Index/Biscuits/Patanjali Glucose Biscuit
Entry № 001 · Biscuits
Patanjali Glucose Biscuit packaging

Patanjali Glucose Biscuit

Patanjali · 100 g pack

Patanjali Glucose Biscuit is an ultra-processed food (NOVA 4) high in sugar, making it a poor nutritional choice. It contains approximately 22g of sugar per 100g, meaning a small serving can quickly contribute to exceeding the WHO's daily limit for free sugars [2].

Sugar loadProcessing tierMarketing deceptionRegulatory historyFat / oil typeSodium
§ A · Six-axis assessment
Fast answer

Why this verdict

Red flags present. Best treated as an avoid-for-regular-use product unless the underlying evidence changes.

4
red flags
2
watch points
0
passes
Verdict driver
Sugar load + Processing tier + Marketing deception + Regulatory history
Watch closely
Sugar load, Processing tier, Marketing deception, Regulatory history, Fat / oil type, Sodium
Passed checks
No green axes recorded

This card is the decision shortcut. The detailed evidence and citations live in the six-axis cards below.

Sugar load
Don't eat trigger

1g of sugar per 100g. Sugar is the second ingredient, supplemented by invert syrup and glucose.

This is very high, contributing significantly to the WHO's daily 25g limit for free sugars [2].

Processing tier
Don't eat trigger

Classified as NOVA 4 (ultra-processed). It is made from refined wheat flour, sugar, palm oil, and various additives, which the latest ICMR guidelines advise against [5].

Fat / oil type
Think twice trigger

Contains palm oil, a refined vegetable oil high in saturated fats. While it contains no trans fats, palm oil is not a healthy choice for regular consumption.

Sodium
Think twice trigger

7mg of sodium per 100g. This is a moderate level for a sweet biscuit but adds to the daily sodium load.

Marketing deception
Don't eat trigger

The name 'Glucose' biscuit implies a source of energy, a common but misleading health halo for a high-sugar product. The brand has a long history of being cited for 'grossly misleading' advertising by ASCI [3].

Regulatory history
Don't eat trigger

Patanjali has a significant history of regulatory conflict, including product bans from state food authorities [4] and contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court for misleading advertisements [1].

§ B · Nutrition

Per 100 g

Energy461.5 kcal
Protein6.9 g
Carbohydrate73.9 g
Total Sugars22.1 g
Total Fat15.5 g
Saturated Fat7.3 g
Trans Fat0 g
Sodium313.7 mg
§ C · Ingredients

As declared on pack

Refined Wheat Flour (Maida) 66.5%, Sugar, Edible Vegetable oil (Palm), Invert Syrup, Milk Solids, Liquid Glucose (0.7%), Raising agents [INS 503 (ii), INS 500 (ii)], Iodised Salt, Dough conditioner [INS 223], Emulsifier [INS 322].

§ D · Timeline
  1. January 2006
    Patanjali Ayurved Limited is founded [Source ↗]
    Company Filings · [1]
  2. May 2017
    Reuters reports that the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has repeatedly found Patanjali's claims to be 'grossly misleading'. [Source ↗]
    Reuters · [3]
  3. November 2022
    Uttarakhand's drug regulator bans five Patanjali-owned pharmacies from production due to repeated quality test failures. [Source ↗]
    The Hindu · [4]
  4. April 2024
    Supreme Court of India rebukes Patanjali founders for 'absolute defiance' in publishing misleading advertisements. [Source ↗]
    The Indian Express · [1]
  5. May 2024
    ICMR-NIN releases 'Dietary Guidelines for Indians' strongly advising against the consumption of ultra-processed foods. [Source ↗]
    ICMR-NIN · [5]
§ E · Citations

Sources of truth

  1. [1]
    Patanjali ads case: SC slams Ramdev, Balkrishna for 'defying' its orders, asks them to be ready for action
    The Indian Express
  2. [2]
    Guideline: Sugars intake for adults and children
    World Health Organization (WHO)
  3. [3]
    Ad watchdog finds Patanjali claims 'grossly misleading'
    Reuters
  4. [4]
    Uttarakhand bans production of 5 Patanjali products
    The Hindu
  5. [5]
    Dietary Guidelines for Indians - 2024
    ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition
§ F · Correction

Spotted something we got wrong?

These entries are generated using AI research against authoritative sources. Mistakes are possible — though rare. If a number, date, or claim looks off, send us a citation and we'll review it.