MAM
Nestle internal report damns 60 per cent of its own food portfolio
Mumbai: Global food major Nestle promises – Good food, good life. But is the parent company of household names like Maggi, Milkmaid, Kitkat, Nescafé, Nestea iced tea et al true to its word? An internal document leak from the firm revealed that more than 60 per cent of its food portfolio does not meet health standards.
An internal presentation circulated among top executives of Nestle earlier this year revealed that more than 60 percent of Nestle’s mainstream food and drinks portfolio did not meet the recognised definition of health, Financial Times has reported. This excludes products like pet food, baby food and specialised medical nutrition.
The report also mentions that 96 per cent of its beverages excluding pure coffee, and as much as 99 per cent of its confectionery and ice cream portfolio also failed to meet the mark.
The company has acknowledged that only 37 per cent of Nestle’s food and beverage products had a rating of over 3.5 out of 5, as per Australia’s health star rating system.
The most damning part in the report, however, is that the processed foods giant admits that some of its products will never be healthy, no matter how much it renovates.
In response, Nestlé issued a statement to say it is “working on a company-wide project to update its pioneering nutrition and health strategy”. It further said: “We are looking at our entire portfolio across the different phases of people’s lives to ensure our products are helping meet their nutritional needs and supporting a balanced diet.”
In its defence, the world’s largest food maker said that efforts were ongoing over decades to improve the nutritional footprint of its products, stating, “For example, we have reduced the sugars and sodium in our products significantly in the past two decades, about 14-15 per cent in the past seven years alone.” According to the FT, Nestle plans to unveil a new strategy this year.
Processed foods were never considered healthy to begin with, but in light of these revelations, there is now a renewed scrutiny on these products.
In today’s times when healthy living is the key buzzword and the biggest selling point globally, the last thing a food company would want is to be labelled as unhealthy!
On its part, Nestle India issued a statement stating: “Nestle India believes that nutrition is a fundamental need and the food industry has a vital role to play in enabling healthier lives. Driven by our purpose, we are constantly striving to increase the nutrient profile of our products as well as innovate with new and nutritious offerings”.
As far as Nestle India’s portfolio is concerned, it is somewhat different from its parent company with only nine out of Nestle’s 35 billionaire brands having a presence in India. Hence the news may not have much of an impact here.
Certainly not as much as the Maggi crisis, which the brand tided over, and that had literally threatened its very existence in the country back in 2015. Maggi Noodles, which contributed over 25 per cent of the company’s revenue in India, was accused of having lead content beyond permissible levels.
Despite the bad news reports it generated for the popular snack brand, with its reputation taking a huge cut, it has bounced right back regaining its market share in the country.
Even while most people are well aware that instant noodles and processed foods are unhealthy, they continue to consume them. Maggi may be the best example but it’s far from being the only one. The whole consumer packaged foods industry needs to take a good hard look at itself, if it wishes to remain relevant in a woke world, with consumers becoming increasingly health-conscious.
Whether this latest controversy around one of the world’s largest food and beverage companies will have any impact or effect any long-term changes in the packaged foods industry remains to be seen.
Brands
Maharashtra panel orders Lodha to refund Rs 5 crore to homebuyers
Consumer court flags unfair practices in long-running property dispute case
MUMBAI: In a sharp rebuke to one of India’s biggest real estate players, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Macrotech Developers to refund nearly Rs 5 crore to a senior citizen couple, Uttam and Anindita Chatterjee. The ruling, delivered on March 13, 2026, calls out the developer for “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practices”, bringing closure to a dispute that has stretched over a decade.
The case traces back to 2015, when the couple booked a 3-BHK flat at World Towers in Lower Parel for Rs 12.22 crore, with possession promised within a year. What followed was a series of changes that complicated matters. After deciding to exit the project, they were persuaded to shift to a 4-BHK in another development priced at Rs 8 crore, with delivery scheduled for 2018. However, within months, the price was allegedly increased to Rs 10 crore. After demonetisation reshaped the market, similar flats were reportedly being offered at lower prices, but the couple were not given the benefit.
Despite paying over Rs 2.83 crore, the couple neither received possession nor clarity. Instead, in 2018, the developer unilaterally cancelled the booking, retained part of the amount as earnest money, and argued that the buyers were investors rather than consumers. The commission rejected this claim, observing that casual references to “investment” do not take away consumer rights when the purchase intent is residential.
The bench also held that the developer could not penalise buyers for payment delays while failing to meet its own delivery commitments. It noted the lack of formal documentation for revised terms and termed the prolonged retention of funds without delivering a home as exploitative.
As part of its order, the commission directed the developer to refund Rs 2.83 crore paid by the couple, along with interest at 10 per cent per annum, amounting to around Rs 2.12 crore. In addition, Rs 1 lakh has been awarded for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs, taking the total payout to over Rs 5 crore. The developer has been asked to comply within two months.
For now, the ruling serves as a reminder that in real estate, shifting terms and delayed promises can carry a significant cost.
