FMCG major Patanjali Foods will consider a second interim dividend for the financial year 2025-26 for its shareholders when its board of directors meets on April 21, 2026. The company will also declare its March quarter earnings on this day.

The company has set the record date as Saturday, April 25, 2026 to determine eligible shareholders if the board approves the interim dividend.

Patanjali Foods has declared 19 dividends since September 18, 2003 according to Trendlyne data. In the past 12 months, the company has declared an equity dividend amounting to Rs 3.75 per share.

At the current share price, Patanjali Foods’ dividend yield is 0.82%, according to Trendlyne. After adjusting for bonus/splits, the dividend yield is 0.53%.

Shares of Patanjali Foods today ended at Rs 461.45, falling by Rs 5.90 or 1.26% over the Friday closing price.

The stock has been a market laggard, witnessing a 27% fall over the past year. The benchmarks Nifty and the BSE Sensex have delivered nearly 4% and 2% returns in the same period.

The stock is currently trading below its 50-day and 200-day simple moving averages (SMAs) of Rs 498 and Rs 558, respectively.The company reported a 60% jump in its consolidated net profit for the December-ended quarter at Rs 594 crore compared to Rs 371 crore reported in the year ago period. The company’s revenue from operations recorded a 17% growth at Rs 10,484 crore in Q3FY26 versus Rs 8,997 crore posted in the corresponding period of the last financial year.

The net profit rose 15% sequentially from Rs 517 crore posted by the company in Q2FY26 while the topline saw a 7% uptick against Rs 9,776 reported in the July-September quarter of FY26.

The company called this its highest ever revenue from operations in Q3FY26 and 9MFY26.

Also read: ICICI Pru AMC Q4 results: Profit rises 10% YoY to Rs 763 cr; co declares Rs 12.4 dividend

(Disclaimer: The recommendations, suggestions, views, and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times.)

In the world of big food, artificial intelligence is nothing new.

McCormick, which owns brands including Frank’s RedHot, Cholula and Old Bay, has been using AI in flavor development for nearly a decade, with the company saying its development timelines have been cut by 20% to 25%, on average, by identifying promising flavor combinations and narrowing down which ideas are worth testing in physical prototypes.

It’s a similar story at Unilever, where AI is deeply embedded across food research & development, with systems able to test thousands of recipes digitally in seconds and get to viable concepts with fewer physical trials. Unilever’s Knorr Fast & Flavourful Paste, as an example, was developed in roughly half the usual time. On the packaging side of the business, AI modeled how formulations behave in Hellmann’s Easy-Out squeeze bottle — which the company says saved months of physical lab work. 

All the way back in 2017, a team from Google Brain (which is now part of DeepMind) used AI to help create a recipe for the “perfect” chocolate chip cookie.

But even as AI is increasingly shaping how food companies decide what ends up on grocery store shelves, the food companies are quick to stress that AI is not taking over the kitchen.

“Human creativity and judgment lead the way, and AI is a tool to help us amplify our impact,” said Annemarie Elberse, head of ecosystems, digital and data for foods R&D at Unilever. 

“These tools help inspire our flavor scientists’ creativity,” Anju Rao, McCormick’s chief science officer, told CNBC. Rao emphasized that AI functions as a co-creation tool, not a replacement for human expertise.  “Our greatest asset will always be our people who bring global perspectives, flavor expertise and human creativity to the table,” she said. 

As a growing ecosystem of startups position AI as a way to approximate and predict sensory outcomes using large datasets to model how consumers might respond to new food products before they are physically tested, it’s not clear how successful their efforts will be in cracking the code in the test kitchen. Companies including Zucca, Journey Foods, NielsenIQ, and AKA Foods market their platforms as “virtual sensory” or AI-powered systems designed to digitally screen recipes, suggest formulation changes, and predict consumer liking before physical prototypes are made. 

These companies are promising much of what the food giants say they’ve been doing already: creating systems that can reduce the size of traditional taste panels, lower the risk of failed launches and compress product development cycles by identifying promising concepts earlier in the process. Industry analysts estimate the global market for artificial intelligence in food and beverages will grow from roughly $10 billion in 2025 to more than $50 billion by 2030, driven by rising investment in data-driven product development, automation, and personalization. 

But some early food AI pioneers have already moved on. McCormick’s early AI work was developed in partnership with IBM, which previously explored AI-driven food projects such as Chef Watson. An IBM spokesman said in a statement the company is “not actively focused in this area anymore.”

Behind the marketing language, food scientists who have tested these platforms say the technology is still early — and that many of the claims are as much about attracting capital as replacing human expertise. 

