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 . 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 crude adulteration era
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.
The transitional era
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 techniques were spreading beyond liquid milk into value-added dairy products.
The synthetic milk era
The latest phase of milk adulteration, which has gathered pace since 2024, represents the most sophisticated stage yet.
Industry experts and the food safety officials cited above say adulterators are increasingly engineering synthetic products that closely replicate the appearance, texture, sweetness and fat composition of genuine milk.
Earlier, adulterators used to mix glucose in milk, but as testing kits for glucose became widely available, they shifted to using sorbitol or sucrose, which serve a similar purpose but are harder to detect as testing kits for these adulterants are not readily available in the market.
Similarly, starch or arrowroot flour or maida were earlier used to manipulate milk quality. Now, adulterators use maltodextrin, which can alter solids-not-fat (SNF) levels in milk. Testing kits for this substance are not commonly available.
According to Dhruv Tomar, owner of PaperPro, a food safety and diagnostics startup focused on developing rapid-testing solutions, the nature of milk adulteration has undergone a fundamental transformation over the past decade.
“What we are witnessing is a shift from dilution to formulation. Earlier, the objective was simply to increase volume. Today, the objective is to engineer a product that behaves like milk while being significantly cheaper to produce,” he says. Tomar adds that this transition has made adulteration both more sophisticated and more difficult to detect.
“Most milk processing plants have systems in place to check contamination and quality at the plant level. However, the problem often originates much earlier in the supply chain, particularly at milk collection centres. We have been urging major dairy cooperatives to strengthen testing at the collection stage itself, rather than waiting until the milk reaches the processing plant,” says Tomar.
Tomar’s company, PaperPro, offers milk adulteration testing kits for consumers and dairy firms, including an NABL-accredited lab-approved rapid testing kit and an affordable consumer-focused kit.
But adulteration is no longer the only concern before the dairy sector. “The biggest shift we are witnessing is that contamination is moving from the product to the process,” says Ashwin Bhadri, founder and chief executive officer of Equinox Labs. “The question is no longer limited to what was added to the milk. Increasingly, it is about what happened to the milk between the farm and the consumer.”
Concurring with that view, Ravinder Balain, country president of Cargill India and senior managing director, Cargill Animal Nutrition and Health, South Asia, says, “Contamination risks can emerge at multiple points across the value chain, including feed sourcing, storage, animal health management, milk handling, and processing. Among these, mycotoxin contamination remains an important area of focus, as certain toxins present in feed can transfer into milk if not managed effectively.”
The growing sophistication of milk adulteration was illustrated dramatically in April when Punjab parliamentarian Charanjit Singh Channi publicly demonstrated how milk can be adulterated using commonly available ingredients. Channi heads the parliamentary standing committee on agriculture, animal husbandry and food processing.
The fear of adulteration may also explain why some policymakers and prominent business families continue to rely on milk sourced directly from khatals (cattle stables), even in Lutyens’ Delhi. A dairy farm operating near Akbar Road, in the heart of the capital, continues to supply fresh milk to ministers and several prominent business households residing in the Lutyens area. In Patna, too, a unique system continues to exist, where dairy farmers bring cows to customers’ homes and milk them to assure them of purity.
Organized food crime
“Milk adulteration is increasingly showing characteristics of organized economic crime rather than isolated cheating by individual vendors,” says a food safety official, declining to be identified. “The networks involve procurement, manufacturing, transportation, packaging and distribution, making them much harder to detect and dismantle.”
The geography of milk adulteration is also changing. What was once largely confined to local milk vendors diluting supplies has increasingly become an organized business operating across major dairy belts.
FSSAI officials involved in food safety enforcement say districts such as Meerut, Muzaffarnagar, Mathura, Vrindavan, Agra and parts of western Uttar Pradesh have repeatedly figured in raids involving adulterated milk, khoya, paneer and other dairy products. The region’s dense dairy network, proximity to Delhi-NCR, and year-round demand from households, sweet makers and religious tourism centres make it an attractive target for adulteration rackets.
Demand remains elevated throughout the year, particularly around Mathura and Vrindavan, because of the continuous flow of pilgrims and the large consumption of milk-based sweets and offerings. Investigators say this creates opportunities for unscrupulous operators to introduce adulterated milk, khoya and paneer into supply chains, especially during festival seasons, when demand spikes.
Recent enforcement actions suggest the problem extends beyond small-scale operators. In Uttar Pradesh alone, a statewide anti-adulteration drive ahead of Diwali in 2025 involved more than 2,000 raids and led to the seizure of nearly 3,000 quintals, or about 300,000kg, of adulterated food products worth ₹3.88 crore.
The concern is no longer limited to domestic consumption. Earlier this year, the Enforcement Directorate conducted searches linked to a Madhya Pradesh-based dairy exporter accused of using forged laboratory certificates to export adulterated dairy products to various markets, including Bahrain, Singapore, Oman, Qatar and the UAE. The case highlighted how food adulteration can affect India’s export reputation.
According to data from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, while India’s dairy product exports surged 80.6% to $492.85 million in FY25, they declined by 17.4% to $407.18 million in FY26.
Enforcement challenges
India’s milk story has long been associated with the success of the White Revolution. But as adulteration evolves from simple dilution to sophisticated formulation, the challenges regulators face are also changing. The question now is whether enforcement can keep pace with adulteration.
Suresh Deora, former chairman of the Compound Livestock Feed Manufacturers Association and director of S.A. Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd, says that regular monitoring by NDDB and FSSAI is essential to curb milk adulteration and contamination. “The scope of food regulation has expanded significantly over the years, but the manpower available to enforce these regulations has not increased proportionately,” he adds.
Conceding that adulteration patterns are evolving, NDDB Chairman Shah told Mint that the sector is continuously upgrading its detection systems to keep pace with new adulterants. “We are taking graded steps to identify emerging adulterants and modify our testing kits as soon as we detect changes in adulteration patterns. For instance, when we found that melamine was being used as an adulterant in some places, we immediately updated our testing kits. We have both laboratory-based chemical testing kits and field-level kits that can detect such adulterants,” Shah says.
“Most of the time, adulterated milk is detected when it is received at the collection centre, provided there is an effective testing mechanism in place. That is the system we have adopted,” the NDDB chairman adds. “The second aspect concerns products that are sold to consumers. That falls within FSSAI’s regulatory domain. We work closely with FSSAI in this area. We have an FSSAI-approved and NABL-accredited laboratory where we undertake testing on behalf of FSSAI.”
On its part, FSSAI has updated its testing protocols in an effort to detect newer adulterants such as maltodextrin and synthetic milk.
However, Binod Anand, a member of the high powered committee on MSP and agri reforms, questioned FSSAI’s efficacy, saying the regulator has failed to curb milk adulteration.
FSSAI launched a survey covering over 10,000 milk and dairy product samples across 766 districts in 2023, but its findings are yet to be made public.
The food safety authority didn’t reply to emailed queries.
Hyderabad-headquartered listed dairy company Heritage refused to comment on the issue, neither did Shirsat Kapil Ashok, chairman of the Bihar State Cooperative Milk Producers’ Federation, which markets its products under the Sudha brand, and a Uttar Pradesh government spokesperson. Jayen Mehta, managing director of Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (Amul), too did not respond to Mint’s queries.
For now, while regulators try to keep pace with the criminal business of milk adulteration, Manveer, a dairy farmer with six cows operating on the outskirts of Delhi, offers a fool-proof way for consumers to ensure their milk is safe to consume: “Opt for fresh milk whenever possible.”