Explainers, audits, assurance: How food brands use 'educational' marketing amid lab-testing scrutiny

Last month, a premium egg brand in India became the subject of intense online scrutiny after a YouTube channel alleged that its product contained a cancer-causing chemical. The claim spread like wildfire across social media platforms, prompting a barrage of criticism from consumers who said they paid a higher price to avoid the risks associated with industrial food production.

However, within days, the outrage subsided as medical professionals and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) stated that the eggs were safe to consume. The episode underscored a reality that food companies are increasingly confronting: that trust can erode faster than regulators can respond amid the rise in the emergence of 'independent' lab testing channels on social media and consumer awareness.

Over the past decade, some of India's biggest consumer goods companies have weathered allegations ranging from plastic fragments in snack foods and insects in chocolates to excessive lead in instant noodles and sugar syrup in honey. In the majority of these controversies, social media backlash temporarily hit sales and tainted the companies' reputations, even when the products were later cleared by the regulators.

All such brands eventually clawed their way back into consumers' shopping baskets and store shelves, largely through sustained marketing strategies centred on transparency, science-backed communication, and quality audits.

"Nestle India is a strong example of how legacy brands manage crises," said Amrita Bansal, an assistant professor of marketing at IMI Delhi. She said the company's response was not limited to publishing test results or highlighting regulatory compliance.

"The communication was measured and consistent. It reminded consumers of long-term familiarity and shared experiences," she said. "When trust has been built over decades, people are willing to wait for clarity".

"The communication was calm and consistent. It reminded consumers of shared histories and everyday usage built over decades. "Legacy brands benefit from familiarity, and consumers are willing to wait for clarity", she added.

However, industry executives argued that the stakes are far higher today than a decade ago for any consumer brand. "In 2026, brands live in a glass house," said Tarun Agrawal, co-founder and CEO of Healthy Master. "A single influencer video analysing a label can destroy decades of goodwill overnight".

Citing industry data, Agrawal said nearly 68% of consumers now actively verify product claims through apps and online reviews.

"There is zero margin for hidden ingredients. The only strategy that works in such times is radical transparency- using marketing channels to educate consumers about sourcing and ingredients, not just sell benefits".

"If you can't explain an ingredient in 15 seconds," he added, "you shouldn't be using it".

Experts also said that speed matters as much as substance. They warned that delayed responses often allow speculation to harden into belief.

"When brands stay silent, the internet writes its own narrative," said Rutu Mody Kamdar, founder of Jigsaw Brand Consultants. She added that marketing's role now is to lower panic. "Clear language, quick evidence, and a calm tone are far more effective than emotional appeals," said Kamdar. Kamdar described the shift as a move from aspirational branding to demonstrative branding. "We are moving from 'trust me' to 'show me'," she added, "Ingredient literacy is becoming part of everyday conversation".

Earlier this month, an independent rating platform called Unbox Health claimed scrutinised popular edible products and found that 30% of them had inaccurate labels. Founder Arjun Anjaria told Storyboard18 that the testing was part of a consumer-driven initiative that allowed users to nominate products for evaluation. "We wanted consumers themselves to decide what should be tested". He added that some products failed to meet the benchmarks set by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the World Health Organization (WHO), while others showed substances above permissible limits.

However, food regulators cautioned that such ratings should not be mistaken for legal judgments. Former FSSAI CEO Dr Pawan Agarwal said enforcement remains the regulator's domain.

"If a product is proven unsafe or non-compliant, under the law, it cannot remain in the marketplace".

He added that independent assessments can nonetheless function as early warning systems for consumers. "These ratings reflect a quality or risk perspective from external testing, not a legal classification by FSSAI".

Meanwhile, food companies have increased their investment in educational marketing as consumer vigilance has intensified, said experts.

Explainer videos, factory walkthroughs, and ingredient disclosures are common forms of marketing by companies. Third-party certifications, such as clean-label or non-GMO claims, are also being used to reassure consumers.

Industry experts said that the efforts come at a cost, but one they increasingly see as unavoidable. "The cost of silence is as much higher than the cost of communication," said Agrawal. "Losing consumer trust can mean losing the brand".

For many consumers, familiar brands offer comfort. But in this era of viral content, trust is no longer assumed. It is examined, replayed, and sometimes litigated.