FSSAI seeks proof from Nestle, Abbott and Zydus over infant formula, ad claims

FSSAI asked the companies and influencer to explain whether their advertising claims were accurate, scientifically supported and legally compliant. The notices covered infant formula claims about digestion, immunity, brain development and nutrition. They also covered Complan claims about growth, concentration, memory and immunity.

Nestle was asked to substantiate whey protein’s “easy to digest” claim and the statement that five HMOs support the normal immune system. Abbott, Nutricia, Mead Johnson and Nestle were questioned alongside influencer Ira Fathima about an Instagram Reel ranking five infant formula products. Zydus Wellness was asked to prove Complan’s “2X Growth,” concentration, memory and immunity claims.

The notices also sought explanations under food advertising rules and infant-feeding regulations. FSSAI gave recipients a prescribed period to respond. The notices do not themselves establish liability, but they can lead to further action if the explanations or evidence are inadequate.

FSSAI stands for the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. It administers the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and related food regulations. In this case, it examined whether advertising claims and alleged infant formula promotions complied with food-safety and marketing requirements.

Issuing a notice means the regulator has identified concerns and is asking the recipient to respond. For example, Nestle must provide evidence for digestibility and immunity statements. Zydus Wellness must justify Complan’s growth, concentration, memory and immunity claims. Abbott, Nutricia, Mead Johnson, Nestle and Ira Fathima must explain the alleged Instagram promotion.

A notice is not the final decision. The article states that recipients were asked to respond within the prescribed or stipulated period. It also specifically says the notices do not, by themselves, establish liability. FSSAI may consider the responses before deciding whether further action is warranted under the cited laws and regulations.

The notices involve five companies: Nestle India, Abbott Healthcare, Nutricia International, Mead Johnson Nutrition India and Zydus Wellness. They also name influencer Ira Fathima. The article identifies at least eight products or product lines: Lactogen Pro 1, Nan Excella Pro Stage 1, five formulas in the Instagram Reel, and Complan.

The five products listed in the Reel are Nan-Pro 1, Aptamil Premium 1, Similac Advance 1, Enfamil A+ Stage 1 and Dexolac 1. Nestle’s separate notices concern Lactogen Pro 1 and Nan Excella Pro Stage 1. Zydus’s notice concerns Complan, including packaging and online listings.

Across these notices, the main claim types are easy digestion, immune support, growth, and brain or cognitive benefits. The article also mentions balanced nutrition, stronger immunity, concentration, memory and children’s growth. Because several claims appear together in advertisements, the regulator is examining both evidence and compliance with the relevant rules.

Advertisements for infant milk substitutes are specially regulated because they promote products intended for infant feeding. The article identifies the Infant Milk Substitutes Act, 1992, and the Food Safety and Standards (Foods for Infant Nutrition) Regulations, 2020, as relevant rules. These measures govern marketing and promotion in this area.

The alleged example was an Instagram Reel presenting a “Top 5” list of infant formulas. It attributed balanced nutrition, stronger immunity, brain development and easy digestion to the products. FSSAI said this promotion could violate the infant-substitute rules, so it sought explanations from the influencer and four companies connected with the listed products.

The restrictions matter because claims can influence feeding choices for infants. That public-health rationale is consistent with why infant-feeding promotion is treated separately, although the article does not detail the policy history or all prohibited conduct. In this case, the regulator will review the responses and supporting evidence before deciding whether further action is needed.

Claims such as “easy to digest” or “supports immunity” make scientific assertions about a product’s effects. Evidence should therefore test the actual product, its ingredients and the claimed outcome in the relevant population. The article only says FSSAI sought scientific evidence and substantiation; it does not prescribe a particular study design.

In established regulatory practice, useful evidence could include well-designed human studies, appropriate comparison groups, clearly defined outcomes and statistical analysis. Digestibility might require validated measures of tolerance or digestion. Immunity claims would need relevant immune outcomes. Growth claims would need reliable height or growth measurements over a meaningful period. Concentration and memory claims would need validated cognitive tests.

Evidence should match the exact wording and strength of the advertisement. “Clinically proven 2X growth” demands much stronger proof than a general nutrition statement, including evidence that the claimed doubling is real and attributable to the product. FSSAI will assess the submissions under applicable food-safety and advertising regulations.

If FSSAI concludes that claims or promotions violate food-safety or advertising laws, it could initiate action under the Food Safety and Standards Act and the cited regulations. The article does not state exactly which penalty, correction, withdrawal or other measure would follow. The outcome would depend on the allegations, evidence and applicable provisions.

The immediate step is a response. Nestle must address its digestibility and immunity claims. Zydus Wellness must justify Complan’s growth, immunity, concentration and memory statements. Abbott, Nutricia, Mead Johnson, Nestle and Ira Fathima must explain the alleged Instagram promotion of infant milk substitutes.

Recipients were given a prescribed or stipulated period to respond. FSSAI will consider those explanations and supporting documents before deciding whether to proceed. Importantly, the article says the notices do not themselves establish liability. A notice signals regulatory scrutiny, not a completed finding against any recipient.

Infant milk substitutes and children’s nutritional drinks serve different product categories. The infant formulas named here are intended for infant feeding. Complan is described as a nutritional drink marketed for children. This distinction matters because the products are reviewed under different regulatory concerns and may make different kinds of claims.

FSSAI linked the infant formula promotion to the Infant Milk Substitutes Act, 1992, and the Foods for Infant Nutrition Regulations, 2020. It examined an Instagram Reel listing five formulas and attributing nutrition, immunity, brain development and digestion benefits. For Complan, FSSAI relied on the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, and questioned growth, immunity, concentration and memory claims.

The distinction helps regulators match marketing controls to the product and audience. Infant-feeding promotion receives special scrutiny, while children’s drinks must substantiate their advertised benefits under general claims rules. The article does not detail every difference in composition, use or health guidance between the categories.