Last Updated on September 17, 2026 8:18 pm by INDIAN AWAAZ
By S. N. Verma
When the monsoon retreats, India trades rain for celebration, kicking off a marathon of festivals defined by family, joy, and an abundance of rich foods. From ghee-drenched sweets to savory snacks, our kitchens and local markets overflow with festive treats. Yet, this season of indulgence often comes with a bitter pill: the alarming discovery that the traditional delicacies we share with loved ones have been tampered with.
Food adulteration is not merely a matter of poor quality or consumer inconvenience. It is a serious public-health and economic challenge that exposes weaknesses in the country’s food-safety system. Every citizen has a legitimate expectation that the food available in the market should be safe for consumption. Yet, year after year, especially around Diwali, Holi and other major festivals, reports emerge of raids on sweet shops, seizures of suspicious products and the destruction of adulterated food.
India has a legal framework intended to address these risks. The country’s food-safety regime has evolved over the decades, culminating in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, under which the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) operates. The framework provides for licensing, standards, inspection, sampling and penalties. However, the existence of legislation does not automatically guarantee effective enforcement.
The central problem is the gap between regulation and implementation.
Food adulteration is a global problem affecting both organised and informal markets. Once a contaminated or adulterated product enters a complicated supply chain, tracing it back to its source and recalling every affected batch can be extremely difficult. A single unsafe batch can potentially reach hundreds or even thousands of consumers before authorities are able to intervene.
In India, food businesses require registration or licences depending on the nature and scale of their operations, while enforcement is largely implemented through state and local authorities. However, differences in administrative capacity, shortages of personnel, inadequate testing facilities and uneven inspection systems can weaken enforcement on the ground.
The consequences are particularly serious because adulteration is increasingly being reported in essential food products consumed by ordinary households.
Milk and ghee remain vulnerable
Milk is among the products that frequently attract concerns over adulteration. Water may be added to increase volume, while other substances such as starch and, in some reported cases, detergents, urea and other chemicals have been detected in adulterated milk or milk products. Such practices not only compromise nutritional value but can also create potential health risks.
Ghee is another valuable product that can become a target for adulteration because of its relatively high market value. Substitution with cheaper fats, vegetable oils or other materials can increase margins for unscrupulous sellers while undermining the authenticity and nutritional characteristics of the product.
Milk products such as mawa, paneer and other dairy preparations may also be adulterated or diluted with cheaper ingredients. The problem becomes more difficult during festival periods when demand rises sharply and production and distribution networks operate under considerable pressure.
Spices and edible oils present another area of concern. Ground spices may be mixed with inferior materials or unauthorised colours to improve their appearance. Red chilli powder, turmeric and other powdered spices can be particularly difficult for consumers to assess simply by looking at them. Edible oils may also be adulterated with cheaper oils or other substances.
Cereals, pulses, rice, fruits and vegetables are not immune. Physical impurities, inferior substitutes and unauthorised colouring or treatment can compromise the quality of food. Some fruits and vegetables may also be subjected to inappropriate chemical treatment to accelerate ripening or improve appearance.
Appearance can be misleading
One of the biggest advantages enjoyed by unscrupulous traders is the difficulty consumers face in identifying adulteration with the naked eye.
Consumers commonly judge food on the basis of colour, smell, texture, packaging and price. A bright colour is often interpreted as an indication of freshness, while an unusually low price may be seen as a bargain. In reality, either can sometimes warrant caution.
The unauthorised use of synthetic colours is particularly concerning. Some industrial or non-permitted dyes can pose health risks when consumed. Depending on the substance and level of exposure, unsafe chemicals may contribute to toxicity and other health problems. This is why food regulators distinguish between permitted food additives used within prescribed limits and substances that have no place in food production.
Food adulteration can have consequences ranging from digestive problems and allergic reactions to nutritional deficiencies and exposure to toxic substances. The health impact depends on the adulterant, concentration, frequency and duration of exposure. Long-term exposure to certain harmful contaminants can contribute to serious disease.
