The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has rejected the 2015 complaint filed by the Indian government against Nestlé India regarding the safety of its Maggi noodle products.

The Indian government alleged that Nestlé engaged in unfair trade practices by labeling its instant noodle product with 'No added MSG' and claimed that the product contained unacceptable levels of lead.

In an order dated April 12, NCDRC President Justice AP Sahi highlighted that a report from the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI) explicitly stated that the lead content in the tested Maggi noodle products was within acceptable limits.

In 2015, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) instructed Nestlé to withdraw and recall nine variants of Maggi noodles to correct the 'No added MSG' labels. The authority also referenced studies that highlighted notable lead levels in various Maggi noodle variants.

Additionally, the FSSAI mandated the immediate withdrawal of Maggi Oats Masala noodles within 24 hours, citing the absence of risk assessment or proper approval for its release into the Indian market. Nestlé also received a show cause notice regarding the product approval for nine variants of its instant noodle products.

Following the immediate withdrawal of its products as per the directive, the company contested the decision in the Bombay High Court. Acknowledging Nestlé's voluntary action, the High Court temporarily halted the government's order. Eventually, the Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Nestlé, allowing it to resume its operations. Later, the Central government lodged a complaint with the NCDRC.

The case also made its way to the Supreme Court, which instructed an analysis of the noodles by the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI) and entrusted the NCDRC with assessing the report's findings.

The NCDRC, based on the report, concluded that the lead content in Maggi noodles fell within permissible levels. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee argued that even if the report's findings were accepted, concerns regarding the levels of Monosodium glutamate (MSG) in Maggi products persisted. The ASG asserted that Nestlé had still employed deceptive labeling practices with its product.

Additionally, the ASG highlighted that the launch of the Maggi Oats Noodles product occurred without obtaining proper approval. He also cited standards set by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a publication from Health Canada to argue that consuming MSG poses health risks.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing Nestlé, countered the ASG's arguments by noting that the advisory on which the approval for Maggi Oats noodles was questioned had been invalidated by the Bombay High Court.

Salve also emphasized that according to the CFTRI report, the presence of MSG depended on several factors, including the naturally occurring Glutamic Acid and the composition of the food product itself.

Salve emphasized that the laboratory had clarified that due to the lack of an analytical method to differentiate between naturally occurring Glutamic Acid and added MSG, the institute couldn't provide an opinion regarding the "no added MSG" label claim. Furthermore, he noted that the report confirmed the lead content in the noodles was within acceptable limits.

The NCDRC noted that the issue of MSG was addressed by the report, observing that according to a government clarification, the presence of MSG should be verified through inspections of the manufacturing premises. However, the NCDRC observed that no such inspection was conducted at the production unit stage, which led to the conclusion that there was insufficient basis for proceeding against Nestlé.

The Commission reached the conclusion that neither the Food Safety and Standards Act nor the Consumer Protection Act had been violated by the Central government. Consequently, it dismissed the complaint filed by the Central government.