FSSAI Issues Notices to HUL and Nestlé Over Horlicks Claims and Product Labelling

India’s food regulator, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), has issued notices to Hindustan Unilever (HUL) and Nestlé India over alleged misleading claims and regulatory non-compliance involving nutrition products and packaged beverages. The action covers Horlicks Women’s Plus Chocolate Nutrition Drink, Horlicks Mother’s Plus Kesar, Nestlé Resource Renal Vanilla Flavour Powder and several Nescafé ready-to-drink beverages. The regulator has questioned health-related claims, product descriptions, labeling requirements and prior approval for a specialised nutritional product.

The notices are significant because the products are marketed for specific consumer needs, including women’s nutrition, pregnancy and the dietary management of chronic kidney disease. FSSAI has raised concerns about whether certain claims and product declarations comply with India’s food safety and advertising rules. The action does not, by itself, establish that every product is unsafe or that the companies have committed a final, legally determined violation. Instead, the notices require explanations and may lead to further regulatory action depending on the companies’ responses and the regulator’s assessment.

Key Takeaways

• HUL faces scrutiny over two Horlicks products: FSSAI questioned bone-health and sugar-related claims on Horlicks Women’s Plus Chocolate, as well as birth-weight claims on Horlicks Mother’s Plus Kesar.
• Nestlé’s Resource Renal is under review: The regulator alleged that the specialised nutritional powder lacked required prior approval and a mandatory vegetarian/non-vegetarian symbol.
• Nescafé drinks also face scrutiny: Product descriptions for certain ready-to-drink beverages reportedly differed between packaging and online listings.
• E-commerce listings matter: The regulator has questioned product names and descriptions used to market food products online.
• The notices are not final judgments: The companies have been asked to respond, and further action depends on the regulatory process.
• Consumers should distinguish claims from safety findings: Questions about labeling or regulatory approval do not automatically prove that a product causes harm.

Why Has FSSAI Issued Notices to HUL and Nestlé?

FSSAI regulates food safety, product standards, labeling and advertising claims in India. Food companies must ensure that claims made on packaging, in advertisements and on online shopping platforms comply with applicable requirements.

Nutrition-related claims can influence purchasing decisions because they suggest that a product offers particular benefits. Terms associated with stronger bones, healthy muscles, pregnancy nutrition or medical dietary management can carry especially important implications for consumers.

The regulator’s latest action concerns how several products are described and whether the claims and declarations meet the relevant standards. It has also questioned whether the correct approval procedures were followed for a specialised medical nutrition product.

These requirements serve different purposes. Advertising rules govern how companies describe a food’s benefits, while labeling rules determine what information must appear on the package. Separate approval requirements can apply to products intended for special dietary or medical purposes.

The cases therefore involve several distinct compliance questions rather than one general allegation against every product made by either company.

HUL’s Horlicks Women’s Plus Faces Questions Over Bone-Health Claims

One notice concerns Horlicks Women’s Plus Chocolate Nutrition Drink, 400 g. FSSAI said claims including the following were misleading or non-compliant with applicable regulations:

• “Nutrition for Strong Bones”
• “Clinically Proven to Help Improve Bone Strength in 6 Months”
• “Improves Bone Health”

The regulator also questioned the use of the phrase “Healthy Muscles”, stating that it contravened provisions governing the use of the word “healthy” in food claims.

These expressions matter because they communicate more than the presence of nutrients. They may suggest a particular health outcome, a measurable improvement or a clinical benefit. Under food advertising and claims rules, companies must ensure that such statements meet the applicable conditions and are not misleading.

Why clinical and nutrition claims face scrutiny

A statement that a product contains a nutrient is different from a statement that it improves a health outcome within a specific period. The latter can require a different level of substantiation and must comply with the applicable regulatory framework.

For example, saying that a product contains calcium is not equivalent to claiming that it improves bone strength in six months. The second statement describes an outcome, so the wording and evidence supporting it become important.

FSSAI also questioned the claim “100% RDA of Calcium, Vitamin D & K2”, saying it did not comply with applicable food safety requirements. The regulator flagged the nutritional information table as well.

The notice asks HUL to explain these issues. It should not be interpreted as a final finding that the product cannot provide any nutritional benefit; the regulatory question concerns the specific claims and declarations identified by the authority.

Why FSSAI Questioned the “No Added Sugar” Claim

Another issue raised about Horlicks Women’s Plus Chocolate is the phrase “No Added Sugar”. FSSAI considered the claim misleading in view of the presence of maltodextrin in the formulation.

