admin
March 5, 2025
Nisha Qureshi, Afaqs
5 March 2025
Bournvita, a chocolate-flavoured malt drink produced by Cadbury under Mondelez, is a household name in India. Marketed as a health drink that supports children’s growth and development, it holds a 15-16% share in the Indian health food drink sector, second only to Horlicks, which dominates with nearly 50%.
Its advertising has traditionally centred on themes of health, confidence, and mental strength, with campaigns such as Tayyari Jeet Ki resonating strongly with consumers.
The Food Pharmer controversy
Despite its strong market presence, Bournvita has faced criticism over its high sugar content and other ingredients, sparking public debate and legal scrutiny. The controversy escalated last year when health influencer Revant Himatsingka, known as Food Pharmer, called out Bournvita for its excessive sugar levels.
Himatsingka’s video criticised Bournvita for its high sugar content and potentially harmful additives, such as caramel colouring agents. His claims triggered widespread consumer backlash and prompted Mondelez India to issue a legal notice, dismissing his allegations as “unscientific” and “distorted”.
However, the legal action only intensified public scrutiny. In response to mounting pressure, Bournvita reduced its added sugar content by 14.4%, from 37.4 grams to 32.2 grams per 100 grams of powder.
Can influencers salvage Bournvita’s reputation?
More than a year after the controversy, Bournvita has launched a large-scale influencer campaign to highlight its lower sugar content and nutritional benefits. The campaign features influencers visiting Bournvita factories to vouch for its authenticity and health benefits.
While the concept of factory tours is not new—brands such as Parle and Havmor use it as an extensive strategy to build consumer trust even in the absence of any controversy.
The concept has since been adapted by several brands. ID Fresh, known for its packaged idli and dosa batter, faced allegations of contamination with animal bones.
In response, it launched TransparenSee, a trust-building initiative that allowed consumers to take virtual tours of its production facility via live streaming, offering an unfiltered view of its operations.
However, marketing experts argue that Bournvita’s approach may not be enough to restore its credibility, as it relies heavily on influencer testimonials rather than direct consumer engagement. Crisis communication, they caution, must be handled with transparency and genuine action.
Bournvita’s strategy bears similarities to Shein’s controversial influencer-led factory tour campaign, which backfired. In June 2023, the fast-fashion retailer invited US influencers on a paid trip to its ‘Innovation Factory’ in Guangzhou, China, to counter allegations of labour exploitation.
Instead of improving Shein’s reputation, the trip sparked further backlash, with critics dismissing it as a PR stunt designed to manipulate public perception.
Mondelez defends the campaign
Speaking about the campaign, a Bournvita spokesperson says, “At Mondelez, our unwavering commitment to quality, transparency, and consumer trust defines everything we do. This campaign is a testament to our ongoing efforts to engage meaningfully with consumers.”
He further emphasises that Mondelez aims to go beyond influencer marketing by engaging directly with key stakeholders such as mothers and nutritionists, offering deeper insights into the product’s quality and nutritional benefits.
The need for authenticity over promotion
Krishnarao Buddha, a former senior category head of marketing at Parle Products, remains sceptical of Bournvita’s approach, arguing that credibility issues cannot be resolved through influencer endorsements alone.
“Instead of relying on paid influencers, brands should adopt a transparent and action-driven approach. In today’s digital age, where public scrutiny is at an all-time high, authenticity is the key to earning and retaining consumer trust,” he explains.
Devangshu Dutta, CEO, Third Eyesight, echoes similar concerns, stressing that once trust is broken, it takes time to rebuild.
“A single influencer campaign cannot erase past controversies. Brands need to engage in consistent and transparent communication about real improvements. Bournvita highlights its nutritional benefits, but consumers need more than promotional content—they need tangible proof of change, such as independent testing and direct consumer engagement,” he asserts.
