What does Maharashtra FDA’s crackdown on Zepto, Blinkit mean for quick commerce?

What went wrong, how are the platforms responding, and what does this mean for public health and consumer trust? Mint breaks it down.

Why did the Maharashtra FDA act against Zepto and Blinkit?

Zepto’s dark store in Mumbai’s Dharavi was found storing food near stagnant water, with fungal contamination, wet floors, and expired items mixed with fresh stock, leading to the immediate suspension of its food business license. 

In Blinkit’s case, the Pune facility was shut down primarily for operating without a valid Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) licence, and for unhygienic conditions such as uncovered food handlers, dirty storage racks, and missing pest-control and refrigeration records.

While Zepto’s violations point to internal storage and sanitation failures, Blinkit’s issues reflect a broader compliance breakdown at the licensing and operational level. These enforcement actions—part of a broader crackdown on the sector—raise critical concerns about food safety standards in the fast-growing 10-minute delivery ecosystem. Mint has reached out to Zepto and Blinkit for comments on the matter.

This isn’t the first time the on-demand model has faced heat. Cloud kitchens—a concept that grew immensely popular during the pandemic—have time and again come under the radar for poor quality food. In January, a user from Bengaluru posted a video on social media platform X after finding a worm in his food box ordered from a popular eatery FreshMenu, indicating only one of many such incidents cropping up in recent times.

“While FSSAI licenses are mandatory for food items, quality is not guaranteed. In a quick commerce model where users don’t get direct access to dark stores, this is a safety hazard which users must flag,” said Rajeev Tandon, a senior consultant with over three decades of experience in public health and nutrition.

Also read | Mint Explainer: What does Zepto’s Swap & Save mean for brands’ relationship with quick commerce platforms?

Public health risks: What is at stake?

Food safety lapses at the storage and handling level can lead to direct exposure to pathogens, foodborne illnesses, and cross-contamination, experts say.

Despite clear mandates under the Food Safety and Standards Act—such as requirements for a minimum 30% shelf life or 45 days of validity for food items at the time of delivery—there appear to be ongoing gaps in compliance by some quick commerce platforms, notes Indranuj Pathak, manager at Primus Partners, a consultancy firm.

“There’s a clear regulatory vacuum — dark stores operate entirely under the platforms’ control, so they can’t escape liability by blaming sellers,” he added.

“With multiple quick-commerce apps available to consumers, a company tends to lose a lot more than a general trade store in the same micromarket if the customer receives an inferior quality product,” said Ankur Singh, partner at global consulting firm Kearney.

“What makes this especially risky is the speed of delivery,” said a food safety officer not affiliated with the case. “In traditional models, there are more checkpoints between storage and final delivery. In Q-commerce, those buffers vanish — if the source is compromised, the consumer is directly exposed,” he added.

Experts say the concern is that platforms have scaled rapidly without proportionate investment in backend food safety protocols—something these enforcement actions are now bringing into the spotlight.

“In these storage environments, even a minor lapse — like not separating raw and ready-to-eat food — can trigger a cascade of microbial risks. Once the cold chain breaks or sanitation fails, there’s little room for recovery,” the food safety officer added.

“The rise of 10-minute delivery has collapsed traditional food safety buffers. There’s less time for oversight, and greater dependency on automation — but food safety still needs human checks, especially in high-risk zones like refrigeration and pest control,” said another food safety officer.

The danger isn’t just about visible hygiene. It’s about invisible threats — mould spores, bacterial load, mycotoxins — things consumers can’t detect but are very much present in poorly monitored environments,” the second food safety officer added.

Also Read: Zomato vs Swiggy: The food fight has cooled. The quick commerce war is heating up

What does this mean for the future of the quick commerce model?

At the heart of this ecosystem is a fragile trust triangle: customers, sellers, and platforms. When platforms fail on hygiene, stock accuracy, or seller experience, it threatens the whole model. Industry experts said more rigorous and transparent audit systems may be essential.

Poor storage or expired items slipping into delivery systems not only pose immediate health risks but also erode consumer trust, a fragile currency in the ultra-fast delivery space, according to public health expert Tandon.

“With an increasing number of consumers taking to quick commerce, the tolerance for poor quality will be severely tested. Users are in the dark about where and in what condition the products are stored and transported, which is a big dagger in the trustworthiness of these online-first platforms,” Tandon told Mint.

Moreover, the crackdown highlights the growing importance of commercial determinants of public health, a factor which requires commercial establishments handling food to comply with basic safety and hygiene rules. 

“In the day and age of fast-moving goods and digital-led convenience, neglecting hygiene and safety cannot be justified,” Tandon said, adding that a lot more of these platforms will come under the radar from here on.

“The biggest lesson is this: don’t treat sellers as back-end vendors. Not enforcing rigid policies, and one-size-fits-all engagement will help… Long-term sustainability depends on seller profitability just as much as customer retention,” said Nilaya Varma, co-founder of Primus Partners.

The quick commerce industry will benefit if there is some sort of mechanism that encourages them to declare, even internally to auditors, on what specific steps they have taken along with internal audit reports, said Singh.

“There might be an initial cost… but in the long term, they — and the brands — will win in a positive way,” he said.

Can platforms be held legally liable for foodborne illness caused by lapses at their dark stores? 

Under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, e-commerce platforms enjoy certain exemptions as intermediaries, placing the burden of responsibility on sellers. However, in the case of quick commerce, the situation is different. 

“In the case of quick commerce, dark stores are fully controlled and operated by the platforms themselves. This potentially makes them directly responsible for hygiene, safety, and compliance—they cannot shift the blame to third-party sellers or manufacturers,” said Indranuj Pathak, manager, Primus Partners.

To address this, there’s a pressing need for an inter-ministerial group or steering committee involving key agencies like FSSAI, BIS, ministry of consumer affairs, and ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) to establish clear, enforceable standards and protocols for food safety in the digital commerce ecosystem, Pathak added.