Maltodextrin is a carbohydrate ingredient commonly used in processed foods. It can contribute to a product’s carbohydrate content and is relevant when consumers interpret sugar-related claims.

However, the phrase “No Added Sugar” and a product’s total carbohydrate content are not interchangeable measures. Whether a claim complies with food-labeling rules depends on the formulation, the applicable legal definition and the conditions under which the claim is permitted.

The regulator’s concern is that consumers could interpret the wording differently from what the product’s composition and applicable rules allow. This is particularly relevant for shoppers who choose foods based on sugar-related information.

Consumers should check the nutrition information panel and ingredient list rather than rely on a single front-of-pack claim. At the same time, the precise regulatory status of the claim will depend on the company’s response and the authority’s final assessment.

Horlicks Mother’s Plus Kesar and Healthy Birth-Weight Claims

A separate notice concerns Horlicks Mother’s Plus Kesar, 400 g BIB. FSSAI questioned the phrase “Healthy Birth Weight” on the product label and “For baby’s healthy birth weight” in an advertisement.

According to the regulator, these claims could imply that consuming the product itself ensures or directly produces a healthy birth weight. FSSAI said the wording was potentially misleading and inconsistent with the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018.

The regulator also raised concerns about descriptions used on an e-commerce platform, including phrases referring to pregnancy and lactation, protein for birth weight, DHA for brain development and “No Added Sugar” as part of the product name.

The distinction is important because pregnancy nutrition is a sensitive area. Adequate nutrition is relevant to maternal and fetal health, but birth weight depends on multiple factors, including maternal health, overall diet, pregnancy complications and medical care.

A food product’s nutritional ingredients should not be presented in a way that implies a guaranteed pregnancy outcome unless the claim satisfies the applicable regulatory requirements.

The notice does not establish that the product has harmed mothers or infants. It concerns whether the marketing language and product descriptions meet the rules for food claims and labeling.

Nestlé’s Resource Renal Powder Faces Approval and Labeling Questions

Nestlé India has also received a notice concerning Resource Renal Vanilla Flavour Powder, a product intended for the dietary management of individuals with conservatively treated chronic kidney disease.

FSSAI alleged that the product did not have the required prior approval under the Food Safety and Standards regulations governing health supplements, nutraceuticals, foods for special dietary use and foods for special medical purposes, among other categories.

The regulator also reportedly found that the label lacked the prescribed vegetarian/non-vegetarian symbol under the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020.

This case differs from the Horlicks claims. The principal concern reported by FSSAI is whether the product complied with approval and labeling requirements for a specialised dietary category.

Why specialised medical nutrition is different

People with chronic kidney disease may need dietary management tailored to their medical condition and treatment plan. Nutritional requirements can vary depending on kidney function, whether a person is receiving dialysis, laboratory results and other clinical factors.

Products marketed for specific medical dietary purposes are therefore subject to particular regulatory requirements. Prior approval and correct labeling help regulators assess whether products meet the rules applicable to their intended category.

The absence of a required approval, if established, would be a regulatory compliance issue. It should not automatically be described as proof that the product is toxic, ineffective or responsible for kidney damage.

People managing chronic kidney disease should follow guidance from their treating clinician or registered dietitian when selecting specialised nutrition products. They should not start, stop or substitute a medical nutrition product solely because of a news report about a regulatory notice.

Nescafé Ready-to-Drink Beverages Also Face Labeling Questions

The enforcement action also extends to certain Nescafé ready-to-drink products marketed through e-commerce platforms. The products identified in reports include Nescafé Intense Café Cappuccino, Nescafé Choco Mocha and Nescafé Chilled Latte.

FSSAI reportedly questioned inconsistencies between the front and back of the packaging. The front described the products as “Flavoured Milk”, while the back used the declaration “Proprietary Food – Dairy Based Drink”. Online listings also used descriptions such as “Coffee Flavoured Milk” and referred to the goodness of flavoured double-toned milk.

According to the regulator’s observations, the declared food category and product descriptions were not consistent with the applicable classification requirements.

This matters because a product’s legal category determines which standards, declarations and conditions apply. If the label, advertisement and online listing describe the same item differently, consumers may not receive consistent information about what they are purchasing.

E-commerce platforms have become an important part of packaged-food sales, making the accuracy of online product descriptions as relevant as the printed package. Product names, descriptions and promotional claims should not contradict the declarations required under food regulations.