Sandeep Goyal, chairperson and MD of Rediffusion, critiques Bournvita’s approach as an “MBA (Marketer’s Belly Ache) strategy” that prioritises corporate messaging over authenticity. “In today’s digital landscape, consumers are highly aware of paid promotions, making traditional marketing tactics less effective. Instead of attempting to control the narrative through influencers, brands should focus on rebuilding credibility through transparency and honest communication,” he advises.
Lessons from Cadbury’s past crisis management
This is not the first time Mondelez has had to navigate a brand crisis. In October 2003, just before Diwali, Cadbury Dairy Milk faced a major scandal when customers in Mumbai discovered worms in chocolates. The Maharashtra FDA seized stocks from its Pune plant, leading to widespread concern and a 30% drop in sales.
To regain trust, Cadbury launched Project Vishwas, an initiative to educate 190,000 retailers and reassure consumers. It invested Rs 15 crore in improved packaging without raising prices and enlisted Amitabh Bachchan as a brand ambassador. The campaign successfully restored consumer confidence.
Will Bournvita’s efforts be enough?
While Bournvita has taken steps to address consumer concerns, relying on influencer marketing alone may not be sufficient to rebuild its credibility. As past examples show, true reputation recovery requires more than just strategic campaigns—it demands tangible action, consistent transparency, and genuine consumer engagement.
(Published on Afaqs)
admin
March 4, 2025
Kashmeera Sambamurthy, Storyboard18
4 March 2025
A growing number of health advocates and industry watchdogs in India are raising concerns over misleading food advertisements, challenging brands on their claims and pushing for stricter regulations in an industry where marketing often outpaces oversight.
Recently, lifestyle guru Luke Coutinho called out quick-commerce platform Zepto over what he described as a misleading advertisement for garlic bread on Instagram. Sharing a screenshot of the ad on his social media, Coutinho criticized its promotion of refined carbohydrates as a bedtime snack, calling it “unethical” and a product of corporate greed. Tagging regulatory bodies including the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), he urged authorities to take action.
Similarly, Dr. Arun Gupta, convenor of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi), a national think tank of medical experts, pediatricians, and nutritionists, highlighted a full-page advertisement in Delhi Times for Amul TRU, a fruit drink brand. The ad, published on February 14, emphasized the “goodness of real fruits in every pack,” but Gupta pointed out that the listed ingredients contained concentrated fruit rather than fresh produce.
These instances reflect a broader pattern of misleading advertising in India’s food and beverage sector. While such controversies have long existed, it was only on February 7 this year that the Indian government announced the formation of a 19-member committee, led by Union Minister of Food Processing Industries Chirag Paswan, to address deceptive marketing practices and introduce more stringent regulations.
India’s struggle with misleading food advertisements dates back years. The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) and FSSAI signed an MoU in 2016 to curb deceptive advertising in the food and beverage sector. Two years later, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) issued an order restricting junk food advertisements on children’s television channels, though they remained permissible on mainstream networks.
Despite these measures, misleading claims persist. In 2023 alone, FSSAI flagged 32 instances of food business operators violating the Food Safety and Standards (Advertisements & Claims) Regulations of 2018. That same year, actor Amitabh Bachchan faced criticism for endorsing Britannia Milk Bikis in a Kaun Banega Crorepati Junior commercial, where the biscuits were equated with the nutritional value of atta roti and a glass of milk.
Health influencer Revant Himatsingka, widely known as ‘Food Pharmer,’ also took on the industry, calling out Cadbury Bournvita for its high sugar content. Mondelez International reduced the product’s sugar levels by 15 percent and dropped its ‘health drink’ label from marketing materials.
The regulatory landscape includes four key frameworks to combat misleading food advertisements: the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSS Act), the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 2019, and the ASCI Code of Self-Regulation.
However, Gupta argues that these regulations require amendments to better define misleading claims. In 2024, NAPi lodged a complaint with FSSAI against advertisements for Parle-G Royale biscuits, which allegedly misrepresented their sugar content. The response? “There is no FSS regulation which says that nutrients will be declared in the advertisement,” authorities stated.
