FAQ | Why Can Bourn Vita No Longer be Categorised as a ‘Health Drink’?

The FSSAI had earlier also warned against dairy-based and malt-based beverages being categorised as ‘health drinks’.

(Photo: Chetan Bhakuni/FIT)

Bourn Vita and other 'sugar-based beverages' can no longer be categorised as ‘health drinks’ on e-commerce platforms, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry has said.

In a letter dated 10 April, the Ministry wrote to e-commerce companies saying,

“National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), a statutory body constituted under Section (3) of the Commission of Protection of Child Rights (CPCR) Act, 2005 after its inquiry under Section 14 of CRPC Act 2005 concluded that there is no 'health drink' defined under FSS Act 2006, rules and regulations submitted by FSSAI and Mondelez India Food Pvt Ltd.”

It added, “All e-commerce companies/portals are hereby advised to remove drink/beverages including Bourn Vita from the category of “health drinks” from their sites/platforms.”

Does this mean Bourn Vita is unhealthy? What other products are on the list? FIT answers all your FAQs.

Why did the Ministry issue this advisory?

After an enquiry into beverages that have excessive sugar and more than the permissible limit, the NCPCR said that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India does not define ‘health drinks’ at all, and so they are not a category under our food safety laws.

The Centre's notification to e-commerce platforms, dated 10 April.

The FSSAI had earlier also warned against dairy-based and malt-based beverages being categorised as ‘health drinks’ and 'energy drinks'.

Which products did the letter mention should be removed from the category?

While the only product to be specifically named in the letter was Bourn Vita, it's a blanket order that applies to all proprietary foods and beverages that are categorised under 'health drinks' on e-commerce platforms.

Why was Bourn Vita specifically mentioned in the letter?

Last year in April, influencer Revant Himatsingka (@foodpharmer on social media) posted a video reviewing 'health drink' Cadbury Bourn Vita, where he flagged the high content of sugar in the product. 

Two weeks after he had posted the video, he had to take it down and apologise for 'defaming' the product after Mondelez India (the parent company of Bourn Vita) sent him a legal notice.

After the controversy had erupted, the NCPCR had also asked the company to take down all its misleading commercials and file an explanation about the same. 

How much sugar is are these products allowed to have? Why is there a permissible limit?

The permissible sugar intake limits, according to the World Health Organization, are 2-4 teaspoons, or ideally less than 10 percent of your diet per day.

When the controversy was at its peak last year, the Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest - India issued a statement explaining why excessive sugar intake can be harmful to individuals:

“There is enough scientific evidence present in the public domain pertaining to the negative impact of increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods on human health, which include several chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and depression (Non Communicable Diseases).”

Why does this difference in categorisation matter?

Nutrition and non-communicable diseases experts have often flagged that when a product advertises itself as ‘healthy’, the masses usually believe it, without cross-checking how much sugar, preservatives, emulsifiers, etc, it contains.

The NAPi’s statement in 2023 had also said, 

“The aggressive marketing of UPFs drives the increasing consumption of UPFs; leading to unhealthy and unsustainable diets replacing real foods globally.”