The reported notice also involves Schreiber Dynamix Dairies and Lotus Dairy Products, the manufacturers associated with the listed beverages. The precise responsibilities of the companies involved will depend on the notices and the applicable regulatory framework.

What Happens After a Food Regulator Issues a Notice?

A notice generally gives a company an opportunity to explain its position, submit relevant records and respond to the regulator’s observations. The authority can then consider the response and decide whether further action is warranted.

Possible next steps depend on the specific legal provisions, the alleged non-compliance and the adequacy of the response. They may include requests for clarification, directions to correct labeling or advertising, or other action permitted under food safety laws.

It is important to distinguish this process from a final adjudication. The issuance of a notice means the regulator has identified issues requiring a response; it does not automatically establish that every allegation will be upheld.

For HUL and Nestlé, the next important developments will be their responses, any changes to packaging or online listings, and further directions from FSSAI.

What the Notices Mean for Consumers and the FMCG Industry

The cases highlight how food companies must manage claims across packaging, advertising and digital retail channels. A statement approved for one format may still need to be reviewed against the rules governing the product’s category, composition and intended use.

For manufacturers, the potential consequences extend beyond formal regulatory action. Questions about nutrition claims can affect consumer trust, product positioning and relationships with retailers. Companies may need to review labeling systems, substantiation records and how e-commerce sellers describe their products.

For consumers, the cases underline the value of reading nutrition panels and ingredient lists, especially when choosing foods for pregnancy, sugar-conscious diets or specific medical conditions.

At the same time, consumers should not treat every notice as a product recall or a declaration that a product is unsafe. The reported action concerns particular products and specific alleged violations. Any recall, sales restriction or final enforcement decision should be confirmed through an official regulatory announcement.

The Bigger Picture

FSSAI’s action highlights the importance of accurate, evidence-based claims in a food market where packaging and online descriptions can strongly influence buying decisions. Horlicks’ bone-health, muscle and birth-weight claims raise questions about how nutrition benefits are communicated, while the Resource Renal case concerns the approval and labeling requirements for specialised medical nutrition. The Nescafé matter adds another example of the importance of consistent product classification and descriptions.

For the food industry, the next phase will depend on the companies’ responses and the regulator’s decisions. For consumers, the central lesson is to distinguish a questioned claim or alleged compliance failure from a confirmed safety finding. Clear labeling, suitable regulatory approval and careful wording are essential, particularly when products are marketed to pregnant women or people managing chronic illnesses.

Looking Ahead

FSSAI has asked the companies to respond within the stipulated periods. Further developments may include explanations from HUL and Nestlé, changes to product claims or listings, and additional directions from the regulator. Until those steps are completed, the allegations should be described as issues raised in regulatory notices rather than final determinations.

The cases could also prompt food manufacturers and online retailers to review health claims, product categories and ingredient descriptions across their sales channels. The outcome will help clarify how the regulator applies existing rules to nutrition marketing and specialised dietary products. Consumers should follow official updates and seek qualified medical advice for condition-specific nutrition decisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why did FSSAI issue notices to HUL and Nestlé?

FSSAI questioned claims and regulatory compliance involving two Horlicks products, Nestlé Resource Renal powder and certain Nescafé ready-to-drink beverages. The concerns include health claims, sugar-related wording, labeling consistency and prior approval requirements.

2. Which Horlicks claims did FSSAI question?

The regulator questioned claims about strong bones, bone-strength improvements, bone health and healthy muscles on Horlicks Women’s Plus Chocolate. It also flagged healthy birth-weight claims on Horlicks Mother’s Plus Kesar.

3. Why is Nestlé Resource Renal under scrutiny?

FSSAI alleged that Resource Renal Vanilla Flavour Powder lacked required prior approval for its specialised dietary category and did not display a mandatory vegetarian/non-vegetarian symbol.

4. Does the notice mean these products are unsafe?

No. A notice about claims, labeling or approval does not automatically establish that a product is unsafe. The regulatory process must determine whether the alleged non-compliances are established and what action, if any, is warranted.

5. What is the issue with the Nescafé ready-to-drink products?

FSSAI reportedly found inconsistent descriptions between the packaging and online listings, including differences between “Flavoured Milk” and “Proprietary Food – Dairy Based Drink”.

6. What should consumers do now?

Consumers can check the product’s ingredient list, nutrition information and official labeling. People with medical conditions, including chronic kidney disease, should consult their healthcare professional before changing a prescribed or clinician-recommended nutrition plan.