FSSAI Issue Show-Cause Notices to BigBasket, Flipkart Over Misleading Rice Bran Oil Claims

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has issued show-cause notices to BigBasket, Flipkart India and cooking-oil manufacturer Gemini Edibles & Fats India over allegedly misleading health claims used to promote Freedom Cooking Rice Bran Oil. The regulator said promotional statements suggesting that the oil reduces bad cholesterol and maintains or increases good cholesterol were not permitted under the applicable Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018. The product was also promoted with a claim of “10,000+ PPM Natural Oryzanol.”

The notices require the companies to explain why action should not be initiated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. FSSAI also flagged a potential licensing issue involving Gemini Edibles’ own e-commerce website, where the company appeared to be selling food products without a valid central licence covering e-commerce activities. The action puts renewed attention on how food products are advertised on online marketplaces and whether health-related claims are supported by the rules governing food advertising in India.

Key Takeaways

• Three companies face notices: FSSAI issued show-cause notices to Gemini Edibles & Fats India, Innovative Retail Concepts, which operates BigBasket, and Flipkart India.
• Product under scrutiny: The notices concern Freedom Cooking Rice Bran Oil.
• Health claims questioned: The regulator said claims about reducing bad cholesterol and maintaining or increasing good cholesterol were not permitted for the product under the applicable regulations.
• Oryzanol claim: Promotional material also referred to “10,000+ PPM Natural Oryzanol.”
• Separate licensing concern: FSSAI flagged Gemini Edibles’ apparent lack of a valid central licence covering e-commerce activity on its own website.
• Legal status: These are show-cause notices, not final penalties or a completed adjudication.
• Wider significance: The case highlights regulatory scrutiny of food advertising across manufacturers, online marketplaces and digital promotions.

What Triggered FSSAI’s Action?

FSSAI’s action concerns the way Freedom Cooking Rice Bran Oil was promoted through e-commerce platforms and social media. According to the regulator, the product’s promotional claims included statements about reducing bad cholesterol and maintaining or increasing good cholesterol.

These claims can influence purchasing decisions because consumers may interpret them as evidence that regularly using the oil will improve their cholesterol profile or protect their heart health. Such statements therefore raise questions about whether a food advertisement accurately reflects the benefits permitted under the applicable regulations.

The regulator said the cholesterol and heart-health claims were not covered or permitted under the relevant provisions for edible vegetable oils, including rice bran oil, in the Advertising and Claims Regulations, 2018.

The notices name three entities: Gemini Edibles & Fats India, the manufacturer associated with Freedom Cooking Rice Bran Oil; Innovative Retail Concepts, which operates BigBasket; and Flipkart India.

The action is significant because the product was promoted through online retail channels as well as social media. Digital marketplaces make it possible for product claims to reach large audiences quickly, and the wording displayed on a product page can shape how shoppers understand its nutritional value.

However, a show-cause notice is the beginning of a regulatory process. The companies must have an opportunity to respond, and the final consequences will depend on the regulator’s assessment and any subsequent proceedings.

Which Claims Were Questioned?

The FSSAI notice concerns specific promotional statements rather than a blanket prohibition on rice bran oil as a food product.

Promotional statement	Regulatory issue raised
“Reduces bad cholesterol”	FSSAI said the cholesterol-related claim was not permitted under the applicable regulations for rice bran oil.
“Maintains/increases good cholesterol”	The regulator said the heart-health claim was not covered or permitted under the relevant rules.
“10,000+ PPM Natural Oryzanol”	The statement was cited as part of the product’s promotion; the notice should not be interpreted as a separate final finding that every aspect of this quantitative claim is false.

The distinction between these statements matters. A claim about a substance being present in a food is not identical to a claim that consuming the food will produce a particular health outcome.

For example, a manufacturer may discuss a food’s composition, such as the presence of a naturally occurring compound. But connecting that compound to a specific medical or physiological benefit can bring additional regulatory requirements into play.

The central issue in this case is that FSSAI found the cholesterol and heart-health claims were not permitted under the applicable framework. That does not automatically establish that rice bran oil has no nutritional value or that every statement made about the product is false.

Consumers should distinguish between the product’s ingredients, its nutritional composition and the health outcomes an advertisement claims it can deliver.

What Is Oryzanol, and Why Does the Claim Matter?

Oryzanol, commonly called gamma-oryzanol in discussions of rice bran oil, refers to a group of naturally occurring compounds found in rice bran. It is frequently mentioned in product descriptions because of its association with the oil’s composition and antioxidant properties.

