A public scoring framework for Indian packaged foods. It explains what we measure, how a verdict is assigned, and where the system deliberately stops short.
The verdict is a shortcut, not a black box. Each product is read through the same six axes, then the decision rule below converts red, yellow, green, and insufficient flags into a consumer signal.
Zero red axes and fewer than two yellow axes. Claims and composition broadly align.
Two or more yellow axes. Usually not an automatic no, but worth reading before regular use.
One or more red axes, or materially deceptive marketing. The product page shows the failing axis.
Four or more axes returned insufficient evidence — usually because the back-of-pack label is not yet on file. Submit the label to upgrade the verdict.
Rules are evaluated top to bottom. The first matching rule decides the verdict.
Each axis has red, yellow, and green criteria. A red flag is a disqualifier; yellow is a watch point; green means the product passed that check on available evidence.
≥10g added sugar per 100g (solid) or ≥5g per 100ml (liquid), OR sugar in top-3 ingredients, OR product targets children with sugar in top-5
5–10g per 100g, or sugar in top-5 ingredients
<5g per 100g (solid) / <2.5g per 100ml (liquid), no added sugar in top-5
NOVA Group 4 AND fails any other axis (1, 3, 4, or 5)
NOVA Group 4 with otherwise clean composition, or NOVA Group 3 with marketing claims
NOVA Group 1–2
Detectable partially-hydrogenated oils, OR trans fat >1g per 100g, OR saturated fat >5g per 100g (solid) / >2.5g per 100ml (liquid)
Saturated fat 3–5g per 100g, or single-source refined vegetable oil in a product marketed as premium / natural / healthy
Sat fat <3g per 100g, no trans fat, oil source disclosed clearly
≥625mg sodium per 100g (solid) or ≥300mg per 100ml (liquid)
300–625mg per 100g (solid), 150–300mg per 100ml (liquid)
Below yellow thresholds
Front-of-pack claim contradicted by ingredients/nutrition: 'health drink' with sugar in top-3, '100% natural' with synthetic additives, 'sugar-free' with sugar substitutes >5% calories, unsubstantiated immunity claims, child-targeting with health claim, or active FSSAI/ASCI/NCPCR ruling
Soft framing ('energy', 'active', 'fortified', 'premium') unsupported by composition; palm oil in product marketed as premium/natural/cold-pressed
Claims align with composition AND no active FSSAI/ASCI/NCPCR rulings. Also GREEN if the product is sold without front-of-pack health/marketing claims, or if Tier-A sources (brand site + Indian e-commerce listings) were checked and no deceptive claims were observed. Insufficient is reserved for cases where the brand pages and quick-commerce listings could not be reached.
Recall, ban, court order, or sustained adverse regulatory finding in the last 10 years.
Pending complaint, unresolved advisory, or NCPCR-flagged practice not yet adjudicated or any social media issue, controversy regarding product or brand that surfaced.
Clean public record. No FSSAI recalls, no ASCI upheld complaints, no NCPCR action, no pending court matters. GREEN is the correct flag when FSSAI / ASCI / NCPCR / news searches return no findings — absence of adverse findings IS a clean record. Insufficient is reserved for cases where the registries themselves were unreachable.
These are the reference bodies and source groups used by the framework. Individual product pages cite the exact documents used for that product.
The current methodology is v1. Earlier versions remain public so any historical assessment can be read against the framework that produced it.
Expand a previous version to read its axes and the changelog that retired it.