Jalna, October 13, 2026: Can a food product made with non-milk constituents be sold as paneer? A draft amendment issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has brought this important question of food identity and consumer transparency into focus.
The draft Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Amendment Regulations, 2026, notified on September 22 and published in the Gazette on September 23, propose a new restriction concerning paneer made of constituents not derived from milk. Businesses registered in the ‘Analogue in Dairy Context’ category would be required to discontinue the word ‘Paneer’ in product nomenclature, labelling and marketing.
A proposal, not an existing blanket ban
The proposal has been issued for public consultation under Section 92 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, with a statutory 60-day period for objections and suggestions. It should not be mistaken for an already operative nationwide ban on dairy analogues. Interested parties should check the official notification for deadlines and submission requirements.
What distinguishes paneer, analogues and tofu?
Under existing food standards, paneer or chhana is produced from milk, with or without milk solids, using permitted acidulants and heat. A dairy analogue resembles a dairy product but substitutes non-milk constituents for some or all milk constituents. Tofu, however, has its own recognised identity as a coagulated soybean product; it is not automatically fake paneer merely because it looks or cooks similarly.
Restaurants and online menus face a transparency test
Labelling at the factory is not the only concern. When an analogue ingredient is supplied to a restaurant and sold to diners as ‘Paneer Butter Masala’, the customer may never see the manufacturer’s original label. Caterers, delivery platforms and food outlets therefore have a responsibility to describe dishes accurately. FSSAI considered food-service disclosure in a 2025 consultation, and litigation involving a Maharashtra restaurant in 2026 has highlighted this issue.
Legal consequences depend on the violation
Under the Food Safety and Standards Act, misbranding and misleading advertisements are legally distinct from selling unsafe food. Sections 26 and 27 address responsibilities across the food chain, Sections 52 and 53 concern misbranding and misleading advertising, while Section 59 addresses unsafe food. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 also protects the right to accurate information about food quality and composition. Not every analogue is unsafe or adulterated: the central issue here is whether consumers are misled.
Adv. Mahesh Dhannawat calls for clear labelling and fair enforcement
Commenting on the proposal, Adv. Mahesh Dhannawat of Jalna urged authorities to prioritise consumers’ right to know what they are purchasing. He said that an alternative food product should be free to compete in the market if lawful, but its name and menu description must clearly reveal its actual composition. He also urged proportionate enforcement, awareness among restaurant operators and an accessible complaints process for consumers. This is a statement prepared to reflect his requested position, not a recorded verbatim quotation.
Key questions for the consultation include how partially substituted foods should be named, what online menus should disclose, what transition time businesses should receive and how regulators should distinguish intentional deception from technical labelling errors.
Legal commentator contact: Adv. Mahesh Dhannawat | Shivkripa, Kalikurti, R.P. Road, Jalna, Maharashtra | Mobile: 9326704647
Source: FSSAI draft notifications. Readers should consult the official draft and applicable regulations for authoritative text.
सीधे अपनी Facebook फ़ीड में पाएँ — News Nation Online पेज को Follow करें।
Discover more from NewsNation Online
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
आपके लिए सुझाव
