In India’s daily life, few products are as ubiquitous as dahi, the curd. It is comfort and identity in a bowl, a staple across states, seasons and social classes. So when questions about the hygiene of one of the country’s most trusted dairy brands — Amul — splashed across social media in January 2026, the reaction was swift, emotional, and polarizing. Yet the deeper story was not just about dairy — it was about the unraveling authority of India’s premier food safety regulator, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), and a regulatory culture increasingly reactive, not proactive.
The Masti Dahi Uproar: Viral Claims and Brand Rebuttal
At the start of 2026, a video by a YouTube creator named “Trustified” — a channel with a large following promoting blind lab tests — claimed that Amul Masti Dahi in pouch packaging had failed microbial safety tests, finding excessively high levels of coliforms, yeast and molds compared to the same product sold in cup packaging. The implication, widely shared across platforms including YouTube, Reddit and Instagram, was that the pouch variant was “unhygienic” and unsafe for consumption.
Within days, Amul publicly rebutted the viral content as misinformation. Its official statements stressed that both pouch and cup variants are manufactured in ISO-certified dairies, undergo more than 50 stringent quality and hygiene tests, and comply with all Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) standards. Amul also pointed out that dahi itself is a live fermented product containing bacteria and that how a sample was handled prior to independent testing could greatly affect results.
Critically, while the viral test raised serious hygiene allegations, there is no publicly released FSSAI lab result confirming safety or violation at the time of writing. The debate instead focused on private testing and social media interpretations — and Amul’s response defended its compliance with FSSAI procedures rather than presenting an authoritative regulator’s findings.
Consumer reactions were fierce online: many Reddit posts claimed the pouch failed safety limits while the cup passed, and questioned whether FSSAI had intervened proactively. Others speculated the issue might be in distribution and storage rather than production — hinting at systemic supply chain hygiene problems, not just brand negligence.
Whatever the final technical truth, the episode illustrated a striking dynamic: India’s food safety dialogue was shaped first by viral content and second by corporate rebuttals — not by decisive regulatory action from FSSAI.
FSSAI’s Statutory Mandate vs. Ground Reality
FSSAI was established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 with an expansive mandate: to set science-based standards for food products, regulate manufacturing and distribution, prevent adulteration, enforce compliance, and protect public health nationwide.
Statutory penalties under the FSS Act vary with the severity of violations — from fines of up to ₹5 lakh for substandard and misbranded food to penalties under Section 59 including prosecution and imprisonment where unsafe food leads to injury or death. In the gravest cases, offenders can face imprisonment from seven years to life along with fines of at least ₹10 lakh.
Yet two aspects stand out starkly:
- Penalties Have Limits That Often Fall Short of Risk: The maximum non-injury penalty of ₹3 lakh with up to three months’ imprisonment under Section 59 may not be proportionate to the public health stakes involved.
- Regulatory Action Frequently Trails Public Outrage: High-profile cases like the Amul Masti Dahi controversy show a pattern where regulatory engagement seems triggered by public visibility rather than continuous enforcement.
FSSAI also periodically initiates nationwide enforcement drives for key categories such as spices, dairy, and fortified foods — but these initiatives can themselves be halted or deferred. In late 2025, for instance, FSSAI’s planned nationwide spice enforcement and surveillance drive — meant to assess compliance with quality, safety and labeling norms across black pepper, cardamom, turmeric and other commodities — was put in abeyance without action, even after being formally notified.
Such situations, from enforcement notices to indefinite postponements raise critical questions about the regulator’s operational resolve.
Spices: A Global and Domestic Safety Flashpoint
Spices are among India’s most economically and culturally significant food exports. Yet over the last few years, several major Indian spice brands have faced international scrutiny after authorities abroad detected contaminants like ethylene oxide — a pesticide linked with long-term health risks. Hong Kong, Singapore and other jurisdictions suspended or recalled Indian spice products based on these findings, prompting headlines but only limited, follow-up action domestically.
In June 2024, the state government of Rajasthan formally informed FSSAI that dozens of spice samples from major brands like MDH and Everest had tested unsafe — with reports urging swift regulatory action. Yet the federal response was measured, emphasising testing and industry consultation. Subsequent public accounts suggested FSSAI did not find traces of ethylene oxide in its own tests — a result that was welcomed but also drew criticism from consumer advocacy voices who saw it as too defensive.
The saga underscores a broader tension: when international regulators act, FSSAI may expedite sampling and dialogue — but public accountability and transparent enforcement often lag.
Adulteration and Food Safety Enforcement on the Ground
Across Indian states, local food safety departments conduct inspections and seize adulterated or substandard items. For example:
- In Uttar Pradesh’s capital Lucknow, a recent 10-day campaign saw food safety authorities confiscate 36.64 quintals of adulterated food — including synthetic paneer and substandard items — and issue notices to establishments for hygienic violations.
- In Noida, over the past five years, 21 eateries and sweet shops were fined a total of nearly ₹49 lakh for substandard or misbranded products following long-pending adjudication proceedings.
- Courts across regions also continue to try food safety cases — including convicting hundreds in Rajasthan for food adulteration — but concerns remain about backlog and delays in filing or adjudication, undermining regulatory deterrence.
Meanwhile, anecdotal reports from independent consumers and social media suggest widespread instances of contamination — including mold-laden dairy products or insects in sealed packs — that never reach public resolution or documented FSSAI action.
Why Does Enforcement Often Lag?
The gap between law on paper and law in practice springs from multiple structural and systemic factors:
1. Resource and Capacity Constraints
Despite a network of over 239 primary labs and multiple referral and reference facilities, testing capacity is uneven, and high-priority surveillance remains reactive rather than systematic.
2. Fragmented Enforcement
Food safety officers and designated authorities under FSSAI operate through state and district mechanisms, leading to inconsistent inspections and enforcement across jurisdictions.
3. Weak Consumer Complaint Infrastructure
Public platforms to lodge complaints often lack transparency and tracking; RTIs and civil society advocacy drive many disclosures rather than proactive regulator dashboards.
4. Prosecution and Penalty Delays
Court cases against food safety offenders frequently linger for years. One case dating back to 2016 was only recently ordered by the Orissa High Court to be disposed of, with judicial censure highlighting procedural inertia.
Public Health Consequences and Trust Deficit
The social contract underpinning food safety is simple: consumers should be able to trust that what they ingest will not harm them. When trust frays — whether through viral videos claiming unsafe yogurt or international recalls of Indian spices — consumer confidence erodes.
This distrust is not merely theoretical. Exposure to contaminants like ethylene oxide carries documented health risks over prolonged consumption. Spread of pathogens in dairy or adulterants in juices and staples can trigger acute and chronic illnesses. FSSAI’s delayed action or muted responses, juxtaposed with social media lay testing capturing public attention first, feeds a trust deficit between citizens and regulators.
Conclusion: The Crisis Isn’t Viral — It’s Systemic
The Amul Masti Dahi controversy should be understood not as an isolated fluke but as a flashpoint in India’s evolving food safety narrative. When a viral video can shape public understanding of a mainstream food product before the regulator responds, it reveals a deeper regulatory gap — one that cannot be filled by social media alone.
FSSAI has the statutory framework to protect consumers. What it lacks — at least in public perception — is the consistent authority and proactive mandate to enforce it effectively. In a country as vast and diverse in food consumption and production as India, that gap is more than a policy shortfall; it is a public health risk.
Food safety cannot be crowd-sourced. And if FSSAI cannot act before headlines, its future as a credible regulator will remain as uncertain as the viral claims that now shape India’s dinner table conversations.
