1. Introduction

Food is more than nourishment. It is fundamental to human life, health and human dignity. Yet, the safety and integrity of the food placed on our tables cannot always be taken for granted. Food adulteration, whether deliberate, fraudulent or arising from contamination and unhygienic practices, continues to pose a serious challenge to public health and consumer protection.

The modern problem extends far beyond traditional practices such as adding water to milk or inferior material to spices. It includes substitution of genuine ingredients, use of unauthorized additives and colours, sale of expired or misbranded products, contamination during processing and storage, counterfeit branding, and manufacture or sale of food in unhygienic conditions.

India has a comprehensive statutory framework in the form of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act), which consolidates food laws and establishes the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to prescribe science-based food standards and regulate the manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import of food.[i]

The continuing occurrence of adulteration cases, however, demonstrates that the challenge lies not merely in having a law, but in ensuring effective inspection, scientific testing, prosecution, adjudication and deterrent punishment.

2. Food Adulteration: More Than a Consumer Fraud

Food adulteration may be motivated by profit, but its consequences extend far beyond commercial fraud. Replacing a genuine ingredient with a cheaper substance, using prohibited chemicals or colours, storing food in contaminated premises, or selling unsafe food can expose consumers to significant health risks.

The Food Safety and Standards Act places a direct responsibility on every Food Business Operator (FBO) to ensure that food complies with the Act and the regulations at all stages of production, processing, distribution and sale. Section 26 specifically prohibits an FBO from manufacturing, storing, selling or distributing unsafe, misbranded or sub-standard food, food containing extraneous matter, or food handled in contravention of the licensing requirements.[ii]²

The legal approach is therefore preventive as well as punitive. Food businesses are expected to maintain food safety before the product reaches the consumer.

3. Telangana: Recent Incidents Reveal the Scale of the Problem

Telangana’s recent experience illustrates the complexity of the food-safety challenge. In March 2026, the Hyderabad Food Adulteration Surveillance Team (H-FAST), a specialized enforcement initiative, conducted raids targeting suspected food-adulteration networks. Reports of the operation included seizures of fake tea powder, detergent powder, mosquito repellent and approximately 3,000 kg of suspected fake paneer, adulterated khoa and ghee from a dairy-products operation. Investigators also reportedly found pickles being prepared from rotten and spoiled vegetables.[iii]

In April 2026, H-FAST raids across 15 locations reportedly resulted in the seizure of approximately 3,000 kg of adulterated tea powder, along with expired tea material, artificial coloring substances and other materials. The reported findings raised concerns about the repurposing of expired material and the use of synthetic substances in food products.

A wider enforcement operation reported in April 2026 involved 61 raids and uncovered fake ginger-garlic paste, adulterated paneer, ghee, khoa, pickles, spoiled milk and dairy products, as well as adulterated spices. The operation also reportedly revealed counterfeit packaging and other products being sold under misleading labels. These incidents are significant because they demonstrate that food adulteration is not confined to a single commodity or business category. Dairy products, spices, tea, bakery products, pickles, edible oils and processed foods may all become vulnerable at different points in the supply chain.

4. The Enforcement Deficit

Perhaps the most serious concern is the gap between detection and final enforcement. Recent reporting indicates that Telangana tested 3,576 food samples during 2025–26, of which 398, or about 11.1 per cent, were non-conforming. The same reporting highlighted the absence of civil penalties and convictions in the period under consideration and pointed to substantial vacancies in the food-safety enforcement establishment. Earlier reporting based on Central Government data indicated that approximately 15 per cent of tested food samples in Telangana violated food-safety requirements during the period from 2021 to September 2024.[vii] These figures should not be interpreted as suggesting that every non-conforming sample necessarily represents deliberate adulteration. “Non-conforming” can include different forms of regulatory or quality failure. Nevertheless, a persistent pattern of failed samples is a clear warning that surveillance and compliance require sustained attention.

The enforcement chain must operate effectively:

Inspection → Sampling → Laboratory Analysis → Investigation → Adjudication/Prosecution → Penalty → Compliance Monitoring.

A failure at any stage can weaken the deterrent effect of the entire regulatory system.

5. The Law Provides Stronger Tools Than Mere Seizure

The FSS Act contains a range of enforcement mechanisms. It provides for licensing and registration of food businesses, improvement notices, prohibition orders, emergency prohibition measures, food-safety inspections, sampling and analysis, penalties and criminal punishment.

