Labelling like it is: ORS label ban should spark rethink on other products

The advisory from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), banning manufacturers of food and beverages from using the term “oral rehydration solution” (ORS), has not come a day too soon. The result of an eight-year-old campaign by paediatricians and health experts, the advisory proscribes the use of the term in product names, labels, and trademarks, or even as a prefix or a suffix. Only medicinal ORS products that conform to standards of the World Health Organization (WHO) and are sold in pharmacies will be permitted to use the term. This advisory will not only go a long way in ensuring the effective use of ORS in cases of dehydration, it should prompt consumer agencies to rethink quasi-medicinal claims on food and cosmetics.

 

ORS is basically a medically formulated mixture of water, glucose, and essential electrolytes such as sodium and potassium. It replenishes fluids and salts lost from the body due to dehydration. Over the past two decades, it has been seen that a slew of commercially marketed consumer products — chiefly attractively packaged “sports” and “energy” drinks — have been endorsed by superstars. Many of these products are presented as “ORS substitutes”. They not only contain heavier doses of sugar — sometimes up to 10 times the WHO recommendation of 13.5 gm per litre — several contain caffeine, which does nothing to alleviate dehydration. These additives can be harmful, especially for children. Additionally, in a country with worryingly high levels of diabetes, even among young people, high-sugar commercial products that claim dubious ORS benefits can be especially harmful. Though an FSSAI advisory does not carry penal charges, failing to comply with its instructions can lead to penalties under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.  So the success of these new labelling laws will depend on monitoring and widespread education campaigns so that consumers are made sufficiently aware of the differences between pharmaceutically produced ORS products and those that are commercially available. This is all the more vital because of the money power of the commercial foods industry. It is no surprise that manufacturers have moved the Delhi High Court, complaining of the abruptness of the ban. The court has permitted temporary relief by allowing current stocks, worth ₹180 crore, to be sold.  

 

This advisory should encourage other standard-setting and enforcement agencies to raise the stringency in labelling laws. Breakfast cereals and snack bars, packaged fruit juices and smoothies, or vitamin-enhanced waters are frequently high in sugar, refined carbs, trans-fats, and salt content and have minimal nutritional value. Many of these products misleadingly suggest that they are healthy alternatives to fresh food and fruit. One way of addressing this issue is for the FSSAI to stipulate labelling changes to remove the implication that these products are health foods. Similarly, the craze for “natural” and “herbal” cosmetic products has produced a rash of such products claiming medicinal benefits to address specific cosmetic defects — such as fairness creams, face-washes, anti-acne preparations, or special shampoos. Manufacturers typically use such terms as “cosmeceutical” and “ayurvedic” to suggest that their products have therapeutic benefits. Though the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation and the Bureau of Indian Standards prohibit cosmetic products from making claims of a medical nature, such products abound in the marketplace. Forcing them to alter their labelling to be less misleading would be a signal service to the routinely misled Indian consumer.