Why is the Central Consumer Protection Authority racking down on ‘100%’ claims on food products? | Explained

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has intensified its crackdown on food companies using "100%" claims on their products, arguing that such marketing can mislead consumers into believing the product is entirely pure or natural when it may not be. This crackdown follows increased scrutiny from food regulators, including the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), which has also urged food businesses to stop using "100%" claims on their labels, packaging, and promotional material.

In June 2026, the CCPA imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh each on Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities and Storia Foods and Beverages for misleading "100%" claims. Both companies were directed to cease using these claims on their packaging, websites, and digital platforms. Mrs. Bectors faced criticism for labeling a bread product as "100% Atta Bread" and "100% Whole Wheat Bread," despite the bread containing only 87% whole wheat flour.

The company claimed "100% Atta" meant wheat flour was the only grain used, but the CCPA disagreed, stating that "100%" is an exact numerical expression and should not be used loosely.

Similarly, Storia's claims of "100% Tender Coconut Water" and "100% Natural Tender Coconut Water" were found misleading, as the ingredient list showed water and only 9.6% coconut water concentrate, accompanied by a disclaimer stating the product was equivalent to 100% coconut water. The CCPA also targeted Storia's fruit beverages, like "100% Juice" variants, which contained water along with fruit pulp or juice concentrates, leading consumers to believe the product was entirely natural.

The CCPA's actions emphasize that the ingredient list alone may not suffice if the prominent claim creates a misleading impression. Consumers typically view the front of a packet first, before scrutinizing the detailed ingredient list. Therefore, the overall impression created by the packaging and advertising is crucial in determining if the claim is misleading.

This approach was evident in the McVitie’s Wholewheat Marie biscuits case, where the product contained only 19.5% whole wheat flour, despite being marketed as "Wholewheat."

The FSSAI has also taken notice of the growing use of "100%" claims in food product labels and promotions, advising food businesses not to use the term on labels, packaging, or promotional material as it lacks a legal definition and can mislead consumers about purity or superiority. While the FSSAI focuses on food safety, standards, and labelling requirements, the CCPA concentrates on whether companies are misleading consumers through advertisements or product claims.

Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, the CCPA can order the discontinuation or modification of false or misleading advertisements and impose penalties up to ₹50 lakh for repeated violations.