Is Milk in India Adulterated? What FSSAI Data and Maharashtra's 2026 Raids Show

Tukaram Mundhe took charge as Commissioner of Maharashtra's Food and Drug Administration on 25 May 2026 and launched a statewide crackdown on food adulteration, with milk and dairy at the centre of it (Outlook). In July, the FDA ran simultaneous raids at 13 locations across Pune, Ahilyanagar, Solapur, Jalna and Thane, targeting a synthetic-milk network (Free Press Journal). According to the FDA, the fake milk was made by mixing: - Water, skimmed milk powder and whey permeate powder to imitate milk solids - Palm oil in place of natural milk fat - Emulsifiers to hold the mixture together - Detergent and shampoo to create the foam and texture of fresh milk The raids covered every link in the chain: suppliers of the chemicals, milk collection centres, chilling plants, processing units and distributors. Thirteen people were arrested, 26 cases registered, five food business licences suspended, and about 20,000 litres of suspected synthetic milk destroyed. Reports also describe sealed pouches of well-known brands being tampered with and refilled (The Federal). Estimates of how much synthetic milk was sold before the raids vary widely between outlets, so we've left them out. The crackdown has gone beyond milk. On 30 July 2026, Maharashtra banned analogue (non-dairy) paneer for one year after FDA testing found milk fat replaced with vegetable fats (Nagpur Today).

The most rigorous national data point is FSSAI's National Milk Safety and Quality Survey 2018. It collected 6,432 samples between May and October 2018 from 1,103 towns and cities across every state and UT, from organised brands and processors as well as local dairies, vendors and milk mandis. Failed samples were confirmed in NABL-accredited labs, and the survey was run by an independent third party. Here's what it found: - Adulterants: 12 samples (0.18%). Six contained hydrogen peroxide, three detergent, two urea and one neutralisers. - Aflatoxin M1: 368 samples (5.7%) above the permissible limit. This contaminant enters milk through animal feed and fodder, which FSSAI noted were not regulated. - Antibiotic residues: 77 samples (1.2%) above the permissible limit. - Safe overall: 5,976 samples (over 93%). - Quality shortfalls: about 41% of samples, though safe, fell short on at least one quality parameter, mostly low fat, low SNF (solids-not-fat), or both. - Maltodextrin in 156 samples and sugar in 78, added to push fat and SNF readings up, mainly in processed milk. FSSAI's conclusion at the time: milk is largely safe, but contamination from aflatoxin M1 and antibiotic residues is a more serious problem than adulteration, and quality concerns persist.

They measure different things. A survey takes a random snapshot. The 2018 survey drew 678 samples from all of Maharashtra and found no adulterants in any of them. That tells you adulteration wasn't widespread across the average litre that year. It can't rule out an organised operation supplying particular collection centres or areas. Raids follow leads. Enforcement goes where intelligence points, so it finds concentrated fraud that a random sample can easily miss. Time matters too. The survey is from 2018. The racket the FDA uncovered was operating in 2026. So "most milk tested safe in a national survey" and "an organised synthetic-milk racket was operating in Pune district" can both be true. For a family choosing milk today, the second fact is the one that shows how fraud actually gets in.

This number has circulated for over a decade. It traces back to an FSSAI survey released in 2012, which tested 1,791 samples from 33 states and Union Territories and found 68.4% did not conform to standards, as reported at the time. The detail matters. Most of those failures were milk that was low in fat and solids-not-fat, or had skimmed milk powder added: quality and labelling problems, usually from dilution or standardisation shortcuts. Detergent was found in a far smaller share. "Doesn't meet the standard" and "contains something harmful" are different things, and the viral version of this statistic blurs them.

Not automatically. The 2018 survey's data sheets found: - Samples with safety issues: 10.4% of processed samples vs 4.8% of raw samples. - Aflatoxin M1: 8.7% of processed samples vs 3.7% of raw. - Maltodextrin and sugar: found mainly in processed milk. Maharashtra's 2026 raids point the same way. The synthetic milk moved through collection centres, chilling plants and processing units, the same pooled chain that most packaged milk passes through, and branded pouches were reportedly tampered with. The common thread is pooling. When milk from many sources is blended at collection centres and chilling plants, anything added at one point ends up spread across a large batch, and it becomes very hard to trace. Contaminants like aflatoxin M1 and antibiotic residues come from the farm (what animals eat and how they're treated), and processing isn't designed to remove them. Where milk comes from matters as much as how it's packed.

FSSAI hasn't released another survey of the same design, but enforcement testing continues. In a written reply in the Lok Sabha in July 2026, the government said 14,668 of 39,351 milk and dairy product samples tested in 2025-26 (about 37%) were non-conforming, with 11,768 cases filed. In 2024-25, 12,780 of 33,405 samples were non-conforming. Two cautions before comparing that with the 2018 survey: It isn't a random survey. Enforcement samples are often targeted at suspect sellers, so they naturally fail more often. It covers more than milk, and more than safety. The figure includes paneer, khoa, ghee and other dairy products, and "non-conforming" can mean unsafe, substandard or mislabelled. No breakdown was given. What it does show is that enforcement is active nationally, and that dairy products, not just liquid milk, deserve attention.

Test for the common adulterants at home. Water, detergent, starch and urea can all be screened with simple kitchen tests. See our guide to 5 ways to identify pure milk at home. Know what home tests can't catch. Palm oil standing in for milk fat, aflatoxin M1, antibiotic residues and added maltodextrin all need a laboratory. For those, the only practical protection is choosing a source you can trust. Check every pouch. Given the reported tampering, look for an intact seal and a clear, unsmudged batch code and date before you use it. Ask your dairy four questions: 1. Where exactly does the milk come from: one farm, or pooled from many collection centres? 2. What do the animals eat? Aflatoxin M1 enters milk through feed and fodder. 3. How is antibiotic treatment handled? Milk from animals under treatment should be kept out of supply. 4. What's your FSSAI licence number? You can look it up on FSSAI's FoSCoS portal (foscos.fssai.gov.in). Be extra careful around festivals, especially with loose milk, paneer and khoa bought from unfamiliar sellers.

Maharashtra's racket worked by slipping synthetic milk into the pooled chain at collection centres and chilling plants. We built Doodh & Co so our milk never passes through that chain: Single-origin: all our milk comes from our own farm. We never buy in milk from other farms or collection centres, and we never mix it, so nothing from an unknown source can end up in your bottle. (More on what single-origin milk means.) Untouched: our milk moves through sealed, automated systems and is never handled by human hands on its way to you, closing off the handoffs where water or other substances get added. Licensed and verifiable: we're an FSSAI-licensed dairy manufacturer (Lic. No. 11526088000179). Look it up. Contaminants like aflatoxin M1 and antibiotic residues are about farm practice, feed and animal care, which is exactly why we think every dairy, us included, should be asked the four questions above. We deliver in Pune and Mumbai. See our milk and dairy or set up daily delivery.