Brian Chau, a food scientist and founder of food science and food systems consultancy Chau Time, said many AI food startups are still in the data-collection phase, working to aggregate enough real-world information to make their models meaningfully predictive. 

“I think all the AI companies coming out are, to some extent, overstating what they can do — that’s true of most startups,” Chau said. “They need to attract investors, they need to build datasets, and they need real industry partners before any of this really works at scale.” 

Chau said most current platforms resemble large language models trained on existing recipes, manufacturing data, and consumer trends rather than systems capable of independently generating viable new products. “When I tested one platform, the output was basically what you’d get from any general AI system,” he said. “There wasn’t much added value without proprietary data from real companies.” 

In his view, the technology’s long-term potential depends on whether startups can secure partnerships with large food manufacturers willing to share internal formulation data — something many companies are reluctant to do because of intellectual property concerns. “Without big industry players feeding real data into these systems, it’s very hard for them to become truly predictive,” Chau said. “It’s a numbers game.” 

Where AI food science still falls short 

From a scientific standpoint, researchers say the biggest obstacle is not computing power — it’s biology. 

Dr. Julien Delarue, a professor of sensory and consumer science at the University of California, Davis, said expectations around AI-driven sensory tools may be inflated by misunderstandings about what AI can realistically model. “I would say there is probably a little bit of hype,” Delarue said. “It doesn’t mean that AI is not useful, it’s just not what people expect from it.” 

While AI can help analyze chemical data and improve efficiency in food development, Delarue said trying to predict how people will perceive complex flavors remains fundamentally limited. “Trying to predict what people will perceive from a complex mixture of compounds — the answer is no,” he said. 

One of the core challenges, he explained, is that human sensory perception is inherently variable. People perceive the same chemical compounds very differently depending on genetics, culture, experience, and even personal history. “There is no such thing as the average consumer,” Delarue said. “Trying to predict what the ‘average’ person may perceive is probably a dead end.”

To unlock this limitation, Delarue says, we would need much more data than we currently have — access to data at the individual level, knowing what each person or group actually perceives. “And that’s a huge task,” he added.

That variability makes it difficult for any model — human or machine — to serve as a universal proxy for taste, he said. 

Even the companies building these tools emphasize that human judgment remains central. 

David Sack, founder of AKA Foods, said his company’s platform is designed to organize internal R&D knowledge, not replace food scientists or sensory experts. “Food R&D teams sit on large amounts of valuable knowledge, from past formulations and sensory data to tacit know-how held by individuals,” Sack said. “But it’s often fragmented and difficult to reuse systematically.” 

Why humans will remain the tastemakers

AKA’s platform helps teams test ideas digitally before committing to physical trials, allowing scientists to focus on the most promising formulation paths. “It does not replace food scientists or sensory experts,” he said. “Ultimately, humans define the goals, constraints, and success criteria. Sensory experts design and interpret panels. Scientists decide what to test and what to launch. AI can reduce the number of tests needed, but it does not eliminate the need for real human tasting or validation. Humans will always need to be in the loop when the end consumer is human,” he said. 

“Consumers decide with their palate whether they like a product,” said Jason Cohen, founder and CEO of Simulacra Data, a company that uses AI to analyze sensory and consumer data. “We still start with real human sensory data. AI just helps us extrapolate insights faster and cheaper.” 

Cohen, who also founded Analytical Flavor Systems, which was acquired in 2025 by NielsenIQ, said AI is most useful for identifying off-flavors, narrowing formulation options, and prioritizing which ideas are worth testing, not for replacing human perception. 

Chau says large food companies are uniquely positioned to benefit from AI-driven tools because they already control vast amounts of proprietary formulation, sensory, and manufacturing data — something most small brands are still trying to build. 

Delarue thinks the real value of AI within the food industry will be in efficiency not creativity — helping researchers analyze data faster, manage complexity, and operate under increasing constraints around health, sustainability, and cost. “Designing food today is much more challenging than before,” he said. “You don’t just want to make food that people enjoy. You need to make food that is healthy, sustainable, and affordable. AI gives us more power to handle that complexity.” 

But when it comes to taste itself, humans are still the reference point. “Consumers will always be the ones who decide what tastes good,” he said. “Not machines.” 

FMCG major Patanjali Foods reported a 60% jump in its consolidated net profit for the December-ended quarter at Rs 594 crore compared to Rs 371 crore reported in the year ago period. The company’s revenue from operations recorded a 17% growth at Rs 10,484 crore in Q3FY26 versus Rs 8,997 crore posted in the corresponding period of the last financial year.

The net profit rose 15% sequentially from Rs 517 crore posted by the company in Q2FY26 while the topline saw a 7% uptick against Rs 9,776 reported in the July-September quarter of FY26.