Section 31 requires licensing and registration of food businesses, while Sections 37 and 38 deal with Food Safety Officers and their powers. Section 40 also provides a mechanism under which a purchaser may have food analyzed, subject to the statutory requirements.[ix] The Act further provides specific penalties for unhygienic or unsanitary processing, possession of adulterants, carrying on a business without a license and other contraventions.[x] Most importantly, Section 59 deals with unsafe food. Depending upon the consequences of the violation, the provision can attract imprisonment and substantial fines; where unsafe food results in death, the statute provides for imprisonment of not less than seven years, which may extend to life imprisonment, together with a fine of not less than ₹10 lakh.[xi]

The existence of such provisions demonstrates that the legal framework is capable of imposing serious consequences in appropriate cases. The real requirement is effective investigation and legally sustainable enforcement.

6. Enforcement Must Be Strict—and Lawful

Effective food-safety enforcement must also comply with statutory procedure. Food-safety legislation establishes specialized authorities and procedures for inspection, sampling, analysis and prosecution. The Commissioner of Food Safety is responsible for the efficient implementation of the Act and the rules and regulations within the State.[xii]

Consequently, enforcement agencies must carefully observe jurisdictional requirements, sampling procedures, preservation of samples, laboratory protocols, documentation and statutory timelines. A case built on defective procedure may ultimately fail despite genuine concerns regarding the safety of the food. The objective should therefore be strict enforcement with due process. Neither weak enforcement nor procedurally defective enforcement serves the public interest.

7. Food Testing: The Backbone of Enforcement

Food adulteration cannot be effectively controlled through visual inspection and raids alone. Scientific testing is indispensable. FSSAI itself recognizes food testing as an essential component of the food-safety ecosystem and has developed the Food Safety on Wheels (FSW) Programme to take mobile testing facilities closer to consumers and food businesses. These mobile laboratories can conduct basic tests for common adulterants and also support awareness and training.[xiii]

FSSAI’s current Food Safety on Wheels platform reports hundreds of registered mobile units, more than one million samples tested and tens of thousands of awareness programs, demonstrating the growing role of mobile food-testing infrastructure.[xiv] FSSAI has also continued efforts to strengthen the national food-testing infrastructure, including state and referral laboratories, laboratory capacity-building and mobile food laboratories.[xv]

For Telangana, investment in regional laboratory capacity, modern analytical equipment, trained food analysts and rapid screening facilities should therefore be treated as a public-health priority.

8. The Emerging Challenge of E-Commerce and Dark Stores

Food distribution is changing rapidly. Consumers increasingly purchase food through online platforms, e-commerce warehouses, quick-commerce fulfilment centers and cloud kitchens. This creates new regulatory challenges. Food safety authorities must be able to trace products through warehouses and distribution networks and determine responsibility when unsafe food enters the market.

Recent reporting on Telangana has highlighted inspections of e-commerce warehouses where expired or misbranded food products were reportedly found. Such developments show why the food-safety system must evolve along with the food-delivery ecosystem.

The principle should be simple: the method of delivery must not determine the standard of food safety.

9. Telangana’s Proposed Stronger Anti-Adulteration Framework

The Telangana Government has recently acknowledged the seriousness of the problem at the policy level. On 18 July 2026, the Telangana State Government reported that Hon’ble Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy had directed officials to formulate a stringent law to prevent food and drug adulteration. The Government stated that officials would study international practices, prepare a report and draft legislation for consideration by the Legislative Assembly, while also seeking public feedback. The proposal included a whistle-blower mechanism and a toll-free reporting system.[xvi]

This initiative presents an opportunity to strengthen the existing enforcement architecture. Any new State legislation, however, should be carefully Harmonised with the FSS Act and other applicable central laws so that responsibilities are clear and regulatory overlap is avoided. The focus should be on strengthening prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, consumer reporting and accountability.

10. What More Needs to Be Done?

Despite the existing legal framework and intensified enforcement, food adulteration continues to pose a significant threat to public health and consumer confidence. Periodic raids and seizures, though necessary, cannot by themselves eliminate the problem. A sustained, preventive and technology-driven approach is required, combining stronger enforcement, scientific testing, adequate institutional capacity, industry accountability and active consumer participation. The following measures can help strengthen India’s food-safety regime and make the right to safe and wholesome food a practical reality.

