.jpg)
From Zomato and Domino’s to McDonald’s and Gauri Khan’s Torii restaurant in Mumbai, several big-name brands have recently found themselves under fire over the alleged use of ‘analogue paneer’—a cheaper, non-dairy substitute that looks and tastes like the real thing but isn’t actually made from milk.
In response to growing consumer concern and social media outrage, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs is now considering issuing guidelines to ensure restaurants clearly disclose if a dish contains analogue paneer.
This comes even as the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) already mandates manufacturers to label analogue paneer as “non-dairy,” though this rule doesn’t currently apply to restaurant dishes.
“Analogue paneer looks and tastes like traditional paneer, but it is not paneer. Analogue paneer is cheaper, and why don't hotels and restaurants reveal it to consumers?” Consumer Affairs Secretary Nidhi Khare told PTI.
A tale of iodine tests, outrage, and online clout
The debate exploded after popular food vlogger Sarthak Sachdeva, who commands 2.07 million YouTube subscribers and 535,000 followers on Instagram, posted a video alleging that Gauri Khan’s Torii restaurant served “fake” paneer. He conducted a home-style test using iodine tincture—a method known to turn blue-black in the presence of starch—on several high-end restaurant dishes.
Sachdeva tested paneer at celebrity hotspots like Virat Kohli’s One8 Commune, Shilpa Shetty’s Bastian, and Bobby Deol’s Someplace Else. All passed his iodine test. But at Torii, the paneer darkened on contact with iodine.
“Shah Rukh Khan ke restaurant mein paneer nakli tha. Ye dekh ke mere toh hosh udd gaye the,” he exclaimed, inadvertently attributing the restaurant to SRK instead of his wife, Gauri Khan.
Torii responded promptly in the comments section of his viral video: “The iodine test reflects the presence of starch, not the authenticity of the paneer. As the dish contains soy-based ingredients, this reaction is expected. We stand by the purity of our paneer and the integrity of our ingredients at Torii.”
Sarthak replied, “So am I banned now? Btw your food is amazing.”
Celebrity chef and MasterChef India judge Vikas Khanna was quick to refute the influencer’s claims. Taking to Instagram, he slammed the video saying, “I’ve been cooking and working with the science of food for the past several decades. I’ve never seen such terrible misinformation like the YouTuber who claims to be a food scientist.”
Domino’s, McDonald’s and Burger King caught in the crossfire
It wasn’t long before other fast food giants were pulled into the controversy. Another influencer, Apple Tiwari, with over 6.5 lakh followers, posted a viral reel alleging that the paneer at Domino’s, McDonald’s, and Burger King wasn’t real.
In the video, Tiwari applied the same iodine tincture test to paneer from Domino’s Paneer Makhani Pizza, McDonald’s McSpicy Paneer Burger, and Burger King’s Paneer King Melt. Each time, the paneer turned blue-black.
“Fake paneer = Serious health issues,” she warned. “Say NO to nakli paneer.”
The claims were enough to provoke public concern—and official brand responses.
McDonald’s replied firmly in the comment section of her post: “We strongly refute any false claims regarding the quality of our paneer. The paneer used in our products is 100% dairy-based and made of real milk… Standard testing methods are designed for raw ingredients and not finished products. In the case of our Paneer Patty, any starch present comes from the coating process and is solely on the surface of the patty.”
They linked a video on YouTube demonstrating the same iodine test on raw paneer, which showed no starch reaction.
Domino’s, under its parent company Jubilant FoodWorks, also hit back: “Jubilant FoodWorks vehemently denies the allegations made in the source video related to usage of Paneer (cottage cheese) in Domino’s Zingy Parcel… The comments made by the video creator are misleading, and the Company is exploring legal options against the video creator.”
A reel can unravel decades of brand equity
The episode has reignited a longstanding concern in the digital age—what happens when virality and misinformation collide?
Chaitali Pishay Roy, Founder of CPR Global, a reputation and brand communications firm, explained that misinformation can cause irreversible damage if brands are not prepared. “The first thing a brand should do when faced with reputational damage—especially driven by an influencer—is to pause and assess,” she said.
Roy added that brands must be authentic and transparent. “Own the mistake. Don’t deflect. Don’t deny. But also — don’t disappear… Come back stronger. Find a way to rebuild trust through action, not just statements,” she said, pointing to the comebacks of Maggi and Cadbury as examples.
She warned that while influencers are powerful allies in brand-building, they should never be allowed to hijack the narrative. “That is yours to hold, and yours to protect.”
Free speech, but not free from consequences
Legal experts say the issue may go beyond PR—it could land in court.
Alay Razvi, Managing Partner at Accord Juris, noted, “One needs to know that whether the digital content is intentional or not, it can have serious legal consequences when it crosses into the territory of misinformation.”
According to Razvi, brands are within their rights to initiate civil suits for defamation and product disparagement, and in some cases, even criminal proceedings. “Under Section 63 of the IPC, any person willfully and maliciously giving false information, thus causing an arrest or a search to be made under this Act, shall, upon conviction, be liable for imprisonment for a term that may extend to two years or with a fine that may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or both.”
He added, “Today’s creators are effectively publishers in the eyes of the law, and with that comes legal responsibility. Free speech remains protected, but not free of consequences.”
Interestingly, under the revised ASCI guidelines, influencers are not required to hold formal qualifications to talk about health or finance—as long as their content remains generic and avoids technical claims. This adds yet another layer of complexity in evaluating credibility and intent.
.jpg)