The company said this was its highest ever revenue from operations in Q3FY26 and 9MFY26.

The FMCG segment which includes food, FMCG and Home & Personal Care products achieved combined sales of Rs 3,248.35 crore in Q3FY26 growing at 39% on a YoY basis and at 12.31% on QoQ basis.

In Q3FY26, edible oil segment reported revenue from operations of Rs 7,336 crore. witnessing a YoY growth of 9% and a QoQ growth of 5%.

During Q3FY26, Gross Profit Margin was recorded at 13.56% while total Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortisation (EBITDA) amounted to Rs 492 crore, with margins at 4.69% and the PBT margin at 3.46%. This excludes exceptional items.

Also read: Lenskart Q3 Results: Cons profit skyrockets 6,983% YoY to Rs 131 crore, revenue jumps 38%On a 9MFY26 basis, revenue from operations stood at Rs 29,014 crore with total EBITDA of Rs 1,430 crore and margins at 4.93%.

In 9MFY26, FMCG segment contributed 28.30% in revenue from operations (excl. inter-segment revenue) and 62.34% in EBITDA.

The Oil palm plantation area reached 1,08,164 lakh hectares as of December 2025.

In Q3FY26, the company generated export revenues of Rs 64.71 crore and on a nine-month basis, the export revenues were at Rs 156 crore. During 9MFY26, the company exported to total of 36 countries.

As a part of brand-building and market visibility initiatives, the advertising and sales promotions formed 2% of quarterly revenue from operations.

FY26 Outlook

The company expects a strong finish to FY26 from a demand standpoint, driven by favorable macro tailwinds which includes GST 2.0 reforms. The company said that this will eventually boost consumption through price cuts in larger packs and grammage additions in smaller packs.

The Edible Oil segment remains unaffected by GST changes, the company filing said.

The company expects urban demand to strengthen in coming quarters, supported by easing inflation and positive impacts from revised direct and indirect taxation measures. Meanwhile, rural demand is poised to sustain growth momentum, fueled by positive Kharif output, lower inflation, and welfare schemes enhancing disposable income.

(Disclaimer: The recommendations, suggestions, views, and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times.)

Nestle said Wednesday it will eliminate artificial colors from its U.S. food and beverages by the middle of 2026.

It’s the latest big food company making that pledge. Last week, Kraft Heinz and General Mills said they would remove artificial dyes from their U.S. products by 2027. General Mills also said it plans to remove artificial dyes from its U.S. cereals and from all foods served in K-12 schools by the middle of 2026.

The move has broad support. About two-thirds of Americans favor restricting or reformulating processed foods to remove ingredients like added sugar or dyes, according to an AP-NORC poll. Both California and West Virginia have recently banned artificial dyes in foods served in schools.

On Sunday, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas signed a bill requiring foods made with artificial dyes or additives to contain a new safety label starting in 2027. The label would say they contain ingredients “not recommended for human consumption” in Australia, Canada, the European Union or the U.K.

The federal government is also stepping up its scrutiny of artificial colors. In January, days before President Trump took office, U.S. regulators banned the dye called Red 3 from the nation’s food supply, nearly 35 years after it was barred from cosmetics because of its potential cancer risk.

In April, Trump’s Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency would take steps to eliminate synthetic dyes by the end of 2026, largely by relying on voluntary efforts from the food industry.

Nestle has pledged to remove artificial dyes before. Early in 2015, the company said it would remove artificial flavors and colors from its products by the end of that year. But the promise didn’t hold.

Nestle said Wednesday it’s been removing synthetic dyes from its products over the last decade, and 90% of its U.S. portfolio doesn’t contain them. Among those that do is Nesquik Banana Strawberry milk, which is made with Red 3.

Nestle said Wednesday it wants to evolve with its U.S. customers’ changing nutritional needs and preferences. “We are always looking for different ways to offer great tasting, compelling choices for our consumers. As their diverse dietary preferences and nutritional needs evolve, we evolve with them,” Nestle’s U.S. CEO Marty Thompson said in a statement.

“Serving and delighting people is at the heart of everything we do and every decision that we make,” he added.  

© 2024 Fortune Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice | Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information
FORTUNE is a trademark of Fortune Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is for the first time setting guidelines for levels of lead in processed baby foods such as jarred fruits and vegetables.

Part of an effort to reduce exposure to a toxic metal that causes developmental and neurological issues in children, the action announced on Monday offers only voluntary — not mandatory — limits for food manufacturers. But the agency can take enforcement action if it finds foods that surpass its recommended limits.

