Sharleen D’Souza, Business Standard

Mumbai, 7 July 2024

In 2023, after more than two years of development and testing, Mondelez India launched a version of Bournvita that delivers about half the recommended daily allowance of key micronutrients for children, including iron, iodine, and zinc, as well as vitamins A, C and D. All this while having 15 per cent less added sugar.

“Prior to this and around two years ago we also introduced Bournvita 50 per cent less sugar variant to provide an option for consumers. We have made adaptations to our portfolio products like Bournvita biscuits, which now have 15 per cent less sugar, and our most loved Oreo chocolate variant has also seen a 5 per cent decrease in sugar content,” the company said in an email.

This drive is not confined to Mondelez. Other multinational companies, too, such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestle India, have been working on bringing down the sugar, salt, and sodium content. They could be patting themselves on the back for doing this. Not only has the Indian consumer become more health conscious than ever — with all the talk going around that salt and sugar are two of the monsters in your kitchen (the third being maida) — but also the country’s food regulator has swung into action.

On Saturday, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) approved a proposal that information about the sugar, salt and saturated fat content on labels of packaged foods and beverages should be bolder and bigger. “Along with empowering consumers to make healthier choices, the amendment will also contribute towards efforts to combat the rise of noncommunicable diseases and promote public health and wellbeing,” the FSSAI said in a statement.

Earlier, the regulator advised ecommerce platforms to ensure that dairy-, cereal-, and maltbased beverage mixes were not available under the “health drinks” or “energy drinks” categories. The recommended sugar intake is 20 grams a day for adults and 25 grams a day for those below 18. Not more than 5 to 10 per cent of a person’s total energy intake should come from sugar. Children under two are not supposed to consume any added sugar. However, these guidelines are often breached because people tend to consume packaged foods.

Therefore, experts and activists have been calling for a different labelling, which would announce out loud what lies inside.

Eating right, drinking right

Some multinationals had already been working on reducing the salt and sugar content. For instance, Coca-Cola removed more than 900,000 tonnes of added sugar globally since 2017, and 19 of its top 20 brands offer reduced-sugar or zero-sugar options. In India, Coca-Cola’s Minute Maid Honey Infused drinks offer added dietary fibre for healthy digestion in three flavours.

“In 2022, approximately 68 per cent of our global beverage portfolio contained less than 100 calories per 12-ounce serving (350 ml), with 246 low- or no-sugar options launched,” Coca-Cola India said in a statement to Business Standard.

The company added that it prioritised transparency by placing calorie information on the front of all its packaging worldwide and did not market its products directly to children under 13.

Nestle India joined the FSSAI’s Eat Right movement and signed the pledge to reduce an average of 6 per cent added sugar, 10 per cent salt, and 2.5 per cent fat in its relevant product categories. “The company has achieved these commitments,” it said.

Varun Beverages, PepsiCo’s India bottler, told its investors on a conference call that its gross margins improved significantly, rising by 385 basis points to 56.3 per cent — and sugar had a role to play in it.

“This increase was largely driven by our focus on reducing sugar content and the light-weighting packaging material, incidentally, also meeting our sustainability initiatives along with the benefits from reduced PET prices which contributed to this improvement,” Raj Pal Gandhi, chief financial officer of Varun Beverages, said on the investor call.

Approximately 46 per cent of the company’s reconsolidated sales volumes, he said, came from low-sugar or no-sugar products. The no- or less-sugar trend is working for the company as it optimises its cost structure and enhances its overall efficiency.

“These efforts have had a tangible impact on our financial performance with EBITDA increasing by 23.9 per cent to the level of Rs. 988.76 crore year-on-year, and the Ebitda margin improving by 240 basis points to the level of 22.9 per cent in quarter one of 2024 (January-March),” Gandhi said. Ebitda, a widely accepted benchmark of profitability, is short for earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortisation.

“So, we are developing more and more — Gatorade, we mentioned a new launch which PepsiCo has given us formulation with zero sugar. So, effort is there, and constant effort is there to reduce the sugar content,” Gandhi said. PepsiCo India said in an earlier statement it had initiated trials of a blend of sunflower oil and palmolein oil in certain parts of its portfolio last year, thus becoming one of the few players in the food industry in India to do so.

Rush of junk

Experts say the standards for food and beverages vary across the world and India should have its own. “There should be thresholds for healthy and unhealthy and, in my view, this should be labelled boldly on the front of the pack,” says Arun Gupta, convener, Nutrition Advocacy for Public Interest (NAPi), a think tank.

A report titled The Junk Rush, jointly brought out by the Breastfeeding Promotion Network of India and NAPi, said: “India faces a severe public health crisis of obesity and diabetes.” In 2022, a group of public health experts, consumers, lawyers, and patient groups had called upon the government of India to check the soaring consumption of junk food among the country’s youth.

