Food grade is a compliance claim, not a purity claim
"Food grade" does not mean purer. It means the material has been tested against the limits set by a named compendium — the Food Chemicals Codex (FCC), an Indian Pharmacopoeia (IP) monograph, a USP/NF monograph, or an Indian Standard (IS) — and that the results are on the Certificate of Analysis. The difference from technical grade lies in what is tested for, not only in assay. A technical batch can assay higher than a food batch and still be unusable, because the tests that matter for food were never run.
That distinction is the whole subject of this guide. If you buy for an FSSAI-licensed plant, the questions your QA team will ask are: which monograph, which edition, which tests, and who signed. This is the food-industry companion to our IP vs BP vs USP pharmacopoeial grade guide.
What is FCC grade?
FCC grade means the material conforms to the monograph for that substance in the Food Chemicals Codex, a compendium of standards for food ingredients published by the United States Pharmacopeial Convention (USP). FCC is a compendium of quality standards, not a regulation. It carries force only where a regulator or a contract references it — and in Indian practice buyers reference it constantly, because it is the most widely recognised written specification for food ingredients that are not covered by a pharmacopoeial monograph.
An FCC monograph typically controls:
- Identity — the substance is what the label says it is, confirmed by a specified test.
- Assay — a defined range, not a floor. Food monographs frequently specify a band rather than a floor: citric acid is assayed to 99.5–100.5% under the harmonised BP/USP/FCC monograph.
- Heavy metals and arsenic — limit tests that technical specifications often omit entirely.
- Residue on ignition / sulphated ash, water, and loss on drying.
- Substance-specific impurity tests — the ones that actually protect the consumer. These are the tests that distinguish a food monograph from a technical specification.
Numeric limits change between editions. Take them from the edition your QA system cites, not from a supplier summary or a search result.
The grade ladder — product by product
This table is the practical core of the page. For each material in our catalogue that lands on a food-adjacent shelf, it sets out what the food or pharmacopoeial monograph adds beyond a plain commercial specification, which written standard is being referenced, and — kept deliberately in its own column — the additive identity number. The number is not the standard. Keeping them apart on the page is the same discipline you should apply on a purchase order.
| Product | CAS | What the food or pharmacopoeial monograph adds | Standard referenced | Additive number | Where the grade matters |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hexane (Food Grade) | 110-54-3 | Benzene, total aromatics and non-volatile residue limits, lead and sulphur limits, and a tight boiling cut | IS 3470 (food-grade hexane) | — | Edible-oil and oilseed solvent extraction; spice and nutraceutical extraction; pharmaceutical extraction duty |
| Ethyl Acetate | 141-78-6 | No food grade currently on our shelf — we stock commercial/industrial grade at 99.80% min purity. Confirm grade acceptability with us before ordering for a food duty | Manufacturer specification, not a food monograph | — | Gravure and flexible-packaging inks, adhesives, NC lacquers, pharmaceutical extraction |
| Glycerine | 56-81-5 | Limit test for diethylene glycol and ethylene glycol, heavy metals, chlorinated compounds, residue on ignition; assay 98.0–101.0% on the anhydrous basis | IP 2022 Glycerin monograph | — | Humectant in food, oral care and pharmaceutical syrups |
| Propylene Glycol (PG) | 57-55-6 | Ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol limits, residue on ignition, acidity; assay not less than 99.5% w/v by GLC | IP / USP / BP / EP monograph | INS 1520 (E1520) | Humectant and carrier in pharma, cosmetics and food formulation |
| Sorbitol | 50-70-4 | Identity, ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol limits, reducing sugars, heavy metals; assay 68.0–72.0% on the anhydrous substance, D-glucitol 91.0–99.0% anhydrous basis | IP — Sorbitol Solution 70% (Non-Crystallizing) | — | Syrups, liquid orals, confectionery, oral-care humectant |
