Dabur moves Delhi High Court against FSSAI order restricting sale of products carrying '100% Pure', '100% Natural' claims
New Delhi, August 7
FMCG major Dabur India Ltd. has approached the Delhi High Court challenging an order issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India directing it to discontinue the sale of certain food products carrying expressions such as "100% Pure", "100% Natural", "100% Purity Guaranteed" and "100% Organic."
The challenge arises from a prohibitory order dated August 3, 2026, issued by the FSSAI's Designated Officer, directing Dabur to immediately stop the sale of a number of food products bearing "100%" claims. The regulator has stated that such declarations are ambiguous, incapable of objective verification and may have the potential to mislead consumers. According to reports, the order is part of the FSSAI's broader regulatory exercise against absolute "100%" claims on food labels, which it says may create an exaggerated impression regarding a product's quality or composition.
The products covered by the order include Dabur Honey, Dabur Honey Squeezy, Dabur Sunderbans Honey, Dabur Himalayan Apple Cider Vinegar, Dabur Himalayan Organic Apple Cider Vinegar, Dabur Virgin Coconut Oil, Dabur Cold Pressed Sesame Oil, Dabur Cow Ghee, Real Activ 100% Tender Coconut Water, Dabur Hommade Coconut Milk and Dabur Organic Honey, among others. The company has also been directed to submit an Action Taken Report within 15 days, failing which continued sale may invite action under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
The matter was mentioned for urgent listing by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, which agreed to list the petition on an urgent basis.
In its petition, Dabur submits that the impugned order has been issued without serving any prior show-cause notice or improvement notice and without affording the company an opportunity of hearing. It argues that the action is contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, which contemplate seeking clarification from the food business operator and considering its response before taking a final decision.
The company has further contended that the order effectively requires it to recall or repackage products already available in the market. It also states that following the issuance of the order, the FSSAI publicised it on its social media platforms and that certain channel partners and online retailers were advised not to sell the affected products, resulting in immediate commercial consequences.
Dabur has also questioned the legal basis of the prohibitory order, contending that the Designated Officer could not have exercised such powers by relying on Section 18 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, which, according to the petition, only lays down guiding principles for implementation of the statute. The company has referred to judicial precedent to support its contention that the provision does not independently confer powers to prohibit the sale of products.
Another ground raised in the petition is that the impugned order is unreasoned and does not explain how the use of expressions such as "100% Pure" or "100% Natural" violates the Advertising and Claims Regulations. Dabur contends that the order merely observes that the claims "appear to be misleading" without recording any findings or reasons. It also argues that, in the case of products made from a single ingredient or products that are stated to be made from 100% natural ingredients, the use of such expressions cannot, by itself, be treated as misleading.
The petition also points out that the FSSAI has not alleged that the products in question are adulterated, unsafe, spurious or sub-standard, and submits that the dispute relates only to the manner in which the products are labelled and advertised.
Dabur has sought quashing of the August 3, 2026 prohibitory order and interim relief against its operation pending adjudication of the writ petition.
— ANI
Reader Comments
I understand FSSAI's concern, but Dabur has a point too. If it's single-ingredient product like pure honey or coconut oil, what's wrong with saying it's 100% pure? The bigger issue is that many smaller brands are selling adulterated products while the big companies get targeted. Seems like they should focus on actual adulteration rather than labels. 🤔
As a consumer, I think this is long overdue. We've been conditioned to trust these "100%" claims on everything. Whether it's honey, oil, or even milk - how can anyone guarantee 100% purity when there's so much adulteration in the market? FSSAI should audit these products properly instead of just looking at labels. But yes, the order was too sudden without proper notice - that's a valid procedural concern.
Honestly, I'm torn on this. On one hand, I've been buying Dabur honey for years thinking it's pure. On the other hand, if they really are pure, what's the harm in saying so? But then again, these big corporates always find loopholes to trick us. 😤 FSSAI should be more transparent about what they're testing and finding. Otherwise it seems like just a publicity stunt.
The procedural angle is really important here. You can't just wake up one morning and tell a company to stop selling without even a show-cause notice. That's like the police arresting you without telling you why. Even if FSSAI has the right intention, they need to follow due process. Otherwise, this whole exercise becomes questionable.
Honestly wondering when
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.