From village adulteration to organized food crime: The evolution of India’s fake milk industry

This is a Mint Premium article gifted to you.Subscribe to enjoy similar stories.

In February, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) officials busted a ‘synthetic milk’ manufacturing unit in Gujarat’s Sabarkantha district. They found that the unit was using a combination of detergent, urea, caustic soda, whey, refined palm and soybean oil, as well as skimmed milk powder to manufacture ‘synthetic milk’—the adulterated kind, not lab-grown, animal-free dairy, which is a genuine business (the lab variety is, however, not recognized as a category of milk under India’s food safety regulations).

Officials alleged that about 300 litres of normal milk were being used to produce between 1,700 litres and 1,800 litres of imitation milk every day in Sabarkantha. The so-called synthetic product was reportedly packed in pouches and distributed as milk and buttermilk across parts of Sabarkantha and Mehsana districts.

The economics of the operation revealed how lucrative modern milk adulteration has become, leaving investigators shocked. More alarming was the allegation that the unit had been operating for nearly five years, distributing milk and buttermilk across districts.

Investigations and raids conducted between 2025 and 2026 across Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab and the Delhi-National Capital region uncovered networks allegedly involved in the manufacture and distribution of fake milk, paneer, ghee and other food products.

For decades, Indians believed they knew how to identify adulterated milk. If milk produced too much froth when shaken, it was suspected to contain detergent. If a few drops of iodine turned it blue, starch was likely present. If milk flowed too quickly down a slanted surface, it was likely diluted with water. These simple tests were widely known in villages and towns, giving consumers confidence that they could identify adulterated milk.

But the conventional methods used by consumers to detect adulteration are becoming less effective as adulterators have become smarter, as in Sabarkantha, and are creating products that closely resemble genuine milk in appearance, taste and even basic laboratory parameters.

The shift marks the industrialization of food fraud in India, the world’s largest producer and consumer of milk. National production reached 248 million tonnes (mt) in FY26, broadly unchanged from the previous year, according to data from the department of animal husbandry and dairying.

As of now 35–40% of the country's marketable surplus milk currently flows through organized channels, such as cooperatives and private dairies, while nearly 60% remains in the unorganized segment.

Meenesh Shah, chairman of the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB), and chairman of Mother Dairy, says adulteration is an issue largely in the unorganized segment of the dairy sector rather than on the organized side. “Cooperatives and large dairy companies regularly conduct quality checks, and their procurement systems are designed to reject contaminated milk. The real challenge is in the unorganized sector, where testing infrastructure and facilities to detect adulterants are often inadequate,” says Shah.

Health experts warn that while some adulterants cause immediate gastrointestinal problems, others pose risks to the kidneys, liver and the nervous system when consumed regularly over long periods.

“Chemicals such as urea, detergents and caustic soda can cause stomach irritation, vomiting and diarrhoea in the short term, but repeated exposure is far more worrying,” says Dr Anand Vishal, a senior endocrinologist at the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences and Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital in New Delhi. “Regular consumption of adulterated milk may put additional stress on the kidneys and liver, while excessive intake of added sugars and unhealthy fats can contribute to metabolic disorders and cardiovascular risks over time.”

Consumers are becoming increasingly concerned about product authenticity and traceability, according to the CRISIL-ASPA State of Counterfeiting in India—2025 report. For Ankit Gupta, president of the Authentication Solution Providers’ Association (ASPA), that concern reflects a broader issue of trust. “Milk and dairy products are among the most sensitive FMCG (fast-moving consumer goods) categories where product authenticity is directly linked to consumer health and safety,” he says.

While adulteration is a very serious issue, available evidence suggests that it is largely a problem faced by the northern states and Gujarat. A National Milk Safety and Quality Survey in 2018 found that 41% of the 6,432 samples tested failed at least one quality parameter, while only 12 samples (0.19%) were found unsafe due to adulteration. Even so, much has changed since 2018 and certainly since the 1990s.

The initial phase of milk adulteration in India, roughly till the early 2010s, was characterized by the use of crude chemicals and simple dilution techniques aimed at increasing volumes and disguising poor-quality milk.

Water was the most common adulterant, added to expand supply and boost profits. To compensate for the resulting loss of density and nutritional content, adulterators frequently mixed in substances such as urea, detergent, starch, formalin (used to preserve human remains), and caustic soda.

Each adulterant served a specific purpose. Urea was added to artificially raise nitrogen levels and create the impression of higher protein content. Detergent or washing powder helped generate froth and impart a creamy appearance, mimicking the emulsification properties of natural milk fat. Starch was used to increase viscosity and thickness after dilution, while formalin extended shelf life. Caustic soda was often added to adjust pH levels and delay spoilage.

The public became familiar with these practices through the government’s repeated food safety campaigns and investigations. A landmark survey conducted by the Centre for Science and Environment in 2011 found widespread contamination involving urea, detergents, glucose, starch and preservatives, raising concerns about chronic exposure to harmful chemicals through a staple beverage consumed daily by millions.

As detection and enforcement improved, adulterators adapted. By the mid-2010s, they began shifting to ingredients that were harder to detect and better able to mimic the composition of genuine milk.

Between 2015 and 2023, the use of refined vegetable oils and milk-derived powders became increasingly common. Refined palm oil and soybean oil were used as cheaper substitutes for milk fat, while skimmed milk powder (SMP) was added to restore solids-not-fat (SNF) levels that fell when milk was diluted with water. Whey powder helped recreate the protein content of milk, while glucose and sucrose were used to improve sweetness, density and mouthfeel.

Unlike earlier adulterants, these ingredients did not leave obvious visual clues. A lactometer, traditionally used to detect water dilution, often failed to identify manipulation because the added powders and sugars helped maintain normal density readings. Detecting refined vegetable oils required specialized laboratory procedures, while identifying whey powder, glucose and artificially restored SNF levels often required chemical analysis and dedicated testing kits.

Food safety officials, who did not want to be named, say this period marked a significant turning point, as adulteration shifted from simple dilution to the reconstruction of milk’s key physical and chemical characteristics. Instead of merely stretching milk supplies, operators increasingly sought to create products that could pass routine quality checks.

Evidence of this transition emerged in Agra in 2020, where testing reportedly found detergent, refined oil and externally added glucose in milk samples. Khoya samples collected during the same exercise were found to contain refined oil and starch, highlighting how adulteration techni...