Gupta further highlighted that when FSSAI initially flagged 150 misleading advertisements in 2023, that number was later reduced to 32, with no clear updates on enforcement actions. “When the Kaun Banega Crorepati ad equated Britannia Milk Bikis with atta roti and milk, NAPi protested. The ad was pulled, but no fines were imposed,” he noted.
Celebrity endorsements add another layer to the issue. The 2024 TAM AdEx report found that food and beverage advertisements accounted for 28 percent of all celebrity-endorsed ads in India. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, prohibits celebrities from endorsing banned products but allows promotions unless explicitly prohibited by law.
In a telling 2006 interview with journalist Karan Thapar, Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan defended his endorsement of soft drinks, arguing, “If soft drinks are bad, ban their production. If production is not stopped due to revenue concerns, don’t stop my revenue.”
ASCI CEO Manisha Kapoor observed that influencers frequently promote foods without disclosing financial ties to brands, making endorsements appear organic rather than paid sponsorships. Sweta Rajan, a partner at Economic Laws Practice, expressed concerns that celebrity-backed marketing distorts public perception of healthy eating. “The continuous exposure to such ads makes it difficult for consumers to make informed choices,” she said.
The recently formed 19-member government committee has been met with skepticism from experts who believe it may lack independence. “The committee does not include a public health expert. Half its members belong to industry bodies. It should form a subcommittee to define what constitutes healthy food,” Gupta said.
Himatsingka called for stringent penalties against brands found guilty of misleading advertisements, suggesting that companies be publicly named on a weekly basis. Rajan, meanwhile, warned against excessive regulation, arguing that it could stifle creativity. “A balance must be struck between regulation and creative advertising,” she said. Instead, she proposed incentives for brands that adopt honest marketing practices.
Some experts advocate for clearer front-of-pack labeling. “Currently, most food labels prioritize regulatory compliance over consumer awareness. Since literacy levels in India are lower than in many Western nations, labels should be simple and easy to understand,” said Devangshu Dutta, chief executive of consultancy firm Third Eyesight.
Taxation has been another approach. Many processed foods in India attract an 18 to 28 percent GST rate, yet brands such as Coca-Cola, Lays, and Haldiram’s continue to thrive. “While taxes have some impact, they are not enough on their own,” Rajan noted.
Gupta suggested replacing FSSAI’s ‘Health Ratings’ – which he says benefit the industry more than consumers – with clear warning labels on ultra-processed foods. He said, “Consumers should be alerted to the risks, not misled by arbitrary ratings.”
(Published on Storyboard18)
admin
November 14, 2024
Economic Times
14 November 2024
The Swiggy IPO is making news for being the most successful in a decade in its category. The food and grocery delivery firm yesterday listed at a 5.6% premium to its IPO price of Rs 390, making it the first company with an issue size of over Rs 10,000 crore in the past decade to have listed above its offer price, ET has reported. The stock closed 17% above its issue price at Rs 455.95 in a weak market, surpassing analysts’ expectations of a tepid debut. The company’s market capitalisation at close on Wednesday was Rs 1.02 lakh crore.
Swiggy’s impressive debut also indicates the incoming deluge of cash in an emerging business, quick commerce. Swiggy plans to plough more cash into its quick-commerce business, Swiggy Instamart. Swiggy’s bigger rival, Zomato, is also planning to fatten its war chest. Zomato plans to raise fresh funds through a qualified institutional placement (QIP) despite sitting on $1.5 billion, or about Rs 12,600 crore. The money will also fuel its quick commerce business, Blinkit. Zepto, another quick commerce player, is also raising money. ET reported last month that Zepto is in talks to raise $100-150 million from a group of domestic family offices and wealthy individuals. It last raised $340 million in August. Swiggy Instamart, Blinkit and Zepto are the top three players with over 85% market share.
The floodgates of capital opening into the quick commerce sector would worry the big e-commerce platforms which have already started feeling the heat from quick commerce.
The quick rise of quick commerce
While quick commerce becomes the preferred medium for immediate needs and impulse purchases, e-commerce is favoured for more planned purchases like home, beauty and personal care. But now quick commerce firms are diversifying beyond groceries, small-value items, etc. and invading the home turf of e-commerce players.
