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

Story so far: The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has stepped up action against food companies using “100%” claims on their products, saying such claims can give consumers an impression of absolute purity or completeness that may not match what is actually inside the packet.

The move comes as food regulators are paying closer attention to how products are labelled and advertised. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has also asked food businesses to stop using “100%” claims on food labels, packaging and promotional material.

The key question is: can a company claim “100%” when the product does not actually contain 100% of that ingredient? The CCPA’s orders offer some clues. In June 2026, the CCPA imposed a ₹1 lakh penalty each on Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities, which markets English Oven products, and Storia Foods and Beverages for misleading “100%” claims.

The companies were also directed to stop using the claims on their packaging, websites and digital platforms. In the case of Mrs. Bectors, one of its bread products was marketed as “100% Atta Bread” and “100% Whole Wheat Bread”.

The company, however, admitted that the bread contained 87% whole wheat flour. Mrs. Bectors argued that “100% Atta” was meant to convey that wheat flour was the only grain used in the bread. The CCPA did not accept this explanation.

It said that “100%” is an exact numerical expression and should not be used loosely or approximately. The Authority also took into account the use of “Zero Maida” alongside “100% Whole Wheat Bread”. Taken together, these claims could give consumers the impression that the bread was entirely made from whole wheat flour.

The Storia case involved a similar concern, but with beverages. Storia marketed one of its products as “100% Tender Coconut Water” and “100% Natural Tender Coconut Water”. However, the ingredient declaration listed water and 9.6% coconut water concentrate, followed by the words “Equivalent to 100% Coconut Water” and “Reconstituted”.

The CCPA found the prominent “100% Tender Coconut Water” claim misleading because an ordinary consumer could understand it to mean that the product was entirely natural tender coconut water. The CCPA raised a similar concern over Storia’s fruit beverages marketed as “100% Juice”.

These products contained water as well as specified quantities of fruit pulp or juice concentrates. For example, the pomegranate variant contained water, 4% pomegranate juice concentrate and 10% apple juice concentrate. The mango variant contained water, 16% mango pulp and 12.5% apple juice concentrate.

The CCPA’s orders suggest that putting the correct information in the fine print may not be enough if the prominent claim creates a misleading impression. Consumers typically see the front of a packet before reading its detailed ingredient list.

The CCPA has therefore looked at the overall impression created by the packaging and advertising, rather than assuming that a detailed ingredient declaration automatically corrects a prominent claim. This approach was also seen in the case of McVitie’s Wholewheat Marie biscuits.

The biscuits contained 19.5% whole wheat flour, while refined wheat flour accounted for 52%. The CCPA found that the prominent use of the word “Wholewheat”, along with wheat imagery on the packaging, could lead consumers to believe that the biscuits were predominantly made from whole wheat.

Pladis India, the manufacturer, argued that “Wholewheat” was part of its registered trademark and pointed to a disclaimer on the packaging. The CCPA, however, said that being a registered trademark does not put a company outside consumer-protection laws.

Nor, it held, can a disclaimer necessarily cancel out a prominent representation that may mislead consumers.