“Certain countries are more stringent than others. Even global brands have the same product, but the ingredients differ across countries and continents,” says Devangshu Dutta, founder of Third Eyesight. He explains that India still has some road to travel on food safety, alleging that some ingredients benefit companies more — such as by providing a longer shelf life — than the consumer.

“The Indian regulator is still very new to the game. If you look at processed foods, it is a newer market and the regulator needs to pick-up pace,” Dutta says.

On Saturday, the FSSAI picked up pace.

(Published in Business Standard)

Mumbai, 24 April 2024
Sharleen Dsouza, Business Standard

With the Supreme Court cracking down on Patanjali over misleading advertisements, the advertisement industry is concerned. While industry players acknowledge that some degree of exaggeration in claims is common, the Supreme Court’s firm action signals an impending shift.

On Tuesday the SC said that its interest was not limited to Patanjali but all those Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCGs) and drug companies that mislead consumers through their advertisements.

And Patanjali is not the first one to have crossed the line of puffery. There have been many cases in the past, like Horlicks Ltd versus Zydus Wellness Products where the former sought for a permanent injunction against Zydus for the broadcast of false advertisement.

Similarly, in Rajendra versus Union of India, the Bombay High Court restrained any good or service sale claiming it had supernatural and miraculous powers.

“Puffery in advertising is as old as advertising. There is always an element of exaggeration. Over the years, the government has looked the other way. Guys on the ground should take companies and brands to task and have largely been in cahoots with most of the brands,” said Sandeep Goyal, chairman and managing director of Rediffusion Brand Solutions.

Goyal believes that the SC coming down heavily on Patanjali would be a deterrent for other brands. “Puffery or not is for someone to figure out. In most food products, FSSAI doesn’t care. Who is to identify these ads? I think the SC has done something. This won’t deter other brands and get them to make claims which are within the realm of what is correct,” Goyal said.

A question of ethics

Industry experts point out that the primary objective of advertisement is to stimulate desire in the consumer’s mind. This happens by hook or by crook.

“Misleading a consumer has become inherent in advertising to a certain extent. I think this is dangerous when it comes to food, as it is basic nutrition. If you are embedding misleading information or mis-stating facts in ads then it has a real impact on whoever the customer or consumer is of that product. It is good that the issue has been highlighted,” said brand expert Devangshu Dutta, founder of Third Eyesight.

Then there is the Advertising Standards Council of India and discussions about ethical standards within the industry.

But Dutta believes there is a clear disconnect between what advertisements should say and what actually transpires. “I hope it gets acted upon from the government’s side as well. Self-regulation doesn’t seem to work. We all wish that it works, but it doesn’t. If it becomes more stringent, then it will be good overall,” he said.

While FMCG players are concerned about the stringent action of the Supreme Court, they believe that this will lead to improved advertisement regulation.

Ensuring compliance

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior executive of a leading FMCG company said, “The industry is already disciplining itself due to the growing consumer awareness, stringent ASCI guidelines and the impact of influencer marketing. This will further ensure that misleading ads will be few and far in the future.”

Some companies also ensure that their ads adhere to ASCI guidelines before launching them. “We run our ads with ASCI before we release them. This practice has worked in our favour,” said another executive on condition of anonymity.

In its hearing, the SC had said, “We are of the opinion that the issue relating to implementation of the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act and the Rules, the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and the Rules, and the Consumers Act and the relevant rules needs closer examination in the light of the grievances raised by the petitioner…not just limited to the respondents before this court but to all similarly situated/ placed FMCGs who have… misleading advertisements, and (are) taking the public for a ride… affecting the health of babies, school going children and senior citizens who have been consuming products on the basis of the said misrepresentation.”

(Published in Business Standard)

Written By Editor

All schools in India have been asked to set up “school nutrition gardens” by the central government. The gardens will have to be managed by the students, with the help of staff and teachers.

The Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD), which governs the education sector, issued guidelines for developing and maintaining kitchen gardens in schools in both urban and rural areas. The Government’s aim is to improve nutrition in schools, and also to connect children with the sources of food in an era of rapid urbanization and mounting environmental issues.

However, some schools have already embarked upon this journey well before the official guidelines came into place. One such is the Smt. Sulochanadevi Singhania School, Thane (Mumbai, India).

Students have been introduced to not just growing food within the school themselves, but grow it organically, without synthetic chemical inputs. The aim of the project has been to grow chemical-free, nutrient-rich vegetables and to provide an opportunity to learn by doing. The project is to teach the students how organic farming discourages environmental exposure to pesticides and chemicals, helps to build healthy soil, fight the effects of global warming and encourages biodiversity.

