|
|
|
You can get e-magazine links on WhatsApp. Click here
|
|
|
|
|
|
One in six food samples still failing safety tests?
|
|
Wednesday, 22 July, 2026, 16 : 00 PM [IST]
|
|
Ashwin Bhadri
|
India tested more food samples last year than ever before in its regulatory history, and the result was almost exactly the same failure rate the country has been recording for years.
Approximately seventeen per cent of samples, roughly one in six, failed to meet safety standards in the fiscal year ending March 2026, a figure released around World Food Safety Day on June 7, that sits comfortably within the same range the country has reported across multiple previous years, even as the absolute number of samples tested has grown several times over.
That consistency is the part of this story that deserves more attention than the headline number itself. Between 2020 and 2024, the volume of food samples FSSAI and state authorities analysed grew from roughly 1.07 lakh to over 4.5 lakh, a more than threefold increase in testing capacity achieved through expanded laboratory infrastructure and mobile testing units reaching further into the country than before.
If expanded testing alone were the solution to India's food safety problem, a rising sample count should have eventually started catching violations at the margins and pushing the failure rate down over time, the way increased policing in a specific area sometimes reduces the underlying crime rate once enough offenders are caught and deterred.
That has not happened. The failure rate has stayed remarkably stable even as the net got considerably wider, which suggests the problem is not primarily one of insufficient testing reach. It is a problem of what happens, or does not happen, after a sample fails.
The enforcement data behind these numbers tells a more specific story. Civil cases filed against non-conforming food businesses rose sharply over the same period, climbing from roughly 24,000 to over 38,000 annually, while criminal cases remained comparatively flat year over year, hovering in a narrow band regardless of how many additional non-conforming samples were identified.
Licence revocations have been smaller still relative to the scale of the violations found. An earlier right to information request covering a multi-year period found that out of millions of licenses issued, only a small four figure number were ever actually revoked, meaning the overwhelming majority of businesses caught operating in violation of food safety standards retained the ability to continue operating afterward, often after a notice, a fine, or a corrective action plan rather than any meaningful interruption to their business.
This is the structural pattern that a stable seventeen percent failure rate, sustained across a tripling of testing volume, actually points toward. India has built a genuinely substantial capacity to detect non-compliance.
It has not built an equivalent capacity to ensure that detection consistently translates into a consequence severe enough to change behaviour at the level of the individual food business operator deciding, this quarter, whether to cut a corner on ingredient sourcing or hygiene practice.
A regulatory system that catches the same proportion of violations year after year, despite testing far more aggressively, is not failing to find problems. It is failing to make the cost of being found worth avoiding in the first place.
A seventeen percent failure rate that holds steady through a massive expansion in testing volume tells you the violations being caught are not a shrinking pool of outliers being slowly weeded out, he says. They represent a stable underlying base rate of non-compliance across the food industry that more testing alone simply continues to document at the same proportion, rather than reduce.
What changes that base rate is not more samples collected. It is businesses genuinely believing that a failed test carries a consequence significant enough to change their internal calculation, and the license revocation numbers relative to the scale of failures suggest that belief is not currently well founded across most of the industry.
What makes this particular year's figure land with more weight than previous iterations of the same statistic, is the timing. It arrived alongside World Food Safety Day messaging built around prevention and consumer awareness, a juxtaposition that places the optimistic tone of an awareness campaign directly against a number showing that the underlying compliance picture in India's food economy has not meaningfully shifted despite years of expanding regulatory reach.
The infrastructure to find the problem keeps getting better. The infrastructure to make finding it matter has not kept pace, and until that second gap closes, next year's report is likely to describe a strikingly similar one in six.
(The author is founder at Equinox Labs)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|