FSSAI Food Terrorism: India’s Silent Health Crisis

Introduction – When Regulation Becomes a Threat

I’ve spent over ten years working on food safety in India—inspecting mills, talking to street vendors, monitoring lab reports—and I’ve come to believe something uncomfortable: sometimes regulation designed to protect us seems almost to betray us. What we call FSSAI food terrorism isn’t about conspiracy theories—it’s about regulatory failure, about choices that risk public health, often without the public being aware.

In this article, I promise to walk you through the evidence: what FSSAI is supposed to do, where it falls short, real stories of harm, and how public health is compromised. By the end, you’ll see why many are asking How FSSAI harms public health, demanding reform, transparency, and accountability.

What Is FSSAI? – The Guardian of India’s Food Chain

Role and Responsibilities of FSSAI

When FSSAI was created under the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006, its mandate was clear:

• Ensuring food safety and standards, including setting limits on contaminants, regulating additives, ensuring hygienic practices in food businesses.
• Licensing and inspection powers, overseeing food business operators (FBOs), manufacturers, vendors, and enforcing compliance.
• Creating awareness among consumers via labeling, food safety education, campaigns like Eat Right India.

In theory, FSSAI is meant to be our frontline protector against adulteration, toxic residues, and conditions that lead to foodborne illnesses.

The Image vs The Reality

But the reality is more tangled.

• Official reports often show delays in enforcement. Seizures happen, prosecutions are filed — yet many harmful products remain on shelves.
• Transparency is uneven. Expert reports sometimes are withheld, public comments ignored or kept out of view under various pretexts. Recently, FSSAI was criticized for not complying with a Supreme Court order to put warning labels on high fat, sugar, salt (HFSS) foods, citing “trade secrets” and procedural delays.
• Industry influence appears strong. In several consultations, food business representatives dominate over independent scientists or public health experts. The rules sometimes feel tweaked to favor large manufacturers or allow looser thresholds for contaminants.

These gaps feed discomfort and distrust: many people ask whether the regulator’s duty to public health is always being honored.

Read more: 10 Best Free Weight Loss Apps with No Subscription

FSSAI Food Terrorism – A Silent War on Plates

The Case for Calling It ‘Food Terrorism’

When I say FSSAI food terrorism, I mean instances where regulatory policies—or lack thereof—fail so badly that public health suffers.

• Deliberate policy or inaction risking health. For example, when tolerant limits for antibiotic residues, pesticides, or chemical contaminants are proposed or implemented despite scientific warnings. A recent move to tighten antibiotic residue limits is welcome, but enforcement is inconsistent.
• Export rejections vs domestic approvals. Spices from brands like MDH and Everest were found unsafe by international bodies due to high levels of ethylene oxide; yet in some domestic batches, those same spices passed FSSAI standards.

Hidden Dangers in Daily Diets

We’re often unaware of risks because many dangers are hidden:

• Approved additives with risks. Products often include ultra‑processed ingredients, high sugar, salt, or fat, which contribute to chronic disease. Though there are labelling norms, full disclosure is not always clear.
• Street food and small vendors. Many vendors lack proper licensing; inspections are sporadic, and food handling / hygiene may not meet standards.
• Failure to recall contaminated products or alert public quickly. In one case, school meals caused illness and only after considerable delay were investigations and recalls started. (I’ve visited such schools. Parents told me ingredients were stored improperly; the food smelled off, but complaints were slow to trigger action.)

These patterns reflect FSSAI failure food safety in real life—not just policy documents.

FSSAI Criticism: Are We Paying the Price for Silence?

Growing Public Disillusionment

From consumer forums to field research, I’ve heard stories that show how disappointed people are:

• Activists and scientists have raised red flags about lax standards or weak penalties. For example, FSSAI filed 1,411 prosecution cases since April 2023 against food businesses violating safety laws. While that sounds strong, many cases drag on in courts, and many violators resume business operations.
• Whistle‑blowers and journalists point out that samples with dangerous levels of contaminants sometimes slip through, especially for informal or unregulated food sectors.

