase without examining the physical label.

Other businesses face licence and prosecution action

Bala Ji Food Products received a more advanced enforcement decision. FSSAI cancelled its licence with immediate effect after continued non-compliance involving food safety, hygiene and sanitation. The licence had previously been suspended, and the business was given an opportunity for a personal hearing before its explanation was judged unsatisfactory.

The company was ordered to stop manufacturing, packaging, processing and distribution. An initial announcement grouped Bala Ji with businesses facing suspension; the detailed action described cancellation following its earlier suspension.

Sukh Darshan Pharma, also identified as Sukhdarshan Pharma, had its licence suspended after an inspection produced a compliance score of 11%. FSSAI classified the unit as non-compliant and said the suspension would continue until requirements were met.

Inspectors cited inadequate storage, damaged doors, unscreened windows, stagnant water, flaking paint, dust and poor lighting. Cleaning chemicals were kept in processing areas, and segregation was inadequate. Missing documents included food testing reports, raw material specifications, packaging certificates and procurement and transport records.

FSSAI also cited gaps in cleaning, pest control, maintenance, equipment calibration, waste disposal and staff hygiene arrangements. These findings concern the conditions in which food was processed and stored, alongside the records needed to check those activities.

In another case, authorities sanctioned prosecution against Surya Food & Agro, the maker of Priyagold biscuits, after inspectors found bran intended for cattle feed being used as a fibre source. Bags containing the material were marked for cattle feed. Inspectors also identified hygiene and storage deficiencies, and the company's licence had been suspended. Prosecution was also authorised against Dodla Dairy and Ueir Organic Foods, although details of those allegations were not specified.

How the proceedings have developed

The latest notices follow earlier proceedings involving Nestlé India. The sequence shows several regulatory matters developing over successive months, with different products and alleged violations involved:

• September 2026: Separate proceedings began against Nestlé India over alleged breaches of infant nutrition marketing rules and manufacturing standards. The company maintained that its products complied with applicable regulations.
• October 17, 2026: FSSAI publicly announced notices concerning Nestlé India and Hindustan Unilever, alongside licence action involving other food businesses.
• October 18, 2026: Further details became public about prosecution approvals, and company statements set out responses to the Nescafé and Horlicks proceedings.

FSSAI's next decisions on the Horlicks and Nestlé notices will follow consideration of the company responses. Hindustan Unilever has promised scientific and regulatory evidence, while Nestlé has said it will engage with the authorities on the Nescafé communication.

Consumers are seeing several kinds of enforcement at once: challenges to health promises, checks on product classification and approval, and action over factory conditions. The concrete changes already ordered concern the businesses whose licences were cancelled or suspended. For the Horlicks, Resource Renal and Nescafé notices, the companies are being asked to answer the regulator's findings.

Key Points

• FSSAI questioned birth weight claims on Horlicks Mother's Plus and bone, muscle and nutrient claims on Women's Plus.
• Hindustan Unilever rejected the allegations and said it would submit scientific and regulatory evidence.
• Resource Renal faces allegations of missing prior approval and a missing vegetarian or non-vegetarian symbol.
• Three Nescafé drinks were cited for conflicting product descriptions. Nestlé said the drinks were safe and that it would respond.
• Bala Ji Food Products had its licence cancelled; Sukh Darshan Pharma's licence was suspended after an 11% compliance score.
• Further decisions on the company notices depend on the regulatory review of their responses.