India’s food safety system: Every time an Indian family sits down to eat—milk for children, spices in dal, packaged snacks in the evening—they rely on a system they cannot verify. For the most part, that trust holds. But data tabled in Parliament shows how often it fails.
Between 2022-23 and 2024-25, authorities tested over 5.18 lakh food samples. Of these, 88,192 cases resulted in penalties, 3,614 in convictions, and 1,161 licences were cancelled. These are not isolated violations. They point to a system where non-compliance is routine.
READ | Food safety failures mar India’s festive season
The national non-conformance rate stands at 27.5%. More than one in four tested samples fails safety or quality standards. The items are everyday staples—milk, ghee, spices, honey, paneer. This is both a public health and a governance problem.
India’s food safety: Enforcement gains, structural limits
The regulatory response has strengthened. Risk-based inspections rose from 11,904 in 2022-23 to 26,267 in 2024-25. Sampling has increased. Legal action is more visible. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India has expanded grievance systems, mobile labs, and third-party audits for centrally licensed operators.
These are incremental improvements. They do not offset structural gaps. Enforcement cannot compensate for a system that is understaffed, uneven, and slow.
Staffing and infrastructure deficits
The staffing shortfall is persistent. Of 4,208 sanctioned Food Safety Officer posts, only 2,997 are filled. Of 718 Designated Officer posts, 668 are occupied.
In large states with dispersed rural markets and informal supply chains, this translates into fewer inspections and weak deterrence.
Laboratory capacity is the second constraint. Delayed or unreliable testing weakens prosecution. Without timely evidence, violations rarely translate into convictions. The incentive to adulterate remains intact.
READ | World Health Assembly: Focus on food safety, oral health, tuberculosis, innovations
State variation and reactive enforcement
State-level data shows uneven performance. Rajasthan recorded a non-conformance rate of 27.4% in 2024-25, with 3,788 failures out of 13,840 samples. It converted 82% of detected violations into penalties.
This reflects administrative efficiency after detection. It does not address the larger problem—most violations remain undetected. Enforcement remains reactive.
Detection and deterrence operate sequentially. They need to operate simultaneously.
Informal food supply chains remain outside the net
The weakest point is often upstream. Milk aggregation, loose ghee, spices, edible oils, sweets, flour, bakery products and local processing units pass through fragmented supply chains before they reach formal retail shelves. The Food Safety and Standards Act requires every food business operator to be licensed or registered, and petty food businesses are also required to register with the local authority. But the practical reach of this system is limited in markets where production, transport and sale are dispersed across small vendors, mandis, informal processors and local distributors.
This matters because end-point sampling catches only what the state manages to test. Recent enforcement actions in Hyderabad and Cyberabad show the pattern: unlicensed units, loose ghee and milk, adulterated edible oil, flour, sauces and other products, often produced or distributed through small units outside regular scrutiny. The answer is not only more inspections after contamination occurs. It is traceability, aggregation-level checks and local monitoring before unsafe food enters the retail chain.
Labelling delays and regulatory drift
A second failure is less visible—consumers lack usable information.
Front-of-pack labelling has been under discussion for nearly a decade. The objective is straightforward: clear warnings when packaged foods are high in sugar, salt, or fat. Several countries have adopted such systems. India has not.
The delay has moved to the Supreme Court. In April 2025, the Court directed FSSAI to expedite recommendations. By July, it granted a three-month extension. The deadline passed without resolution.
By early 2026, stakeholder disagreements persisted over the proposed Indian Nutrition Rating system. In February, the Court noted the lack of outcomes and suggested mandatory warning labels. In March, FSSAI acknowledged that its multi-stage process would take more time. The process continues. The outcome does not.
READ | Ayurveda Aahara: New food category raises safety concerns
Industry resistance and policy choice
The packaged food industry has favoured star ratings over warning labels. Star ratings dilute risk communication. Warning labels make it explicit.
This is a commercial preference. It is not a public health position.
As consumption of ultra-processed foods rises, the absence of clear labelling shifts the burden to consumers without equipping them.
What needs to change
The corrective steps are straightforward.
First, fill vacancies in Food Safety Officer positions. Enforcement capacity depends on personnel, not directives.
Second, invest in laboratory infrastructure. Testing must be timely and credible.
Third, extend scrutiny upstream. Food safety cannot be secured only at the retail point. Local processors, aggregators, transporters and small distributors must be brought into a traceable compliance system.
Fourth, implement front-of-pack warning labels. The regulatory process has run its course. Delay now reflects hesitation, not complexity.
India’s food safety framework is not weak in design. The gap lies in execution. Safe food is a statutory right. The data shows how far practice remains from that standard.
Amrat Singh is Director and Simi TB, Policy Analyst at CUTS International.