When a Hyderabad-based paediatrician took on billion-rupee beverage brands over their misuse of the term “ORS,” it sounded like a medical dispute. It is much more than that. It is a story about how weak labelling rules and regulatory flip-flops can put lives at risk, and how, in the name of “consumer choice,” companies often mislead rather than empower. Earlier this month, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) issued a decisive order: no food or beverage company may use the term “ORS” in product names, labels, or trademarks, even as a prefix or suffix.
For many doctors who have long fought misleading “hydration” drinks, this was a breakthrough moment. Why it matters is simple. Real ORS, oral rehydration solution, saves lives. It is a precisely balanced mix of glucose and salts recommended by the World Health Organization to treat dehydration, especially in children. But many drinks sold under the “ORS” label in Indian pharmacies and supermarkets contain up to ten times more sugar than the WHO formula. Rather than dehydrating children, these drinks can worsen dehydration, disrupt electrolyte balance and can lead to life threatening complications. Doctors across India have seen it firsthand.
At Delhi’s Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, a four-year-old child arrived dangerously dehydrated after being given “ORS water” for two days. Tests showed high sugar and low sodium levels, the parents had unknowingly used a sweetened drink sold online as an “ORS substitute.” In such cases, the difference between life and death comes down to whether parents can trust the label on a bottle. For years, companies have taken advantage of regulatory ambiguity. Earlier FSSAI circulars allowed manufacturers to use “ORS” with prefixes or suffixes if they carried disclaimers. But these half-measures left room for abuse. Shiny packaging, familiar medical language, and placement in pharmacy aisles created an illusion of safety. When parents saw “ORS” in bold letters, they assumed it was the same lifesaving formula recommended by doctors.
It wasn’t. That is what makes the FSSAI’s October directive both necessary and overdue. However, in classic Indian fashion, it didn’t take long for the issue to get tangled in red tape. Soon after the order, the Delhi High Court temporarily stayed its implementation following a petition by a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary JNTL Consumer Health that sells popular “ORS” beverages, arguing that the regulator acted “in haste” and without consultation, citing stock worth up to Rs 180 crore. This legal tug-of-war reveals a deeper flaw in India’s regulatory culture: we oscillate between extremes. Either the state turns a blind eye to misleading marketing, or it swings the hammer so suddenly that compliance chaos follows.
Neither approach serves consumers. What India needs is a system that enforces clarity, not confusion, where brands can innovate without misleading consumers, and parents can trust the products sold in their local pharmacies. What India needs is balanced, smart regulation that promotes clarity without crushing innovation. Instead of sweeping bans or drawn-out courtroom battles, there are practical, low-cost fixes that can make a real difference. Regulators should enforce transparent labelling, a distinct colour band or symbol, say, a blue strip marked “FSSAI Certified Medical ORS,” to help consumers instantly identify genuine medical-grade solutions.
Supermarkets and pharmacies should be required to move sugary “hydration” drinks out of medical aisles and into regular beverage sections. This simple fix would prevent confusion without punishing the companies that make legitimate products. Next the government should initiate national awareness campaigns much like those for BIS hallmark or handwashing, to educate parents about the difference between WHO approved ORS drink and commercial energy drink. And rather than waiting for heavy-handed crackdowns, responsible manufacturers should be encouraged to adopt a voluntary code of conduct on ORS labelling and marketing, co-monitored by FSSAI.
That would build trust, cut down on compliance disputes and prove that collaboration between industry and regulators can protect consumer choice better than bans ever could. At its core, this issue is not about banning products. It is about truth in labeling. Consumers deserve transparency, especially when their health is at stake. Clear and consistent regulation doesn’t just protect patients but also responsible manufacturers who abide by the rules and sell genuine medical-grade products. When bad actors exploit grey areas, everyone pays the price; consumers lose trust, and public confidence erodes. Protecting consumers from misleading labels should not be controversial, it’s the bare minimum a functional regulatory system should guarantee. India’s children deserve better than sugary shortcuts disguised as medicine. Ensuring that “ORS” means what it says isn’t just good regulation; it’s good sense.
Publié à l'origine ici
