The story so far: The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) initiated enforcement action (prohibition-of-sale orders) on August 2, 2026 against several liquor makers, accusing them of two main violations. 

One is allegedly adding flavour compounds that recreate a drink’s own natural taste instead of allowing those characteristics to develop through distillation and maturation, and another by allegedly making “aged” claims on labels that do not reflect the products’ actual age.

Why flavouring has become contentious

According to FSSAI, a rum or whisky’s taste and smell are supposed to come from the real production process, the base ingredient (molasses for rum, malt for whisky), fermentation, yeast, distillation and ageing. The regulator said some producers instead begin with neutral or extra-neutral alcohol, which has no distinctive flavour of its own, and then add flavouring agents later to make it taste like rum or whisky before selling it as a standard product.

FSSAI said this is not a blanket ban on flavourings, additions like coffee or vanilla remain allowed where the law permits them and there’s a genuine technical reason for using them.

Instead, it objected to adding the flavour of the spirit itself (for example, rum flavour to rum or whisky flavour to whisky). This, since the trait is supposed to arise naturally from the product, and adding it artificially serves no real technical purpose. 

The regulator pointed to Regulation 2.5 of the Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages) Regulations, 2018 (rum must have its own characteristic taste and aroma) and Clauses 3.1.1(4) and 3.1.1(7) of the 2011 Food Additives Regulations as the legal basis.

What lab testing showed

The regulator said samples from multiple manufacturers were tested, and the labs reportedly found several products substandard because of external artificial or nature-identical flavours that masked the natural flavour profile. It also flagged that labelling these as plain “rum” or “whisky,” could mislead consumers.

The age-claim problem

The regulator also said some brands used age-related wording, “years old,” “matured,” and similar terms, without following Regulation 13.7 of the 2018 Alcoholic Beverages Regulations, which requires any stated age on a blend to reflect the youngest spirit in that blend, not the oldest or an average. According to an example it cited, an Old Monk XXX Rum variant labelled “7 years old blended,” where investigators reportedly found the bulk of the liquid was unmatured neutral spirit, with matured rum making up under 5% of the blend, meaning the age claim did not reflect the youngest component as required.

What FSSAI wants such products be called instead

The regulator’s position is that products built this way should be labelled “rum-flavoured spirit” or “whisky-flavoured spirit” rather than sold under standard names, citing Regulation 5.1 of the FSS (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, which requires the front of every package to state the food’s true nature.

Companies named

Based on “non-conforming” lab reports, prohibition-of-sale orders were reportedly issued against the following companies/units:

• Mohan Rocky Springwater’s Khopoli unit: Old Monk The Legend Rum, Old Monk Gold Reserve Rum, Old Monk XXX Matured Rum

• United Spirits’ Baramati unit: McDowell’s No.1 Rum

• INBREW Beverages (Madhya Pradesh): Bagpiper Deluxe Whisky, Old Cask Deluxe XXX Rum

• Associated Alcohol & Breweries (Madhya Pradesh): Central Province Whisky, McDowell’s No.1 Celebration Matured XXX Rum

• United Spirits’ Madhya Pradesh unit: Antiquity Blue Whisky, Royal Challenge Whisky

Additionally, inspections and sampling took place at Mandexi Distilleries & Breweries in Goa, and notices went out to six more manufacturers in Maharashtra, with further action expected.

Two manufacturers appealed to FSSAI and were granted conditional revocation. FSSAI said that they can sell existing stock as long as the true nature of the product is disclosed on the front of the pack, but future production cannot include identical flavour additions.

The action comes within a month after the regulator issued formal notices on July 9 to food business operators manufacturing alcoholic beverages, flagging these issues. The manufacturers were directed to fix these issues and explain why enforcement action shouldn’t be taken under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 

Why FSSAI says this isn’t industry-wide

The regulator has emphasised this is not meant to characterise the whole industry. Many manufacturers, it said, already comply fully with the standards. The action targets specifically those relying mainly on neutral alcohol and then adding identical or artificial flavours to mimic a standardised product’s natural character. It also said there is no internationally recognised practice of adding rum flavour to rum or whisky flavour to whisky. It argued that the standards are intended to preserve product authenticity and prevent consumers from being misled.

United Spirits’ response

On August 3, 2026, United Spirits (Diageo India) filed a regulatory disclosure with the NSE and BSE. It confirmed it had filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court on August 1, challenging the FSSAI order, concerning a product made at its Baramati unit. It said legal advice supports its view that its label declarations comply with current law and match long-standing industry practice. The company also noted that industry bodies, including the Confederation of Indian Alcoholic Beverage Companies (CIABC) and the International Spirits & Wines Association of India (ISWAI), are also raising this with the regulator as an industry-wide issue. 

Published – August 05, 2026 07:40 am IST