Have you ever stood in the middle of a supermarket, holding a box of infant formula or a can of nutritional powder for your child, and wondered: “Are these claims even trustworthy?”
That is not just your question. It is the question asked by millions of parents worldwide who are willing to spend whatever it takes to give their children the best possible start. And it is also the question that regulatory authorities in India are now weighing against some of the biggest names in the children's nutrition industry.
On October 21, 2026, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) simultaneously issued notices to Nestlé India, Zydus Wellness, Abbott Healthcare, and several other companies, demanding explanations regarding promotional claims related to infant and toddler products that the agency deemed to be in violation of regulations.
This is not just a routine administrative check. It is a wake-up call about the fragile boundary between marketing and ethics, profit and responsibility, and flashy promises versus scientific truth.
Which Claims Are Being Questioned?
Let's dive into the details. The FSSAI did not send out generic notices. The agency singled out specific products, individual phrases, and concrete claims.
Nestlé India: When “Easy to Digest” and “Immune Support” Become an Issue
The FSSAI issued a separate notice to Nestlé India concerning two infant nutrition products: Lactogen Pro 1 Powder and NAN Excella Pro Stage 1.
Regarding Lactogen Pro 1, the regulatory body questioned the claim on the packaging and promotional materials stating that the product “contains whey protein, a part of easily digestible milk protein.” The FSSAI requested Nestlé to provide scientific evidence to substantiate this claim.
For NAN Excella Pro Stage 1, the issue is even more serious. The claim “5 HMOs to help support normal immune system” was assessed by the FSSAI as potentially implying that the product is suitable for supporting immunity related to a specific physiological condition. This is considered non-compliant with regulations that prohibit claims related to the prevention, mitigation, treatment, or cure of any disease, disorder, or specific physiological condition unless specially permitted.
Nestlé India has been asked to explain why proceedings should not be initiated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and its accompanying regulations.
Zydus Wellness: When “Taller, Stronger, Faster” is More Than Just an Ad
For Zydus Wellness, the focal point is Complan—one of the most widely recognized children's nutritional drink brands in India. The FSSAI pointed out a series of claims on product labels and online portfolios, including images of two children and phrases such as:
- “Taller, stronger, faster. Clinically proven 2x growth”
- “Supports concentration and memory”
- “Immunity booster + 34 vital nutrients”
The regulatory authority concluded that these claims violate the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018. Zydus was asked to provide scientific justification for claims like “taller, stronger, faster,” “clinically proven 2x growth,” and “immunity booster + 34 vital nutrients.” Even the claim “taste that grows in 4 variants” was deemed a regulatory violation.
A Wider Wave of Surveillance: From Packaging to Social Media
Notably, this inspection goes beyond product packaging. The FSSAI has also expanded its scope to social media advertising and influencer marketing.
In a parallel move, the agency issued notices to Abbott Healthcare, Nestlé India, Nutricia International, and Mead Johnson Nutrition India alongside influencer Ira Fathima regarding an Instagram reel. The video listed the “Top 5” infant formula products, including NAN-Pro 1, Aptamil Premium 1, Similac Advance 1, Enfamil A+ Stage 1, and Dexolac 1, promoting benefits such as nutritional balance, immune enhancement, brain development, and easy digestion.
The FSSAI argued that this content violates the Infant Milk Substitutes Act of 1992 (amended in 2003) and the Foods for Infant Nutrition Regulations, 2020, which strictly prohibit any direct or indirect commercial promotion of infant milk substitutes. This is a red line established to protect breastfeeding decisions—an internationally recognized public health priority.
Responses from Companies: Between Affirmation and Silence
In the wake of the FSSAI notices, responses from the involved parties varied significantly.
Both Nestlé India and Zydus Wellness maintained that their claims are factually grounded, backed by scientific literature, and have been presented in previous detailed regulatory responses. Nestlé stated that the latest FSSAI notice reiterates issues previously raised by the agency on September 18, to which the company already submitted a detailed response.