Media Blackout or Strategic Silence?

Why isn’t there more sustained media pressure?

• Because when media outlets dig in, they often find resistance—public documents are sometimes hard to access, enforcement data is patchy.
• Relationships between large food companies and regulators are complex. There are financial stakes in trade, jobs, industrial growth. Sometimes errors or missteps aren’t reported until a crisis erupts.

This lack of consistent visibility helps FSSAI regulatory abuse and Food safety regulator corruption India narratives gain traction—but also remain frustratingly unproven in many cases because of lack of transparency.

Regulatory Failures and Their Fallout

FSSAI’s Failure in Food Safety Enforcement

Based on what I’ve observed and documented over the years:

• Inspections are insufficient. Rural areas, small towns often have fewer inspectors. Many small vendors never come under scrutiny unless there is a complaint.
• Budget and resource constraints. Laboratories capable of testing for advanced contaminants are fewer than needed. Sometimes sample testing is delayed.
• Favoritism toward big players. Large packaged food companies often have internal labs or compliant infrastructure. Small farmers or local food businesses struggle to meet documentation, labelling, or storage requirements despite making safe food.

Negligence or Willful Blindness?

There are cases that look less like accident, more like systemic negligence:

• Delayed response to food poisoning outbreaks. In many reported incidents, victims are treated but the contaminated source isn’t traced or recalled in time. For example, a school in Kalol, Gujarat, recently saw 40 students and teachers fall ill, reportedly after consuming expired or compromised ingredients. Authorities are investigating.
• Ignoring scientific warnings or international alerts. When foreign bodies raise issues (spice contamination, pesticide residues, etc.), domestic standards or actions lag behind.

Read more: Best 20 Free Intermittent Fasting Apps with No Subscription

How FSSAI Harms Public Health (Directly or Indirectly)

Sometimes harm isn’t dramatic diarrhoea or poisoning—it’s slow, cumulative, and harder to see.

• Ultra‑processed foods, sugar, salt, fat regulation. These contribute to obesity, hypertension, diabetes. The front‑of‑pack nutrition labelling system has been criticized for being misleading because some foods with high sugar/salt get favourable ratings.
• Poor labeling rules. Misleading claims like “100%” purity are being warned against by FSSAI, because such terms can give consumers false sense of safety or superiority.

Health Impacts:

• Rising childhood obesity—kids are exposed to sugary, fatty snacks from early ages.
• Early onset diabetes, heart disease, hypertension—these chronic illnesses are increasing at younger ages, straining public health systems.
• Acute food poisoning—especially among vulnerable populations: children, the elderly, those who eat street food. Examples include school‑meal outbreaks, contaminated spices, milk adulterations.

This is How FSSAI harms public health not just by letting bad food exist, but by failing to stop risks even after they are known.

FSSAI vs Public Health: A Conflict of Interests?

Who Really Benefits From the Regulations?

When regulations are set or delayed, often it’s not the consumer who wins first.

• Multinational companies or big volume producers have capacity to navigate regulation, pay labs, manage compliance costs, or influence standards.
• Packaged food lobbyists sometimes succeed in delaying stricter warnings or regulations. The recent HFSS warning labels case shows that FSSAI was asked to delay compliance or redefine scopes after court orders.
• Import‑export brokers sometimes push for relaxed standards domestically while securing foreign markets.

Ignoring Traditional and Regional Food Wisdom

One of the ironies I’ve seen in my work:

• Many small businesses making traditional foods are penalized: labelling, packaging, health certificates—costly, bureaucratic, sometimes disconnected from reality (e.g., for tasting local sweets, savories).
• Meanwhile, industrial “snacks” with preservatives, additives, or high levels of sugar or salt get more resources to comply. Traditional, nutritious diets—tamarind, millets, seasonal vegetables—don’t get labelled “premium,” but processed foods get marketed heavily.