The FDA guidance caps lead levels for children younger than 2 at 10 parts per billion for fruits, most vegetables, grain and meat mixtures, yogurts, custards and puddings, and single-ingredient meats. It sets a limit of 20 parts per billion for single-ingredient root vegetables and for dry infant cereals. 

The directive covers packaged processed foods sold in jars, pouches, tubs or boxes. By contrast, the new limits don’t cover grain-based snacks like puffs and teething biscuits, despite some research indicating the products have higher levels of lead. It also doesn’t limit other metals like cadmium that have been found in baby foods.

“FDA’s actions today are a step forward and will help protect children,” said Thomas Galligan, a scientist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “However, the agency took too long to act and ignored important public input that could have strengthened these standards.”

Between October 2023 and April 2024, more than 560 children fell ill after consuming lead-tainted apple cinnamon puree, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The amount of lead detected in those products were more than 2,000 times higher than the FDA’s maximum allowable limit. 

Exposure to lead in utero, infancy and early childhood can lead to harmful neurological effects like learning and behavior disabilities and lowered IQ. For adults, chronic lead exposure is linked to kidney dysfunction, hypertension and neurocognitive effects.

The Associated Press

contributed to this report.

Avenue Supermart’s stock shows a strong rebound from the support level near 3,400, with immediate resistance at 4,119 (38% Fibonacci retracement) and 4,340 (50%).

The price is above the 20-day EMA, signaling short-term bullish momentum, but below the 50-day and 100-day EMAs, indicating a broader bearish trend. RSI near 70 suggests overbought conditions. Higher volumes support the recovery.

Conditions are not favorable to buy at the current price; holding is recommended until a decisive breakout or better entry point emerges.

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views, and opinions given by experts are their own. These do not represent the views of the Economic Times)

Capital markets regulator Sebi has directed Mishtann Foods to bring back nearly Rs 100 crore, an amount the company allegedly misappropriated through dubious transactions with related parties.

The regulator, in its extensive investigation, found that the company has transferred the fund among promoters, directors, and their relatives under the guise of legitimate trade activities. The deadline for retrieving the money will be within 45 days from the order.

Further, Sebi has barred key individuals and entities linked to the company from trading on the stock market for two years.

The interim order came after an investigation into allegations of fraudulent activities spanning several years. The regulator said Mishtann Foods engaged in circular trading with fictitious buyers and suppliers, many of which were shell entities controlled by the company’s directors and their associates.

“These transactions inflated the company’s financial performance on paper, misleading investors and regulators,” Sebi said in its order.

The investigation also revealed that the company had been routing funds through a web of interconnected entities. For instance, suppliers such as Arihant Corporation and Mishtann Shoppee were found to have non-existent operations but accounted for significant transactions in Mishtann’s financial statements.The company allegedly used these entities to create the illusion of business activity, while funds were being diverted to personal accounts of directors and their relatives.Sebi’s investigation also revealed that the company’s transportation costs for goods were another red flag, where it claimed to incur no transportation expenses, an assertion contradicted by statements from related parties.

The regulator’s probe also found inconsistencies in the company’s inventory records, with substantial discrepancies between declared stock and actual holdings.

Mishtann Foods has been asked to provide a detailed plan for returning the diverted funds. The company’s promoters, directors, and auditors face ongoing scrutiny, with potential criminal proceedings under the Sebi rules.

Organic carrots recall amid E. coli outbreak

Organic carrots and celery sold at Whole Foods Market in five states are being recalled amid a deadly E. coli outbreak that has stricken 39 people in 18 states.

The recall, posted Thursday by the Food and Drug Administration, involves 15-ounce containers of Whole Foods Market-branded organic carrot sticks and organic carrots & celery sticks sold at Whole Foods Market stores in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho and Nevada, according to the announcement by  Sacramento, California-based F&S Fresh Foods.

F&S initiated the recall after being notified by a local supplier, Grimmway Farms, of potential contamination with Shiga toxin-producing E. coli. The notice comes only days after a nationwide recall of multiple brands of whole and baby organic carrots. 

Federal officials are investigating the E. coli outbreak, which has killed one person and led to at least 15 people being hospitalized.

The F&S recall involves carrots and celery sold in plastic clamshells with the letters “GH” followed by three digits ranging from 236 to 284, and best-if-sold-by dates ranging from Sept. 1, 2024, to Oct. 19, 2024. While no longer sold in stores, the produce may still reside in people’s refrigerators or freezers.

The E. coli bacteria can cause serious, sometimes fatal infections in the young, elderly and those with weakened immune systems. 

Kate Gibson

Kate Gibson is a reporter for CBS MoneyWatch in New York, where she covers business and consumer finance.