The phrase “10,000+ PPM Natural Oryzanol” refers to a quantitative composition claim. PPM means parts per million, a way of expressing the concentration of a substance in a product. The claim, by itself, is different from a promise that the oil will reduce cholesterol or prevent heart disease.

There are two separate questions consumers and regulators may consider:

1. Is the stated concentration accurate? This concerns the product’s composition, the method of measurement and the evidence supporting the label or advertisement.
2. What health benefit is being claimed? This concerns whether the advertised benefit is supported and permitted under the relevant food-claims rules.

FSSAI’s reported action specifically identified the cholesterol and heart-health claims as not permitted. The available reporting does not establish a final finding that the stated oryzanol concentration itself was fabricated or inaccurate.

That distinction is important for fair reporting. The regulator’s action should not be expanded into a claim that every nutritional statement made by the manufacturer has been disproved.

What Do India’s Food Advertising Rules Require?

The Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, govern claims made in food advertisements and product communications. The rules are designed to ensure that claims are not misleading and that consumers are not given an inaccurate impression of a food’s nutritional or health benefits.

FSSAI’s regulatory framework includes provisions dealing with nutrition claims, health claims and claims relating to specific food categories. The permitted wording can differ depending on the product and the nature of the benefit being communicated.

The regulator’s published compendium for edible vegetable oils lists claims associated with rice bran oil, including statements concerning its monounsaturated fatty acids, omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids and naturally occurring antioxidant compounds. These provisions help explain why a manufacturer cannot assume that every broad cholesterol or heart-health statement is permitted simply because a food contains a particular ingredient.

A company making a health-related claim must consider the specific rules that apply to its product. Evidence that a compound has been studied for a particular biological effect does not automatically authorise a commercial advertisement to promise the same outcome to consumers.

This is especially important when a claim sounds like medical advice. Statements suggesting that a product will lower a risk factor or improve a health measurement can carry more weight with shoppers than ordinary descriptions of taste, texture or ingredients.

The relevant regulations and amendments are available through the official FSSAI Advertising and Claims regulations page.

Why BigBasket and Flipkart Are Included

The case also raises questions about the responsibilities of online marketplaces when food products are sold through digital channels.

BigBasket and Flipkart are not the manufacturer named in the product’s branding, but their platforms can display product descriptions, promotional claims and advertising material that influence customers’ purchasing decisions.

FSSAI has issued notices to Innovative Retail Concepts, which operates BigBasket, and Flipkart India in connection with the disputed promotion. Their inclusion means the regulator is examining the relevant role of these entities in the sale and promotion of the product.

The exact responsibilities of each company may depend on the relevant product listings, promotional arrangements, contracts and applicable law. The notices alone do not establish that every company performed the same role or bears an identical level of responsibility.

Product listings are part of the consumer information chain

Online shoppers often rely on product pages instead of inspecting packaging in a physical store. They may see a headline claim, a product image, a short description or promotional material before deciding whether to buy an item.

If a health-related claim appears on a listing, shoppers may assume that the statement has been checked and is appropriate for the product. That makes accurate product information important to consumer trust.

Marketplaces can face practical challenges in reviewing large catalogues that contain thousands of products and descriptions. Manufacturers, sellers and platforms may all contribute information to a listing, making it important to establish who supplied, approved or published the disputed wording.

The current case underscores the need for clear processes to review food claims, investigate complaints and correct non-compliant product information when required. It does not, however, establish that every product on either platform has a similar problem.

Gemini Edibles Faces a Separate E-Commerce Licensing Concern

Alongside the advertising issue, FSSAI flagged a potential licensing problem involving Gemini Edibles & Fats India’s own e-commerce website.

According to the regulator’s reported statement, the company appeared to be offering or selling food products through its website without a valid central licence covering e-commerce activity.

This is a separate compliance question from whether a cholesterol claim is permitted. A business may need to meet licensing requirements for its activities as well as comply with rules governing the advertising and sale of its products.

The distinction matters because correcting promotional wording would not necessarily resolve a separate licensing deficiency. Conversely, possessing the appropriate licence would not automatically make an otherwise impermissible health claim compliant.

The company has been directed to explain why action should not be initiated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The final outcome will depend on the response, the regulator’s findings and the applicable legal process.

What Happens After a Show-Cause Notice?

A show-cause notice asks a person or company to explain why a proposed regulatory action should not be taken. It gives the recipient an opportunity to present its position before the regulator decides what should happen next.

In this case, the notices require the companies to respond to the concerns raised by FSSAI. Depending on the responses and the regulator’s assessment, the process could lead to further directions or other action permitted under the law.