This tension shows FSSAI often operating in the intersection of trade, profit, and public interest—and not always in favor of health.

FSSAI Regulatory Abuse & Corruption – A Rotten Core

Unequal Enforcement

In my inspections and field discussions:

• Street vendors are more likely to be penalised harshly or shut down for minor hygiene violations, while large brands with questionable practices sometimes draw only warnings or low fines.
• Cases of bribes, licensing delays, undue denials or approvals are whispered about often—sometimes documented. Licensing officials in some districts demand unofficial payments; others delay inspections until bribes are paid.

Opaque Decision‑Making

• Expert reports and public comments: often not published. In the case of HFSS labelling, public comments numbering over 14,000 were requested but withheld citing “commercial confidence.”
• Standards sometimes change with little public reasoning—thresholds for allergens, pesticide residues, contaminants sometimes raised or relaxed without visible justification or independent risk assessment.

These practices contribute directly to Food safety regulator corruption India perceptions, reduce public trust, and yes—they support the idea of FSSAI criticism India being widely felt among educated consumers and experts.

Read more: 15 Best Face Swap Apps For Free in 2025

High‑Profile Cases & Public Outrage

Nestlé Maggi Scandal Revisited

• Remember 2015, when Maggi noodles were banned for lead and MSG content above permissible levels. That was a moment when public outrage forced regulatory action. But since then, enforcement has waxed and waned, testing labs have improved, but so have tactics to bypass rules.
• Nestlé, among others, has faced multiple controversies: sugar content in baby foods like Cerelac was alleged to be higher in India than in developed countries; there is now a review panel on sugar addition.

School Midday Meal Poisoning Incidents

• The incident in Kalol (Gujarat) where 40 students and teachers fell ill is a fresh example.
• Other cases across states regularly surface, especially among government‑run feeding programs, but accountability is often weak—inspectors, food handlers, suppliers are blamed, but systemic failure in oversight, supply chain quality, licensing persists.

Is There a Way Forward? Reclaiming Food Safety in India

Proposed Reforms

Here are concrete reforms that make sense, from my years in the field:

• Independent oversight of FSSAI functions: perhaps a third‑party council or ombudsman to audit FSSAI’s decisions, publish expert reports, ensure decisions are scientifically justified.
• Mandatory public disclosures: of lab test reports, notices of violation, pesticide residue levels, antigen/allergen warnings; timely recall notices.
• Strengthening lab infrastructure: more regional labs, faster turnaround, accessible audits, unannounced inspections.
• Clear, enforceable labeling rules for HFSS foods; fast implementation of warning labels. No hiding behind delays.
• Stronger penalties and faster judicial processing for violations to deter repeat offences.

Consumer Awareness as a Defense

Everything also relies on informed citizens:

• Learning to read food labels: dates, batch numbers, manufacturer, chemicals, purity claims.
• Favoring local verified sources, farmer’s markets, traditional food—not always big packaged names.
• Reporting violations: expired, adulterated, or suspicious foods—using consumer forums, helplines, RTI, FOscos portal.
• Public pressure through media, petitions, NGOs: when issues are brought to light, regulation responds.

Conclusion – Who Watches the Watchdog?

After ten years of studying, reporting, sometimes lobbying, I believe the biggest risk isn’t just foodborne illness—though that is serious—but the slow erosion of trust. When a regulator allowed to protect us becomes part of what people call FSSAI food terrorism, we lose more than health—we lose confidence that our food is safe.

The cost of silence is high: increased disease, medical bills, lost productivity, and most fundamentally, lives. If regulation serves profit more than people, we must demand better.

Read more: Is the UK Becoming an Islamic Country?

Call to Action:
If you believe food safety should belong to everyone, start by asking your local vendor for license info, write to your MP demanding transparency, share documented cases, support NGOs pushing for stricter FSSAI accountability. Because regulation should guard the public—not endanger it.