Quick commerce is already conquering kirana, the neighbourhood small retail business, as well as hitting modern retail. As consumer preferences shift towards the convenience of last-minute grocery deliveries, quick commerce companies are outpacing traditional retailers, with 46 per cent of consumers surveyed reporting a cut in purchases from Kirana shops, a recent report has said. The quick commerce market size is expected to reach $40 billion by 2030, a jump from $6.1 billion in 2024, according to the report by Datum Intelligence.
Quick-commerce operators such as Blinkit, Swiggy Instamart and Zepto are aggressively trying to lure away consumers from large ecommerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart by matching their prices across groceries and fast-selling general merchandise, triggering a price war in the home delivery space, ET reported a few months ago. This is a departure from the earlier pricing strategy of quick-commerce players who typically charged 10-15% premium over average ecommerce marketplace prices for instant deliveries, industry executives had told ET.
A recent ET study of prices of 30 commonly used products in daily necessities, discretionary groceries and other categories, including electronics and toys, in both ecommerce and quick-commerce platforms reveal the pricing disparity has been bridged. “The pricing premium which quick commerce used to charge for instant deliveries is gone with these platforms now joining a race with large ecommerce to offer competitive pricing to shift consumer loyalties,” B Krishna Rao, senior category head at biscuits major Parle Products had told ET.
The increasing competition is putting pressure on ecommerce majors to reduce delivery time.
“Price matching by quick commerce is to acquire market share and is part of market acquisition cost even when it might not be profitable at a per unit transaction level,” Devangshu Dutta, CEO of consulting firm Third Eyesight, had told ET. “They may have to sacrifice margins in the short term to get customers shopping more frequently.”
After challenging kirana and modern retail, e-commerce is the next frontier for quick commerce companies.
The challenge shaping up for e-commerce giants
With Swiggy, Zomato and Zepto raising a huge amount of money, the war between quick commerce and e-commerce is likely to turn bloody, besides increasing internecine competition among quick commerce players themselves.
Quick commerce, which began with the delivery of groceries and essential items, has now expanded to include a diverse range of products. This includes electronics, clothing, cosmetics, household goods, medicines, pet supplies, books, sporting equipment, and more.
E-commerce sector offers a vast opportunity for growth of quick commerce business. The Indian e-commerce market is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 21% and reach $325 billion in 2030, as per Deloitte’s report released on Monday. This huge potential is luring big players. The Tata group’s ecommerce venture Neu is set to enter the quick commerce segment branded as Neu Flash, rolling it out to select users selling grocery, electronics and fashion, ET reported last month. Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance, leveraging its vast network of supermarkets, is expanding into the 10–30 minute delivery segment. Ambani wants to ensure quick commerce helps bolster its business ahead of an IPO of Reliance Retail, which was last year valued at $100 billion, and has backers including KKR, sources told Reuters recently.
Besides entry of big ones like Tata and Ambani, the deluge of fresh investment into business by the incumbents such as Swiggy, Blinkit and Zepto will pose a big threat to large e-commerce players Amazon and Flipkart. Swiggy has recently hired two Flipkart executives to boost its senior leadership. They have joined two other executives that Bengaluru-based Swiggy had hired from the Walmart-owned ecommerce major in the past few months.
Swiggy and Zomato are both assessing several new services as they diversify beyond their core businesses, ET has reported a few days ago. Swiggy is all set to launch a pilot programme for a services marketplace, labelled ‘Yello’, which will host professionals such as lawyers, therapists, fitness trainers, astrologers, dieticians, according to sources. It is also testing a premium membership service called ‘Rare’, for affluent customers providing them access to high-end events such as Formula 1 races, music concerts, upscale art exhibitions, in addition to VIP hospitality and priority reservations at luxury restaurants.