The notice itself should not be reported as a final penalty, a court judgment or a conclusive determination of liability.

The companies may submit explanations, supporting documents or other material relevant to the claims and licensing questions. The regulator would then consider the matter under the applicable framework.

As of the reporting available on October 17, 2026, the public reports cited here do not establish a final outcome for these notices. No conclusion about the final liability of any of the three companies should be inferred solely from the issuance of the notices.

A Wider Regulatory Focus on Online Food Sales

The latest action comes amid broader FSSAI scrutiny of food products sold through online platforms. The regulator has previously raised concerns about misleading food claims and other compliance issues involving e-commerce businesses.

That broader context matters because online retail has become an important channel for grocery shopping. Customers increasingly compare nutritional information, ingredients, health-related claims and prices on digital platforms before making purchases.

For food manufacturers, the regulatory environment creates an incentive to review product labels, website descriptions, promotional campaigns and social media content before publication.

For marketplaces, it highlights the importance of processes that can identify questionable claims and establish how product information is supplied and reviewed.

For consumers, the episode is a reminder that a claim displayed on a retail website is not, by itself, proof that the claimed health benefit has been independently verified or approved by a regulator.

What Consumers Should Take Away

The FSSAI action does not mean that all rice bran oil is unsafe, nor does it amount to a general warning against buying Freedom Cooking Rice Bran Oil. The immediate issue is the specific promotional claims identified by the regulator and the compliance questions raised in its notices.

Consumers comparing cooking oils should look at the full ingredient and nutrition information, use product claims as one part of their decision and be cautious about advertisements that promise a particular health outcome.

People managing cholesterol should also avoid treating a single cooking oil as a substitute for an overall dietary approach or medical guidance. Cholesterol levels can be affected by a range of factors, including total dietary patterns, genetics, physical activity and other health conditions.

The regulatory distinction between composition and health outcomes is useful here: the presence of a compound in a food does not automatically establish that consuming the product will deliver a specific result for every person.

The Bigger Picture

The notices to BigBasket, Flipkart and Gemini Edibles show how food advertising rules can extend beyond the manufacturer to the digital channels through which products reach consumers. A product’s online description can influence purchasing decisions just as strongly as packaging or traditional advertising, making accurate and compliant claims important across the entire sales process.

The case also demonstrates why regulatory allegations must be reported carefully. FSSAI has identified claims it says were not permitted and raised a separate licensing concern, but the show-cause process has not itself established a final penalty or resolved every factual question. The next stage will depend on the companies’ responses and the regulator’s decisions.

Looking Ahead

The immediate development to watch is whether Gemini Edibles, BigBasket and Flipkart respond to the notices and whether FSSAI issues further directions. The regulator’s findings could also prompt companies to review how health claims are written, approved and displayed across product listings and social media promotions.

For consumers, the practical lesson is to distinguish nutritional information from promises of health outcomes. For manufacturers and online marketplaces, the case highlights the importance of checking claims against the specific rules that apply to each food category, maintaining appropriate licences and ensuring that product descriptions do not mislead shoppers.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why did FSSAI issue notices to BigBasket and Flipkart?

FSSAI issued show-cause notices to BigBasket’s operating company, Innovative Retail Concepts, and Flipkart India in connection with promotional claims for Freedom Cooking Rice Bran Oil. The regulator said the cholesterol and heart-health claims were not permitted under the applicable regulations.

2. Which cooking oil is involved in the case?

The product is Freedom Cooking Rice Bran Oil, associated with manufacturer Gemini Edibles & Fats India.

3. What claims did FSSAI question?

The regulator identified statements that the oil “reduces bad cholesterol and maintains/increases good cholesterol.” Promotional material also referred to “10,000+ PPM Natural Oryzanol.” FSSAI specifically said the cholesterol and heart-health claims were not permitted under the applicable rules.

4. Has FSSAI banned Freedom Cooking Rice Bran Oil?

The reported action concerns show-cause notices over promotional claims and a separate licensing issue. The available reports do not establish a general ban on the product.

5. Why is Gemini Edibles facing a separate licensing concern?

FSSAI said the company appeared to be selling food products through its own e-commerce website without a valid central licence covering e-commerce activity. This is separate from the issue of whether the product’s health claims comply with advertising regulations.

6. Does a show-cause notice mean the companies have been found guilty?

No. A show-cause notice asks the recipients to explain why action should not be taken. It is not, by itself, a final penalty or conclusive finding of liability.