Priyagold biscuit maker’s license suspended for allegedly using cattle-feed bran as raw material

The licence of Surya Food and Agro Limited, which makes Priyagold biscuits, was suspended because inspectors found cattle-feed bran being used as a source of fibre. The bran was meant for cattle feed, not human consumption. That matters because ingredients entering a mass-produced food must be suitable for people and handled under food-safety controls.

The key issue was not simply the word “bran,” but its intended use and how it entered the biscuit process. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India also reported problems with plant hygiene, pest control, raw-material storage and segregation, personnel hygiene, premises maintenance, and intermediate formulations.

Legal proceedings have begun against the company, which had not responded to the action when the report was published. The suspension shows that regulators can stop a food business from operating under its licence while alleged violations are investigated and prosecuted. The article does not state how long the suspension will last or whether consumers became ill.

Bran is the outer, fibre-rich layer removed from grains during processing. The article does not describe the exact bran used at the biscuit plant, but it says the material was meant for cattle feed rather than human consumption. That distinction matters because food ingredients must be suitable for people and controlled for their intended use.

A material made for animal feed may follow different requirements for sourcing, processing, storage, labelling, and contamination control. It may also be handled separately from ingredients intended for human food. Using it in biscuits can therefore create a safety and quality concern, even if the material is called bran and bran itself can be a food ingredient.

The regulator treated the use of cattle-feed bran as a violation and suspended the manufacturer’s licence. The article does not identify a specific contaminant in the bran or report consumer illness. The broader lesson is that an ingredient’s name is not enough; its approved use and handling also matter.

The biscuit plant faced several alleged food-safety violations beyond the use of cattle-feed bran. The regulator cited plant hygiene, pest control, raw-material storage and segregation, personnel hygiene, premises maintenance, and the handling of intermediate formulations. Together, these areas cover how ingredients, workers, equipment, buildings, and partly processed food are managed.

The mechanism is straightforward. Poor hygiene or pest control can introduce contamination. Weak storage and segregation can cause unsuitable materials to mix with food ingredients. Poor personnel hygiene or premises maintenance can undermine cleanliness. Errors in intermediate formulations can affect what ultimately enters the finished biscuit. The article does not identify a particular contaminant or illness linked to the plant.

Legal proceedings were initiated against Surya Food and Agro Limited, and its licence was suspended. The company had not responded to the regulator when the report was published. The case shows why inspections examine the whole production system, not only the final product or one ingredient.

Detergent or caustic soda in milk can make the product unsafe because these substances are not intended as milk ingredients. Depending on the substance and amount, swallowing them may irritate or burn the mouth, throat, and digestive tract. Pesticide residues can also pose health risks when exposure exceeds permitted limits, with effects depending on the chemical, dose, and repeated exposure.

The article reports that a Dodla Dairy full-cream milk sample contained detergent or caustic soda and failed the prescribed milk-fat specifications. It also says yellow raisins sold by UEIR Organic Foods contained pesticide residues. These findings show how testing can detect both added substances and chemical residues that consumers cannot reliably identify by appearance.

The regulator initiated prosecution proceedings against both companies. The article does not say how much detergent, caustic soda, or pesticide was present, whether the products caused illness, or whether every batch was affected. Those details would be needed to assess the exact risk to consumers.

The figures point to a persistent problem with misleading food and drink claims. The regulator flagged more than 160 claims, and years later 120 were still around. This means many identified claims had not been removed or resolved, according to the background cited in the article. It does not establish the percentage of all claims in India.

The key mechanism is delay between detection and correction. A claim may remain visible while regulatory action, company responses, or other processes continue. During that time, shoppers may continue seeing marketing that regulators have questioned. The article gives this issue as background to a wider crackdown on food adulteration and misleading advertisements.

The figures suggest that finding violations is not enough. Effective enforcement also requires timely follow-up and removal or correction of misleading claims. The article does not explain why 120 claims remained, identify all the companies involved, or state whether the number has since changed.

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, or FSSAI, is India’s food regulator. Its role is to apply food-safety requirements so that food businesses meet rules on ingredients, hygiene, processing, and product quality. The article identifies FSSAI as the regulator taking action against the biscuit, milk, and raisin businesses.

Its reported actions show two enforcement tools. FSSAI suspended Surya Food and Agro Limited’s licence after inspectors found cattle-feed bran in biscuit production and several plant violations. It also initiated prosecution proceedings against Surya Food and Agro, Dodla Dairy Limited, and UEIR Organic Foods Private Limited over alleged food-safety violations.

The article does not provide the full legal procedure, penalties, appeal rights, or the exact statutory powers behind each action. It does show that the regulator can use inspections and test results to restrict a food business’s licence and refer alleged violations for prosecution. The companies’ final legal outcomes are not given.

Food-safety standards protect people by setting requirements before products reach large numbers of consumers. Rules about ingredients, milk fat, storage, segregation, hygiene, and pesticide residues give producers measurable controls and give regulators benchmarks for inspection and testing. They also help make food quality more consistent across a mass food system.

The article provides clear examples. Dodla Dairy’s full-cream milk contained detergent or caustic soda and failed the prescribed milk-fat specifications. Yellow raisins from UEIR Organic Foods contained pesticide residues. At the biscuit plant, inspectors found cattle-feed bran, poor storage and segregation, hygiene concerns, pest-control problems, and issues with intermediate formulations. Testing and inspection exposed problems that shoppers might not notice.

These standards do not guarantee that every violation is prevented. They make failures identifiable and support enforcement, including licence suspension and prosecution proceedings. The article’s cases show the need for regular inspections, reliable testing, clear records, and prompt action when products or facilities fall outside requirements.