Can Chyawanprash fight air pollution? FoodPharmer questions Dabur’s big claim

New Delhi: As air pollution in Delhi reaches hazardous levels, Dabur’s new campaign for its Chyawanprash has attracted attention and scrutiny for claiming the product protects lungs from PM 2.5. The ad, displayed across Delhi Metro, states the product is “scientifically tested to help protect your lungs from PM 2.5.”

The campaign’s visuals depict schoolchildren moving through dense smog, each carrying a backpack resembling a cigarette warning pack. Messages on the backpacks read, “Smogging is injurious” and “Say no to smogging.” 

While the creative has been described as clever and eye-catching, the health claim has prompted questions over its scientific basis.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Revant Himatsingka (@foodpharmer)

FoodPharmer, the online persona of Revant Himatsingka, has publicly challenged the assertion. Revant, known for fact-checking health and food-related advertising, previously questioned Dabur’s marketing of Real Juice, highlighting high sugar content despite the brand’s “fruit” positioning. That interaction led to Dabur issuing a legal notice, which drew national attention.

Responding to the Chyawanprash campaign, Revant released a new video with his characteristic mix of sarcasm and analysis.

He critiqued the “scientifically tested” claim and raised questions about the product’s sugar content, which he said contrasts with its positioning as a lung protector. In his video, he concluded with a direct challenge to the company: “Don’t send me a legal notice; I challenge you to a public debate instead.”

The central claim on Dabur’s poster reads: “Scientifically tested to help protect your lungs from PM 2.5.” While Chyawanprash does include herbs traditionally associated with supporting immunity, the statement that it can protect lungs from PM 2.5 is a very specific assertion. 

PM 2.5 refers to fine particulate matter in air pollution, tiny particles capable of penetrating deep into the lungs and entering the bloodstream.

Revant further argued that the claim is built on a study conducted on mice, making it unsuitable for generalisation to humans. He also pointed out that three of the study’s four authors are Dabur employees, while the fourth works with the Dabur Research Foundation, calling it a conflict of interest that raises concerns about potential bias. 

Stating that the advertisement risks misleading the public into believing the product can protect them from air pollution, he challenged the company to a public debate moderated by medical experts.