Zomato has previously been bold in its diversification moves by buying Paytm’s events and ticket business for Rs 2,048 crore. It is now trying out a concierge-like service to help users place online food orders over WhatsApp. Human customer relationship agents will provide the Gurgaon-based company’s new service instead of its usual approach of deploying chatbots, a person familiar with the move has told ET recently.
Apprehending challenges by quick commerce players, Flipkart has already started its own quick commerce business Flipkart Minutes. While still far behind its established rivals, Flipkart Minutes hit daily orders of 50,000-60,000 during its Big Billion Days sales, people with knowledge of the matter told ET last month.
Further investment and bigger players entering the sector will heat up competition among the quick commerce companies even as they will grapple with new challenges such as logistics as they expand. But a bloody war could soon be seen on the e-commerce battlefield as emboldened by huge popular response the quick commerce companies start invading on the well-guarded turf of Flipkart and Amazon.
(Published in Economic Times)
admin
September 16, 2024
Priyamvada C., Mint
16 September 2024
When the late George Fernandes, the industries minister in the short-lived Janata Party government of 1977, issued a diktat to multinational corporations Coca-Cola, IBM and AstraZeneca to dilute their stake in their wholly owned subsidiaries to 40% in favour of Indian shareholders, Coca-Cola and IBM chose to exit India. Later, during P V Narasimha Rao’s proliberalisation government in 1993, Coca-Cola returned. It bought out Ramesh Chauhan’s Delhi Bottling Company and Coolaid, the bottling companies of five carbonated drinks, in 1998.
With Coca-Cola India now said to be evaluating options to list its wholly owned bottling subsidiary – Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (HCCB), Mint explains the rationale behind companies considering such moves.
What caused the change in strategy?
Experts said there is a trend of consumer giants spinning off their units to optimise their balance sheets, go asset-light and focus on their core brands and business models. Coca-Cola India’s ambitions to list HCCB come almost a decade after rival PepsiCo’s bottler, Varun Beverages, listed on the local stock exchanges, yielding significant value for the Jaipuria family.
Unlike PepsiCo, Coca-Cola owns its bottling franchise, just as other MNCs including consumer goods major Whirlpool, ball-bearing specialist Timken, and tobacco giant BAT, who are keen to take advantage of the valuations that Indian investors give to well-run MNCs. Varun Beverages commands a market valuation of ₹2.09 trillion. Hindustan Unilever and Colgate-Palmolive (India) are examples of multinational companies that have listed in India.
Coca-Cola’s move is seen as a strategic attempt to yield significant benefits, including financial gains, risk mitigation and other exit opportunities. The Economic Times was the first to report on HCCB’s listing plans in May.
How does the parent company benefit?
Through such moves, the parent company can reduce exposure to risks associated with bottling companies, which include fluctuations pertaining to raw material, regulatory changes and local market conditions, said Alpana Srivastava, a partner at Desai & Diwanji. While spinning off bottling subsidiaries is more prevalent in the beverage industry, she said other fast-moving consumer goods and retail companies may explore similar strategies to optimise their balance sheets in the current environment.
Earlier this year, HCCB announced the transfer of its bottling operations in three territories in north India to streamline supply chains in the region. However, the bottler declined to comment on its IPO plans.
As part of the transition, the Rajasthan market will be owned and operated by Kandhari Global Beverages, which operates in parts of Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Chandigarh, Jammu & Kashmir, and Ladakh.
The Bihar market will be owned and operated by SLMG Beverages Pvt Ltd, which runs bottling operations in Uttarakhand, parts of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar. The Northeast market and select areas of West Bengal will be owned and operated by Moon Beverages Pvt Ltd, which operates in parts of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh.
What other factors motivate such spin-offs?
Besides providing liquidity for the bottler, listing may offer tax benefits such as reduced capital gains tax or more favourable transfer pricing rules and optimise the overall tax burden for both the parent company and the subsidiary, Srivastava explained. It may allow both entities to be valued more accurately based on their individual capacities in growth, risk profiles and capital intensity.