The students have sowed a wide variety of vegetables including cucumbers, chillies, lady’s fingers (okra), tomatoes, brinjals, spinach, bottle gourd, bitter gourd, ridge gourd, and capsicum, to name a few. The students have also planted paddy, to get hands-on experience of rice farming.

(Photos courtesy Smt Sulochana Singhania School, Thane, Mumbai. Check out more pictures on the school’s Facebook album.)

Source: billionfarmers

Four months ago in this column (“Organic – Hope or Hype?”) I wrote about the need for customers to make themselves aware of the true nature of organic products, and it is time to reopen that discussion.

Food is an emotive subject with us as consumers, food distribution and retail is big business with us as the trade, and agriculture is a sensitive area of governance.

On top of that, studies are seldom exhaustive enough in terms of sampling, duration of the study, establishment of controls etc., and for every study that proves the superiority of organics, you will be able to find counter-studies and opposing arguments.

In recent years brands have tended to make much of their organic certification. Marketers are known for overstatement anyway, and the promotional language used by some implies (or even explicitly states) that these products are superior to other alternatives. Surely, then, the consumer should be willing to pay higher prices for these “better” products?

If only, if only, facts were that straightforward.

In the earlier column I’d written: “We expect organic products to contain more nutrition and be better for our bodies. While this may be true of organic animal products compared to their inorganic counterparts, it has not been demonstrated for plant products, other than anecdotal experience of taste and appearance.” I had also raised the question: if organic foods are no better nutritionally than inorganic and could be as productive for the farmer, are many of the organic brands just skimming the gullible customer while the going is good?

Well, the debate just got messier. Recently a study sponsored by Britain’s Food Standards Agency last month (July 2009) really set the cat among the pigeons. The report was based on review of existing research papers to find out if organic products were nutritionally superior to inorganic products. And their conclusion was that the studies reviewed did not provide enough evidence that organic food is more nutritious.

Well, what the report really said was that on the basis of the limited number of studies that were deemed to be rigorous enough, there was not enough evidence to prove that organic food is more nutritious.

Okay.

Imagine an examiner saying that he does not have enough evidence to prove that a student who has passed did not cheat. Notice, he is not saying that the student actually cheated. But wouldn’t this statement alone raise suspicion in your mind about the student’s integrity?

Unfortunately, newspapers and electronic media sell headlines, and headlines need to be short and snappy. Here are a couple of examples about this study.

• Organic ‘has no health benefits’ (BBC)
• The benefits of “bio” in question (Le Figaro)

These clearly raise questions about any benefit at all from organics.

In the noise, the disclaimers by the team that prepared the report seem to have been ignored. For instance, this one: “It should be noted that this conclusion relates to the evidence base currently available on the nutrient content of foodstuffs, which contains limitations in the design and in the comparability of studies.” The report also states: “This review does not address contaminant content (such as herbicide, pesticide and fungicide residues) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, or the environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural practices.”

Like any good research report, it admits that “it is important to recognise the potential limitations of the review process”. And the final line in the Conclusion section of the detailed report says: “Examination of this scattered evidence indicates a need for further high-quality research in this field.”

As a reader or TV viewer, how many of us would be motivated to go to the original source and read these disclaimers as well?

Promoters of organic farming, such as Britain’s Soil Association, of course, have trashed the study saying that it is too narrow having excluded most of the available research papers since they did not meet the review standards, and that it ignored the biggest long-term health impact – that of pesticides and other chemicals used in inorganic produce.

Their opponents, in turn have trashed defendants of organic farming by calling them unscientific and narrow-minded in their own right. They point out that high-output inorganic farming is far more useful to serving the exploding human population, than low-intensity organic farming.

One of the readers of the British newspaper Daily Mail was emphatic that she didn’t “eat organic stuff to get extra nutrition”, but was “happy to pay more to be free from additives”. Certainly that is a significant benefit that motivates most people who are well into organic products. In an unusual open letter, the Chief Executive of the Food Standards Agency clarified: “Pesticides were specifically excluded from the scope of this work. This is because our position on the safety of pesticides is already clear: pesticides are rigorously assessed and their residues are closely monitored. Because of this the use of pesticides in either organic or conventional food production does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health and helps to ensure a plentiful supply of food all year round.”

The other motivation for organics is our attitude towards the environment, which can either benefit us over the longer term or, if we are irresponsible, it could accumulate toxins which only show their impact over decades and generations. But, let’s be honest, are most consumers likely to buy products because of some distant benefit to the environment, or products that benefit themselves immediately?

Possibly the answer lies in the organic sector cleaning up its message.

Are consumers any wiser after this study and the debate? I’m not sure. For now, my take on this issue remains: be aware and make up your own mind about what you want to ingest, because this debate isn’t over yet.