NutriBite 'Digestive High Fibre' Biscuits: Three Claims and One Missing Date
NutriBite Foods sells a 'Digestive High Fibre' biscuit in a 250 g carton. The front panel carries three claims: 'TRANS FAT FREE', 'HIGH FIBRE' and 'MADE WITH REAL BUTTER'. Nutrition information is printed only per serving of 12.5 g (two biscuits): energy 58 kcal, total fat 2.6 g, trans fat 0.0 g, fibre 0.42 g. A laboratory testing the same batch reports, per 100 g, fibre 3.4 g and trans fat 0.3 g. Saturated fat is not declared anywhere on the pack. The ingredient list reads: refined wheat flour, edible vegetable oil (palm), sugar, invert syrup, raising agents, salt, milk solids, 'butter flavour (nature-identical)', permitted emulsifier. A State Food Safety Officer picks up the pack at a Pune retailer and, on the same visit, finds 60 cartons on which the best-before date appears only on the outer shipper, not on the carton itself. The manufacturer's label artwork was approved internally by a marketing executive.
1. Assess each of the three front-of-pack claims against the claim conditions and the declared composition.
Read the worked answer
'TRANS FAT FREE'. A trans fat free claim is permitted only where trans fat is below 0.2 g per 100 g. The batch contains 0.3 g/100 g. The pack conceals this by declaring per 12.5 g serving, which converts the 0.3 g/100 g figure into an apparently round 0.0 g. Nutrition claims are tested against the food as sold per 100 g, not against an arbitrarily small serving; the claim fails.
'HIGH FIBRE'. A 'high fibre' claim requires at least 6 g of fibre per 100 g; 'source of fibre' requires at least 3 g/100 g. At 3.4 g/100 g the product qualifies only for 'source of fibre'. The claim overstates the nutrient content and is not saved by calling a 12.5 g serving 'high fibre'.
'MADE WITH REAL BUTTER'. The ingredient list contains no butter at all - only 'butter flavour (nature-identical)'. The statement is a composition claim that is false on the face of the label and is precisely the kind of representation that misleads a purchaser about what is in the pack. The flavouring must also be declared by type, i.e. added flavour (nature-identical), which the list does but only within the ingredient string.
Three misleading representations on one panel take the product outside fair labelling and into misbranding.
2. What is wrong with the nutrition panel, and what must be declared on it?
Read the worked answer
Two structural defects and one omission.
Only per-serving figures are given. Mandatory nutrition information must be expressed per 100 g (or per 100 mL) of the food as sold, with per-serving values permitted in addition where a serving is stated. Printing only per 12.5 g reverses the statutory order and, in this case, is how the trans fat figure was disguised.
Saturated fat is missing. The mandatory nutrients include energy, protein, carbohydrate, total sugars, added sugars, total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol and sodium, each per 100 g and as a percentage of the reference daily intake where prescribed. Saturated fat cannot be omitted, particularly on a product whose fat is palm oil based.
Serving size is unrealistic. 12.5 g is smaller than a normal portion for a biscuit of this type and distorts every per-serving number. A serving must be a sensible, honestly stated quantity.
The corrective route is fresh artwork, revalidation of the nutrition data by an accredited laboratory on the current formulation, and a label review with sign-off by a qualified person rather than marketing. The product cannot be sold with the existing cartons; relabelling of existing stock may be permitted only if the food itself remains fit and the adhesive overlabel meets labelling requirements.
3. How would you classify the contraventions and what enforcement and recall decisions follow?
Read the worked answer
Classification. The carton is misbranded: false and misleading claims about composition and nutrient content, plus a missing mandatory nutrient. The cartons without an individual best-before date are separately non-compliant, since the date must appear on the label of the unit package the consumer buys, not merely on the shipper. If the claims are also carried in advertising, that is a misleading advertisement, which attracts a heavier penalty than misbranding.
Action. Stop sale and seize the non-compliant stock; issue an improvement notice requiring withdrawal of the artwork and a written corrective and preventive action plan covering artwork approval and laboratory validation; launch adjudication or prosecution under the misbranding and labelling provisions. Compounding may be considered for the compoundable elements, but not before the corrective action is verified.
Recall. A labelling defect of this kind is not normally a Class I health risk, so a full public recall is disproportionate. The proportionate response is a market withdrawal of the affected batch codes or, at most, a Class III recall confined to the trade, with a consumer notice if the claims could have influenced a purchase decision. The manufacturer must give the authority the batch distribution list and confirm the depth of withdrawal in writing. Multi-state distribution means FSSAI's recall portal and the other States' Commissioners must be informed.