How the Bournvita brewhaha has energised a debate over regulations

20 grams of Bournvita has 7.5 grams of added sugar

When a social media influencer alleged last week that daily consumption of Cadbury Bournvita could lead to several diseases, millions of viewers watched the Instagram clip before it was removed by the influencer himself. He alleged that Mondelez had issued a legal notice which scared him and led to the post being pulled down.

Cadbury Bournvita, a malted drink, debuted in India in 1948, just one year after the country got independence. Mondelez, which sells Cadbury Bournvita now, says it is “one of India’s most trusted brands”. In Nigeria, Cadbury Bournvita  is known as “the food drink for vitality” and is endorsed by the Nutrition Society of Nigeria. Such is the association of Cadbury Bournvita with a sharp mind and energetic children that the country’s most popular and longest running quiz show was also named after this brand.

What is the controversy?

The influencer claimed that Bournvita uses ingredients which could lead to diseases such as diabetes and cancer. His Instagram post said that instead of the brand’s tagline ‘taiyari jeet ki’ (getting ready to win), ‘Taiyari diabetes ki’ (getting ready for diabetes) would be more apt. The influencer also alleged that a certain chemical used in Bournvita could be carcinogenic. The clip had nearly 12 million views before it was pulled down.

What did Mondelez India do?

The company said that the Bournvita formulation had been scientifically crafted by a team of nutritionists and food scientists. It also said that 20 grams of Bournvita has 7.5 grams of added sugar, which is approximately one and a half teaspoons (i.e., Bournvita contains 37.5 percent sugar). This, the company said, was much less than the daily recommended intake limit of sugar for children. Modelez also said that the caramel colour used was within permissible limits. It said that all ingredients in Bournvita were safe, approved for use, and within permissible limits as per regulatory guidelines.

Per media reports, neither the Consumer Affairs ministry nor the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) have made any comments yet about this controversy, nor have they received any complaints about this.

What is the regulatory mechanism in such cases?

In India, it is not mandatory for packaged food manufacturers to declare the total nutritional value of the product on the pack. A Bournvita refill pack says on the front: 50 percent of daily Vitamin D requirement and 77 calories, 4 percent of RDA (recommended dietary allowance) per 20 g serve. The RDA provides the levels of intake of essential nutrients.  There is also a line about the product being a scientifically-designed formula, crafted by nutritionists, with nutrients which are known to support “physical strength”, “mental strength” and “immune strength.”

Claims made on packs must be scientifically backed

Dr Subbarao M Gavaravarapu, Senior Scientist and Head of Nutrition Information, Communication & Health Education at the National Institute of Nutrition, says that food labelling regulations clearly specify conditions for making any claims on the label — whether these are about nutrition, health, or about any risk reduction. All such claims must be backed by scientific evidence.

What is the food regulator doing?

The FSSAI  has proposed an Indian Nutrition Rating, or INR, for the Front of Package Nutrition Labelling (FOPNL) system. The proposal was first floated in 2020 but nothing has been decided so far to make it mandatory for packaged food manufacturers to compulsorily declare nutritional value on packets. The regulator, manufacturers, experts, and NGOs have been holding deliberations on these proposals.

The FSSAI proposed several amendments to the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling & Display) Regulations, 2020. The most significant proposal was the idea of a star rating system for packaged foods. The packets would be rated on a scale of 0.5 to 5 stars on the nutritional profile (the relative nutritional content of the constituents of the product). A five star rating would mean the product is highest on the nutrition scale, a a half-star rating would mean the opposite.

The FSSAI draft proposal defined FOPNL as a form of supplementary nutrition information that presents simplified nutrition information on the front-of-pack of pre-packaged foods. It could include  symbols / graphics, text, or a combination thereof that provides information on the overall nutritional value of  the food and / or nutrients included in the FOPNL.

Labelling foods as ‘high fat, sugar and salt’

The FSSAI draft defined a ‘high fat, sugar, salt food’ (HFSS) to mean  a processed food product with high levels of saturated fat or total sugar or sodium. The draft defines HFSS foods as those where the energy from sugar or fat is more than 10 percent of the total energy, while sodium is more than 1 mg / kcal.

The regulator had proposed that INR be displayed in a pictorial format on the front of the pack. “Every packaged food except those exempted from nutritional information shall  display the prescribed format (INR) on front of pack…’’

Compliance voluntary

The draft issued by the FSSAI had said that compliance to the amendments would be voluntary for four years from the date on which the proposal to include star ratings on INR was notified in the official gazette.

Opposition to the star-rating system

During the stakeholder meetings held by the FSSAI for finalisation of the INR system, representatives of Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS), and the Centre for Science & Environment (CSE) opposed the star-rating model for indicating how nutritious packaged food is.  In the opinion of these organisations, star ratings have a positive connotation and do not meet the intention of FOPL to warn of negative nutrients. The preferred mode for indicating the nutritional value of any packaged food is either a colour-coded system (where red indicates low nutritional value, for example), or any other similar symbol-based system.

Whither,  a rating system?

In January this year, an expert committee was constituted to look into the suggestions of all stakeholders from India and abroad, before taking a call on the proposed INR and star-rating system. A senior official close to the developments said that nearly 17,000 comments have been received so far.

These comments suggest what kind of norms should be put in place for FOPL, should a star-rating system be adopted or not, should compliance be mandatory or voluntary initially, and for what period should the compliance remain voluntary. The expert committee constituted for examining the matter is expected to hold its third meeting in May and a decision may take another six months, this official said.