On May 30, 2025, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) issued a sharp advisory, drawing a bold red line under the use of “100%” in food labels and promotional content.

You’ve seen it everywhere—snack packets, juice boxes, even premium herbal teas branded with labels screaming “100% Pure,” “100% Natural,” or “100% Real.” But here’s the twist: according to India’s top food regulator, this “100%” could be 100%… misleading.
Surprising, isn't it? Let’s dive deeper.

On May 30, 2025, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) issued a sharp advisory, drawing a bold red line under the use of “100%” in food labels and promotional content. Why? Because while the term “100%” may sound definitive and reassuring, it lacks any legal definition or regulatory backing under Indian food laws. In essence, it amounts to marketing disguised as scientific credibility.

Why is the “100%” Claim Under Scrutiny Now?

The FSSAI has observed an increasing trend among food brands using “100%” claims with little to no substantiation—essentially as a blanket quality guarantee. From “100% natural” fruit juices to “100% pure” cooking oils, such terms are being used liberally and without accountability.

Here’s the problem: neither the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, nor the overarching Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, define what “100%” means in the context of food products. This makes the term ambiguous, unverifiable, and potentially deceptive.

According to the advisory, such claims can:

• Mislead consumers into assuming a level of purity, quality, or superiority that may
  not exist.
• Undermine competitors who refrain from using unregulated terminology but maintain compliance.
• Create a false perception of hierarchy or authenticity among similar products, without any evidentiary basis or regulatory approval.

Regulatory Basis for the Advisory

The advisory dated May 28, 2025, refers to key clauses from the 2018 Advertising and Claims Regulations, specifically:

• Sub-regulation 4(1): Mandates that all claims made on food labels and promotional materials must be truthful, unambiguous, and informative. They should help consumers understand the nature of the product clearly, without the need to seek additional clarification.
• Sub-regulation 10(7): Prohibits any misleading or disparaging advertising or communication that implies unfair superiority or negatively targets competitor products.

These provisions are intended to ensure that marketing claims are substantiated by evidence and not just emotional appeals or arbitrary phrases like “100%.”

What Does This Mean for Food Brands?

In simple terms: brands must stop using the term “100%” in food-related claims—unless supported by defined standards and validated data. Phrases like “100% Organic,” “100% Safe,” or even “100% Natural” will no longer be tolerated unless legally defensible.

This advisory has implications across all spheres of a food business’s public communication:

• Packaging and labelling
• Marketing collaterals
• Digital and social media content
• Advertising and promotional campaigns

If the phrase “100%” is used anywhere, it must now be reconsidered, if not completely removed. The risk of regulatory action, refusals, or financial penalties has now become very real.

Compliance Is Now a Team Sport

The FSSAI’s directive essentially raises the compliance bar for food marketers and brand custodians. The advisory calls for a comprehensive reassessment of all marketing, labelling, and advertising practices. More importantly, it requires close coordination between legal, compliance, and marketing teams.

The goal? Ensuring that:

• All claims are factual, verifiable, and non-misleading.
• Product representations are clear and precise, not left to subjective interpretation.
• Brands comply with both Sub-regulation 4(1) and Sub-regulation 10(7) under the 2018 Regulations.
• This is not just about regulatory risk—it’s also about upholding consumer trust and brand integrity in an increasingly sceptical and informed marketplace.

What Does This Mean for Consumers?

For the average consumer, this is a significant win. Over the years, many have been drawn to the comforting certainty of “100%” claims—often without realizing how subjective and unverified those statements truly are.

This advisory acts as a reminder to remain cautious and critical of sweeping marketing terms that lack quantifiable proof. Real transparency in food labelling goes beyond font size and packaging design—it requires clarity, specificity, and evidence-based assertions.

Conclusion:

The FSSAI’s move is part of a broader push towards responsible advertising, factual representation, and consumer protection. In an age where emotional marketing often overshadows product facts, regulatory clarity is not just a compliance requirement—it’s a commitment to ethical business practices.

As food brands navigate this new advisory, they must realign their messaging with legal
requirements and consumer expectations. For consumers, this is a nudge to look beyond
catchy claims and demand transparency and authenticity.