The scale of the broader food-safety problem is enormous. The World Health Organisation estimates that unsafe food causes hundreds of millions of cases of foodborne illness worldwide every year, with hundreds of thousands of deaths. These figures underline why food safety cannot be treated simply as a seasonal enforcement exercise.
The enforcement gap
India’s challenge is particularly complex because its food economy includes large organised manufacturers alongside millions of small businesses, street vendors, local markets and informal food operators.
The informal nature of substantial parts of the food market makes systematic monitoring difficult. Small vendors may operate from temporary locations, while weekly markets and local supply chains can change rapidly. Tracking the origin of raw materials and ensuring compliance at every stage requires substantial administrative capacity.
Testing infrastructure is another critical issue. Food adulteration cannot always be established through visual inspection. Modern laboratories and scientifically validated testing methods are necessary to identify chemical, biological and physical contaminants.
The availability and capacity of food-testing laboratories therefore have a direct bearing on enforcement. Where samples must travel long distances or laboratory capacity is inadequate, the process of testing and taking legal action can become slower.
There is also the issue of manpower. Food-safety enforcement requires trained officers capable of conducting inspections, collecting samples correctly, maintaining the chain of custody and initiating action where violations are established. Shortages of personnel can reduce the frequency and effectiveness of inspections.
The legal process can add another layer of difficulty. If prosecution takes years and penalties are insufficient to outweigh the economic gains from adulteration, deterrence can weaken. Effective enforcement therefore requires not only legislation but also timely investigation, scientifically sound evidence and proportionate punishment.
Beyond raids and festival drives
Every year, authorities intensify inspections before major festivals. Such drives are useful because they can remove unsafe products from the immediate market and create public awareness. But a system that becomes highly active only during festival seasons cannot provide a permanent solution.
Food safety must be treated as a year-round regulatory responsibility.
The focus needs to move from occasional raids to continuous surveillance across the entire supply chain. This includes monitoring raw materials, manufacturers, wholesalers, transporters, retailers and food-service establishments. Risk-based inspections can help authorities concentrate resources on products and businesses where the potential for harm is greatest.
Technology can also strengthen the system. Better laboratory infrastructure, digital licensing and traceability, data-based risk assessment and faster communication between state authorities and central regulators can make enforcement more effective. Regular publication of test results and enforcement actions can further improve transparency.
Manufacturers and retailers, too, have an important responsibility. Compliance should not be regarded merely as a regulatory burden. Maintaining product quality protects consumers and, ultimately, the credibility and sustainability of the food business itself.
Consumers have a role too
Consumers cannot be expected to detect sophisticated adulteration on their own, but they can reduce their exposure to obvious risks.
Food should preferably be purchased from reliable and established sources. Packaged products should be checked for labels, manufacturing details, batch information, expiry or best-before dates and the relevant regulatory information. Consumers should be cautious about products with unusually bright colours, suspicious packaging or prices that appear substantially below prevailing market levels.
Open food products purchased from unreliable sources can carry additional risks because consumers have little information about their origin, storage or handling.
Most importantly, suspicious products should be reported to the appropriate food-safety authorities rather than simply being ignored. Consumer complaints can provide regulators with valuable leads for targeted inspections and testing.
A shared responsibility
Food adulteration cannot be eliminated by government action alone. Regulators must provide effective oversight, manufacturers must maintain quality standards, traders must comply with the law, laboratories must provide timely and reliable testing, and consumers must remain alert.
The festival season should not become a period when enforcement temporarily intensifies while the problem remains largely unattended for the rest of the year. What India needs is a food-safety system capable of preventing unsafe products from entering the supply chain in the first place, detecting violations quickly when they occur and ensuring meaningful accountability.
The larger objective is not simply to conduct more raids or seize more adulterated sweets. It is to build confidence in the food that reaches Indian households every day.
Food is meant to nourish, sustain and bring people together. It should never become a source of avoidable illness because of the pursuit of easy profits. A safe food system is ultimately a public-health necessity—and ensuring it requires sustained institutional capacity, scientific testing, effective enforcement and responsible participation by every stakeholder.
The writer is an independent journalist and columnist