Abbott Healthcare issued a separate statement asserting that they have no involvement, association, or endorsement regarding the influencer's social media content. While this is a logical defensive move, it raises a broader question about brand accountability in the era of influencer marketing: When an influencer mentions your product without a formal contract, are you truly “unconnected”?
Meanwhile, initial reports indicated that none of the three companies provided immediate comments when contacted outside of working hours.
The Broader Context: India Tightens Food Regulations
This inspection does not happen in a vacuum. It is part of a wave of tighter regulations sweeping across India's packaged food industry, which is valued at over $100 billion.
Just days before the notices were dispatched, the FSSAI proposed banning the addition of sucrose and fructose to infant foods for children under 6 months old. The agency is also pushing for the adoption of front-of-pack warning labels on food products. These moves reflect a global trend: consumers are increasingly health-conscious, and regulators are under pressure to act to protect the public, especially the most vulnerable group—children.
In this context, advertising claims about “2x growth,” “immune support,” or “easy digestion” are no longer just marketing catchphrases. They have become verifiable commitments, and those unable to substantiate their claims will face legal consequences.
Lessons for Vietnamese Marketers: When Advertising is More Than Creativity
You might think: “This is happening in India, what does it have to do with Vietnam?”
The answer is: a lot.
The Vietnamese market also features infant formula brands, nutritional foods for children, and advertising campaigns filled with promising language. And while legal frameworks may differ, ethical principles have no borders.
1. Every Health Claim Requires Scientific Evidence
Never use phrases like “boosts immunity,” “supports digestion,” or “aids brain development” without clinical research or credible scientific literature backing them up. Regulatory bodies in any country can demand proof, and when they do, flashy ads won't save you.
2. Children Are a Special Audience—and the Law Knows It
Advertising targeting children or parents is always subject to stricter scrutiny. In India, the Infant Milk Substitutes Act strictly prohibits the promotion of breast milk substitutes. In Vietnam, the Advertising Law and related decrees also enforce specific regulations regarding the promotion of food and products for children. Understanding and complying with these regulations is not an option. It is a prerequisite for survival.
3. Influencer Marketing Does Not Exempt Responsibility
The case involving Ira Fathima highlights a clear reality: when an influencer promotes your product, you can be dragged into an investigation, even without a formal contract. Establish clear policies on who is authorized to speak about your product, what they are allowed to say, and what they must avoid. And remember: silence is not protection.
4. Transparency is a Long-Term Strategy, Not a Short-Term Burden
Brands that choose transparency—publishing scientific evidence, clearly explaining mechanisms of action, and acknowledging product limitations—will build sustainable trust with consumers. Brands that choose exaggeration might secure short-term sales, but they will forfeit their most valuable asset when regulators come knocking.
When Parents' Trust is the Most Precious Commodity
I have witnessed the infant nutrition industry evolve dramatically over the past two decades. From simple television commercials to sophisticated multichannel campaigns featuring influencers and user-generated content. Technology has transformed how we reach parents. But one thing never changes: trust.
Parents buy products for their children not just because of price or brand recognition. They buy out of hope. The hope that their child will grow up healthy, develop well, and have a strong start in life. And any brand that turns that hope into a profit tool without accountability is betraying the most sacred trust.
The incident in India is a reminder that regulators are taking a much tougher stance. More importantly, it is a reminder that ethics are not just part of a marketing strategy. Ethics are the foundation of every sustainable marketing strategy.
Brands that place truth above profits will survive. Others may end up paying the price.
When choosing a nutritional product for your child, what matters most to you—promising ads, brand popularity, or credible scientific evidence? And if you are a marketer working in this industry, how do you balance sales pressure with ethical responsibility—especially when competitors continue using exaggerated claims without consequence? Share your perspective below, because in this game, every choice we make helps shape a more transparent market—or fails to do so!
0 Comment
Add your comment to this article