The Right to Food Must Also Mean the Right to Safe Food

Over the past few weeks, India's food regulator has taken a series of actions that signal a stricter approach to food and beverage standards. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has directed companies to stop marketing high-caffeine beverages as "energy drinks", arguing that the term lacks a recognised product standard under Indian regulations. It has also prohibited the sale of select rum and whisky variants after laboratory tests allegedly found violations of flavouring and labelling norms.

These actions, which affect both multinational companies and iconic Indian brands, are among the most visible food safety interventions in recent years. Taken together, they raise a much larger question: Has India reached a stage where the debate on food security must move beyond access and begin to focus on food safety, transparency and consumer trust?

For over a decade, India's food policy has rightly concentrated on ensuring that no citizen sleeps hungry. The National Food Security Act (NFSA), enacted in 2013, provides subsidised food grains to up to 81.35 crore people, making it one of the world's largest rights-based food programmes. It represents one of independent India's most significant social welfare achievements.

Yet the right to food cannot end with the distribution of rice and wheat. Food that is unsafe, adulterated, misleadingly labelled or nutritionally poor cannot fulfil the constitutional promise of dignity.

The constitution does not explicitly list a standalone fundamental right to food or food safety. Yet the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 21 has steadily expanded the meaning of the right to life. From the right to live with human dignity to the right to health and a clean and healthy environment, the court has repeatedly held that life cannot be reduced to mere physical existence. In its jurisprudence on food safety, the court has also recognised that food that is hazardous or injurious to public health can pose a danger to the fundamental right to life and that the state has a duty to protect human life and health.

Also read: How Safe is the Food on Your Plate?

This creates an important gap between constitutional principle and everyday reality. India has a strong body of judicial recognition, yet unsafe food, adulteration, misleading claims and weak enforcement continue to affect consumers. The question, therefore, is no longer whether food safety can be connected to Article 21. The court has already established that connection. The harder question is whether India's regulatory institutions are capable of turning that constitutional principle into everyday protection.

According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), 35.5% of children under five are stunted, 32.1% are underweight and 19.3% are wasted. Among children aged 6–59 months, 67.1% are anaemic. India's food challenge is not only about hunger. It faces a double burden of persistent undernutrition alongside rising concerns about obesity and diet-related diseases. Food policy, therefore, cannot be judged simply by the quantity of food distributed. Quality matters just as much. Food safety is not merely a consumer issue; it is a public health imperative.

The World Health Organisation's latest estimates for 2021 show that 866 million people fell ill and 1.52 million died from foodborne diseases globally. Children under five bear a disproportionately large share of this burden, accounting for 29% of the health burden from foodborne diseases. These figures show that unsafe food carries costs far beyond individual households. It affects public health, productivity and human development.

India has witnessed no shortage of food controversies. The Maggi Noodles episode in 2015 exposed weaknesses in regulatory coordination. More recently, misleading "health drink" claims came under scrutiny, prompting changes in how such products are marketed. Questions have also been raised over products resembling oral rehydration solutions, exaggerated nutritional claims and, more recently, the labelling and flavouring practices of alcoholic beverages.

Viewed individually, these incidents appear disconnected. Viewed collectively, they raise a different concern: why does food safety so often receive sustained public attention only after a product or practice comes under scrutiny?

Also read: When ‘Energy’ Drinks Actually Contained Radioactive Energy

The recent FSSAI actions should be welcomed, not simply because they target particular products, but because they signal greater regulatory scrutiny. However, the real test of a regulator is not the number of products it bans after a violation is detected. It is whether it can build a system in which unsafe products are identified before they become public controversies.

FSSAI should publish regular state-wise inspection dashboards, strengthen accredited food-testing laboratories, improve digital traceability across supply chains, accelerate product recall mechanisms and ensure that laboratory findings are placed in the public domain. Front-of-pack nutrition labels for foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fats should be implemented without further delay. Repeat offenders should face stronger financial penalties, while consumers should receive timely alerts whenever products fail safety standards.

Young consumers deserve particular attention. Bright packaging, celebrity endorsements and claims of instant energy, immunity or improved performance can influence children's food choices. Parents depend on labels to make informed decisions. Children cannot be expected to distinguish between scientifically supported nutritional information and marketing claims. When misleading claims shape dietary choices, the consequences can extend far beyond the supermarket shelf.

Economist and Right to Food campaigner Jean Drèze's work offers an important way to understand this gap. His work on social policy in India has consistently emphasised the importance of public accountability and effective institutions in making welfare rights meaningful. The lesson for food safety is straightforward: a right is of limited value if citizens cannot rely on institutions to protect it in practice.

The first generation of India's Right to Food was about ensuring that every citizen had something to eat. The second generation must ensure that every citizen can trust what they eat.

A nation that feeds more than 800 million people through one of the world's largest food security programmes has demonstrated its commitment to fighting hunger. The next challenge is equally important: building a food system in which every packet, every label and every meal reflects transparency, scientific integrity and public accountability.

Food security filled empty plates. The next food revolution must ensure that what fills those plates is safe.

Ritu is a development professional. She holds an MA in Development from Azim Premji University, Bengaluru.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.