This comes in the backdrop of companies looking to make the most of a bullish stock market to unlock more value for shareholders by listing their manufacturing subsidiaries. It enables the companies to raise more capital, which can be used to strengthen their market presence and reduce debt, said Devangshu Dutta, founder of Third Eyesight, a management consulting firm. He said the core value generator for companies such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi are brands and marketing rather than manufacturing.
In April, private equity firm Lighthouse Funds invested ₹700 crore in Parsons Nutritionals, a contract manufacturer specialising in packaged foods, beverages, and personal care products, underlining investor appetite in this sector. Other co-investors include the International Finance Corporation, a member of the World Bank Group, Evolvence India, HDFC AMC’s Fund of Funds, and various family offices.
However, there may be legal considerations, too. While exclusive contracts exist, the bottler may have partnerships with other companies in its distribution portfolio, which may have to be reviewed and renegotiated. There may be regulatory compliance and other anticompetitive considerations when it involves such big entities.
Other instances of such moves
While there are fewer examples of bottling companies listed in India, this practice is more common globally. Coca-Cola has listed most of its bottling subsidiaries in other global markets such as North America and Europe.
While there is no shareholding between PepsiCo and Varun Beverages, there is an exclusive arrangement for Varun Beverages to bottle, use trademarks, distribute, market, and sell PepsiCo products across India. The beverage giant benefits from royalty and licence fees. Over the past year, Varun Beverages’ revenue rose 22% to ₹16,400 crore while its profit increased to ₹2,056 crore from ₹1,497 crore in FY22. As of Friday’s close, the bottler’s shares had gained almost 30% to ₹645.20 since the beginning of this year.
Any potential listing opportunity for HCCB may allow a staggered exit for Coca-Cola India from managing local operations, monetising its stake and participating in future licence fees and/or royalty arrangements, said Dhruv Chatterjee, a partner at Saraf and Partners. He added that there are indications in the retail and fast-moving consumer goods category of similar divestments. Coca-Cola India did not respond to Mint’s request for comment.
Ravikumar Distilleries is an example of a listed manufacturing company that has tie-ups with liquor companies Radico Khaitan, Shashi Distilleries and John Distilleries, in addition to manufacturing and marketing its own liquor products. Bengal Beverages is an unlisted bottler that manufactures and distributes non-alcoholic beverage brands under licence from Coca-Cola across categories such as sparkling soft drinks, juice and water.
What kind of contracts exist between the bottler and the parent company?
Many bottling plants are usually set up by companies as a joint venture with a local partner. The bottler procures the concentrate from the companies. About 14-15% of the concentrate cost goes to the bottler, which translates into revenue for the brand, according to a person familiar with such discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity. The company spends a part of this revenue on marketing activities that target mass audiences through television, radio and newspapers.
Depending on the terms of the contract, the bottler may be expected to spend a portion of its revenue on marketing through outdoor settings such as billboards, flyers, social media and events. The arrangement between a bottler and a company may be either a pure bottling arrangement (or contract manufacturing) or a bottling and distribution arrangement, where the bottler is also responsible for marketing, branding, and last-mile distribution.
How has the carbonated beverage market fared?
Market research provider Statista estimated that the carbonated drink market in India clocks about $2.4 billion in revenue and is expected to grow by 6.98% annually over the next four years. The volume consumed at home and other outdoor locations is likely about 4.2 billion litres this year.
In 2022, Parle Agro’s brand Appy Fizz and Coca Cola dominated with a 31% market share each, followed by Fanta, Pepsi, 7UP and Sprite, among others. Other brands such as Reliance-backed Campa Cola are expected to challenge the dominance of these companies.
Before Reliance acquired Campa for ₹22 crore in 2022, the soft drink had been launched by Pure Drinks Group in the 1970s. The group was behind the launch and distribution of Coca-Cola in 1949, before the US company was shunted out of the country in 1977.
Pure Drinks and Campa Beverages subsequently launched Campa Cola to fill the gap left by foreign soft drink companies in the country. However, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo re-entered the Indian market in the 1990s, throttling local competition.
(Published in Mint)
admin
July 8, 2024
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)
