The first months of a child’s life are not a marketplace for sweetness. They are a period in which nutrition must be shaped by the needs of a rapidly developing body, not by the tastes that manufacturers may find useful in selling a product. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s proposal to prohibit the addition of sucrose and fructose to food products intended for infants up to six months is therefore a welcome attempt to tighten the safeguards around infant nutrition.
The draft Food Safety and Standards (Foods for Infant Nutrition) Amendment Regulations, 2026, published in the Gazette on October 16, proposes that sucrose and fructose shall not be added to products intended for infants up to the age of six months. The FSSAI issued the draft for public consultation and invited objections and suggestions within 60 days. It is important to be precise: this is a proposed amendment, not a final rule already in force.
The existing 2020 regulations set standards for the nutritional composition, quality and safety of infant nutrition products for children from birth to 24 months. They identify lactose and glucose polymers as preferred carbohydrate sources, while allowing sucrose or fructose when required as a carbohydrate source, subject to limits. The draft would remove that allowance for products intended for the first six months of life.
The proposal is grounded in a basic public-health principle: infant food should meet nutritional requirements without unnecessary additions. Early exposure to added sugars is a concern in wider efforts to prevent unhealthy dietary patterns and reduce risks associated with childhood obesity. A regulatory standard cannot, on its own, determine a child’s future health, but it can set a clearer boundary for manufacturers at a particularly sensitive stage of development.
Doctors in Kashmir have long emphasised that breastfeeding is the preferred source of nutrition during the first six months. Breast milk provides nutrients and immune protection, and public-health guidance supports exclusive breastfeeding during this period where it is possible. That recommendation must be communicated without blame. Mothers may face medical, personal or practical circumstances that make breastfeeding difficult or impossible. They need support and sound medical advice, not stigma.
Prof Muzaffar Jan, former head of paediatrics at Government Medical College Srinagar, has said that infant formula, when required, should be designed to meet babies’ nutritional needs as closely as possible to breast milk. He has cautioned against unnecessary additions such as sugars and said formula feeding should be undertaken on medical advice. His emphasis is important: the debate is not between judging mothers, but between ensuring that products are appropriately formulated and that families receive reliable guidance.
The FSSAI proposal also places responsibility on manufacturers. Infant formula is not an ordinary consumer food. Parents may depend on it when breastfeeding is not possible or when a clinician recommends it. They should be able to trust that a product marketed for the youngest infants has been formulated according to age-specific nutritional standards. Clearer rules can reduce ambiguity and help regulators assess compliance.
But a regulation is only as effective as its implementation. Authorities will need to communicate the final requirements to manufacturers, monitor product composition and ensure that labels do not confuse parents. Health professionals should be equipped to explain when formula is necessary, how it should be prepared safely and why a product should not be selected simply because it appears sweeter or more appealing.
The draft has rightly been opened to public consultation. Manufacturers, clinicians, nutrition experts and consumer groups should use the process to identify any technical issues and help ensure that the final wording protects infants without creating unintended problems for children who require specialised nutrition. The regulator must consider evidence and submissions before finalising the amendment.
The broader lesson is that infant nutrition policy should be preventive rather than reactive. A child’s diet begins long before the habits associated with packaged snacks and sweetened drinks emerge. Standards for the earliest stage of life must be especially careful. The proposed restriction is a modest regulatory change, but it sends a clear message: products for infants should be designed around their needs, not unnecessary sweetness.
The government should now complete the consultation carefully, enforce the final standard rigorously and strengthen the support available to mothers. Removing added sucrose and fructose from products for infants up to six months is a sound step. Ensuring that every family can make safe, informed feeding decisions is the larger task.
