Last week, when my 12-year-old daughter visited an ophthalmologist for vision correction, the doctor prescribed not only a higher eye power but also a “vision health” supplement in the form of gummies. Trusting the doctor’s judgment, I purchased it from the clinic’s attached pharmacy without hesitation.

Since it was prescribed for eye health, I expected it to contain nutrients commonly associated with vision—Vitamin A, retinol, beta-carotene, lutein, zeaxanthin, and similar compounds. However, when I examined the ingredient list, I was surprised to find that the first three ingredients were various forms of sugar.

As per FSSAI labelling & Display regulations, ingredients must be listed in descending order of quantity by weight. This means the ingredient present in the highest amount appears first.

The first ingredient listed was corn syrup, commonly known as high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), an industrial sugar. The second was sugar (refined sugar). The third was stevia, described as a “natural sweetener.” While the term “natural” creates a healthy, organic impression, stevia is a non-calorie sweetener, and its sweet compound (steviol glycoside) is extracted through chemical processing. Words like “natural sweetener” can therefore be misleading for consumers.

Under FSSAI regulations, if a product contains a non-calorie sweetener (such as aspartame or neotame), a mandatory declaration in a rectangular box stating “CONTAINS NON-CALORIE SWEETENER (Name)” must be provided. This allows consumers to make an informed choice—especially important for products targeted at children aged 5–17 years. In this case, the declaration was missing and could easily be overlooked.

The top three ingredients by weight in this “health supplement” were therefore sugars in different forms: HFCS, sugar, and stevia.

The fourth ingredient was water, followed by gelling agents, acidity regulators, and flavouring agents (orange and strawberry). “Black carrot concentrate” appeared near the end of the list— and was clearly mentioned as being used only for colouring. Notably, there was no real food-based source of Vitamin A (retinol or beta-carotene) present in meaningful amounts.

When I checked the license, I found it carried an FSSAI food license. This is important because a food license ensures safety compliance—but does not require clinical trials to establish therapeutic efficacy. In contrast, medicines under a drug license must undergo clinical trials to prove safety and effectiveness before entering the market.

Health supplements and nutraceuticals regulated under food law are not required to demonstrate clinical efficacy unless they make specific approved health claims. Interestingly, this product carried disclaimers such as “Not for medicinal use” and “Not intended to treat or cure.” If a product suggests benefits but legally denies responsibility, that should prompt caution. Disclaimers protect the manufacturer—not the consumer.

The nutrition panel listed 19–20 nutrients, resembling a medicinal multivitamin tablet— vitamins A, B, C, D, lutein, astaxanthin, zeaxanthin, and more. However, these nutrients were synthetic additions rather than derived from whole food sources. If the nutrients are synthetic anyway, a conventional multivitamin tablet with a drug license could offer similar content at a lower cost and with established regulatory standards.

This gummy costs ₹400 for 15 servings. For the same amount, one could purchase kilograms of real Vitamin A–rich foods—carrots, pumpkin, papaya, leafy greens, eggs, milk—along with fibre, antioxidants, and multiple micronutrients that whole foods naturally provide.

The packaging further featured claims such as “Gluten Free,” “Trans-Fat Free,” and an “Allergen Free” table. Allergen declarations are mandatory when known allergens are present (such as gluten in wheat products). For a sugar-based gummy, such claims create an impression of superiority without improving nutritional value. Instead, a high-sugar warning would have been more relevant.

Images of fruits (mango, strawberry, pineapple) appeared prominently on the front—despite no real fruit being added. Pictures of smiling children reinforced the perception that the product was wholesome and fruit-based.

Today, many products are packaged to look medicinal, sold through pharmacies, and endorsed by prescriptions—yet regulated as food, not drugs. Packaging and placement often blur the line between food and medicine. The issue is not one product, but a growing market trend.

This is not merely about consumer awareness. It concerns long-term health, financial prudence, and the well-being of our children. Claims such as “cholesterol-free,” “gluten-free,” or “zero trans-fat” may sound impressive but are often irrelevant. Removing one ingredient does not automatically make a product healthy.

Food should come first. Supplements should be need-based—not routine. Whole foods are culturally appropriate, affordable, and nutritionally superior. Promoting supplements as daily nutrition can divert both finances and dietary attention away from real food. For most healthy individuals, food remains the first line of defence.

Read beyond the packaging. Choose nutrition that supports long-term health—not short-term marketing.

END OF ARTICLE