10.1 Fill Vacancies and Strengthen Institutions

Food-safety enforcement cannot be effective without adequate personnel. Food Safety Officers, Designated Officers, food analysts and laboratory staff must be available in sufficient numbers.

10.2 Expand Scientific Testing

Testing laboratories should be equipped with modern analytical technology and adequate manpower. Regional and mobile laboratories should supplement—not substitute—full-scale laboratory capacity.

10.3 Adopt Risk-Based Inspection

Inspection resources should be concentrated on high-risk commodities, businesses and locations identified through previous violations, complaints, laboratory results and supply-chain intelligence.

10.4 Strengthen the Entire Enforcement Chain

A successful raid is only the beginning. Cases must move efficiently from seizure and laboratory analysis to adjudication or prosecution and final disposal.

10.5 Improve Transparency

The public should have access, subject to legal and privacy considerations, to meaningful information on inspections, failed samples, licenses suspended or cancelled, penalties imposed and cases finally disposed of.

10.6 Protect Whistle-Blowers

Employees and consumers are frequently the first to detect food-safety violations. Confidential complaint mechanisms and protection against retaliation can greatly improve early detection.

10.7 Regulate the Digital Food Economy

E-commerce warehouses, cloud kitchens, online food sellers and quick-commerce supply chains should be incorporated into systematic risk-based food-safety surveillance.

10.8 Encourage Industry Self-Regulation

Responsible food businesses should adopt supplier audits, hygiene management systems, traceability mechanisms, internal testing and employee training. Compliance should become part of corporate governance rather than merely a response to inspections.

10.9 Strengthen Consumer Participation

Consumers should examine labels, licensing information, dates, packaging and storage conditions and report suspected violations through official channels.

10.10 Prioritize Prevention

The ultimate objective should not be to conduct more raids after adulterated food has entered the market. It should be to identify and eliminate risks before the food reaches the consumer.

11. Consumer Vigilance: Necessary but Not Sufficient

Consumers have an important role, but responsibility cannot be shifted entirely onto them.

Consumers should:

• purchase food from reliable sources;
• check labels and dates;
• examine packaging for damage or tampering;
• be cautious of suspiciously cheap branded products;
• preserve bills and packaging when a product is suspected to be unsafe;
• report suspected violations to the competent food-safety authority; and
• avoid circulating unverified allegations on social media.

At the same time, consumers cannot scientifically test every product they purchase. The primary responsibility for ensuring regulatory compliance rests with food businesses and the competent authorities.

12. Food Safety Is a Collective Responsibility

Food adulteration is simultaneously a public-health issue, a consumer-rights issue, an economic issue and a governance issue.

Government must create and enforce effective standards. Food businesses must comply with them. Laboratories must provide reliable scientific evidence. Adjudicating authorities and courts must ensure legally sustainable outcomes. Civil society must monitor implementation. Consumers must remain vigilant.

The challenge is particularly important because food adulteration can affect large numbers of people before a problem is detected. One unsafe manufacturing unit can supply products to numerous restaurants, shops or households. The scale of potential harm therefore makes preventive regulation indispensable.

13. Conclusion

India possesses a comprehensive statutory framework for food safety. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 assigns responsibilities to food businesses, establishes enforcement institutions and provides civil and criminal consequences for violations.[xvii]

Yet law alone cannot guarantee safe food. Telangana’s recent experience demonstrates both the seriousness of the problem and the growing determination to confront it. H-FAST operations, seizures of adulterated products, mobile testing initiatives and the State Government’s proposal for a stronger anti-adulteration framework indicate that food safety is receiving increased institutional attention. At the same time, the reported number of non-conforming samples and concerns regarding manpower and final enforcement show that substantial gaps remain.[xviii]

The way forward is therefore not simply more raids, but better regulation, better laboratories, better investigation, faster adjudication, stronger accountability and greater public participation. Food should nourish, not endanger. Every consumer is entitled to expect that the food placed before them is safe, wholesome and honestly represented. The ultimate test of a food-safety system is not how many adulterated products it seizes, but how effectively it prevents unsafe food from reaching the consumer in the first place.

Safe food is not a privilege. It is a public-health obligation, a consumer right and a measure of responsible governance.

Adv. Dr. M. Dhananjay Naik
Advocate, High Court for the State of Telangana and Member, Forum for Good Governance (FGG)