Examiner News Desk / Srinagar:
The label on a packet of food may look like a collection of routine details—ingredients, nutritional information, manufacturing date, MRP and an FSSAI number. But for consumers, these details are much more than printing requirements.
They are a matter of trust, safety and informed choice.
That is why the findings of the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), Jammu and Kashmir, during its recent special enforcement drive deserve serious attention. Of the 455 food samples examined across all districts of the Union Territory, 35 were found non-compliant with prescribed labelling requirements.
The number may appear small when compared with the total samples tested. But behind every non-compliant label is a consumer who may have been denied accurate information about a product.
And that is where the real concern begins.
When people purchase packaged food, they generally assume that the information printed on the packet is accurate, complete and legally compliant.
They should not have to become experts in food regulations to determine whether a product is properly labelled.
The law requires food businesses to provide essential information such as the nature of the food, ingredients, nutritional details, batch number, manufacturing or packing date, best-before or expiry date, MRP, manufacturer details, FSSAI licence or registration number and the vegetarian or non-vegetarian symbol.
These are not bureaucratic formalities.
For a consumer with a food allergy, dietary restriction or particular health concern, ingredients and nutritional information can be critical. For every consumer, the manufacturing date, expiry or best-before information and other declarations help determine whether a product is suitable for purchase.
A label, therefore, is essentially a contract of transparency between the producer and the consumer.
The FDA’s discovery of 35 non-compliant samples should not merely end with the issuance of notices.
The department has directed the concerned Food Business Operators (FBOs) to rectify the deficiencies within the stipulated period, with further action to follow in cases of non-compliance.
That is the correct approach—but enforcement must not stop at paperwork.
If a business repeatedly violates labelling requirements, there must be meaningful consequences. Otherwise, compliance becomes a matter of convenience rather than responsibility.
The objective should not be to punish businesses unnecessarily. It should be to ensure that every business understands that consumer information cannot be compromised.
Perhaps an even more important aspect of the enforcement exercise is the scrutiny of health, nutritional and other claims made on food labels.
In an increasingly health-conscious market, words such as “healthy”, “natural”, “nutritious”, “immunity-boosting” or similar claims can strongly influence purchasing decisions.
Consumers often trust such statements without having the ability—or time—to verify them.
If such claims are misleading or do not comply with regulatory requirements, they can distort consumer choice.
This is why the FDA’s direction to remove or rectify misleading claims is significant.
Food marketing should inform consumers, not manipulate them.
The regulatory framework provides substantial penalties for established violations.
Under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, misbranding can attract a penalty of up to Rs 3 lakh under Section 52. Misleading advertisements can attract a penalty of up to Rs 10 lakh under Section 53, while Section 61 provides for a penalty of up to Rs 10 lakh for furnishing false information.
The issue, therefore, is not necessarily the absence of laws.
The real test is consistent and credible enforcement.
Consumers need to know that when a business violates food safety or labelling rules, the regulatory system will respond.
There is also a message here for food businesses.
Compliance should not be viewed merely as an obligation imposed by inspectors. It should be treated as part of responsible business practice.
A food company or trader that provides clear and accurate information earns consumer confidence. A business that cuts corners may gain a short-term advantage but risks damaging both its reputation and public trust.
For smaller businesses in particular, regulatory authorities can play an important role by combining enforcement with awareness, guidance and capacity-building.
The goal should be to create a culture where businesses understand the rules before violations occur, rather than waiting for inspections to identify mistakes.
The FDA’s enforcement drive ultimately raises a much larger question: who is the food regulatory system really designed to protect?
The answer should always be the consumer.
From a packet of spices to edible oil, dairy products, bakery items, honey, beverages, coffee or dry fruits, consumers have a right to know what they are buying.
That right becomes meaningful only when the information provided is accurate.
The FDA deserves credit for conducting a UT-wide enforcement exercise and identifying deficiencies. But the real measure of success will come later—when businesses correct their practices, repeat violations decline and consumers can trust the information printed on the products they purchase.
Food safety is not limited to laboratories, inspections and penalties.
It begins with something much simpler: trust.
A consumer picks up a packet because they trust that the product contains what the label says it contains. They trust the dates printed on it. They trust the nutritional information. They trust the claims made by the manufacturer.
That trust must not be taken lightly.
The finding that 35 out of 455 samples failed to meet labelling requirements should therefore serve as a reminder to both regulators and businesses.
For regulators, it is a call for sustained inspections and effective enforcement.
For food businesses, it is a reminder that compliance is a responsibility, not a choice.
And for consumers, it is a reminder that they have a right to demand transparency.
A food label may occupy only a few square inches of a packet, but the responsibility behind those words is enormous.
In the end, the most important ingredient in any food product should be something that cannot be printed on a label—honesty.