| Citric Acid Monohydrate | 5949-29-1 | Assay range, oxalate, sulphate, heavy metals, readily carbonisable substances | Food grade (FCC); Pharma (IP/BP/USP) available to order | INS 330 (E330) | Acidulant and buffer in food and beverage |
| Citric Acid Anhydrous | 77-92-9 | Assay 99.5–100.5%, plus the impurity suite above | Harmonised BP/USP/FCC monograph | INS 330 (E330) | Dry blends where the water-free form is specified |
| Sodium Benzoate | 532-32-1 | Identity, assay 99.0–101.0% on the dried basis by HPLC, chlorinated compounds, heavy metals, alkalinity | IP 2022 (Amendment 2024) | INS 211 (E211) | Preservative in beverages, sauces and liquid orals |
| Mono Sodium Glutamate (MSG) | 6106-04-3 | Identity, assay 99.0% min on the dried basis, pH 6.7–7.2 on a 5% solution, heavy metals | Food grade against FSSAI-compliant supply — confirm the monograph cited on the producing plant's CoA | INS 621 (E621) | Savoury seasoning and processed-food formulation |
| Xanthan Gum | 11138-66-2 | Identity, loss on drying, ash, isopropanol residue, heavy metals, microbiological limits | FCC food grade (grade-specific — verify assay on the producing mill's CoA) | INS 415 (E 415) | Thickener and stabiliser in food, beverage and personal care |
| Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) | 67-63-0 | Pharmacopoeial identity, residue on evaporation and acidity where IP/BP/USP is specified; assay 99.7% min by GC | IP / BP / USP monograph | — | Processing aid, extraction and equipment sanitation in food and pharma plants |
Three rows deserve reading twice. Hexane, because the food-grade specification is defined by what is absent: the grade we supply against IS 3470 is specified at benzene max. 0.050 %V, aromatics max. 0.070 %V and non-volatile residue max. 0.0005 g/100 mL, on a cut where a minimum 95.0 %V distils between 64 and 70 °C. A general-purpose hexane fraction has none of those constraints written into it. Ethyl acetate, because it is the honest counter-example: it is a workhorse solvent we stock in volume, but not to a food monograph, and no amount of buyer pressure turns a commercial specification into one. And glycerine, for the reason below.
Why the glycerine DEG limit matters more than the assay
Glycerine is the single most consequential food and pharma grade decision in this catalogue, and the reason is diethylene glycol (DEG). DEG and glycerine look and behave similarly in a syrup, and DEG is cheaper. Adulteration of glycerine with DEG has caused mass fatal poisoning incidents in several countries over the past decades, which is why the World Health Organization has repeatedly issued alerts on contaminated glycerine and propylene glycol in the supply chain.
Every compendial glycerine monograph — IP, USP and FCC — responds to this with a specific limit test for diethylene glycol and ethylene glycol. That test is the point. A technical-grade Certificate of Analysis quoting assay, colour and specific gravity discharges none of the obligation, because a DEG-adulterated batch can pass all three. The material we stock is IP grade to the Indian Pharmacopoeia 2022 Glycerin monograph, assay 98.0–101.0% on the anhydrous basis. Take the numeric DEG limit itself from the current monograph text your QA holds, and insist the result appears on the batch CoA as a number, not as the word "complies".
The same logic applies to sorbitol and propylene glycol, both of which carry glycol limit tests for the same reason.
FCC vs IP vs USP vs E-number — four different things
These are routinely treated as interchangeable on Indian purchase orders. They are not.
| Designation | Issuing body | What it governs | Position in India |
|---|---|---|---|
| FCC | USP (Food Chemicals Codex) | Identity, assay and impurity limits for food ingredients | Not statutory, but the most commonly referenced written food-ingredient specification in trade contracts and CoAs |
| IP | Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission | Pharmaceutical quality standards, legally recognised under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 | Statutory for pharmaceutical use; frequently specified for food-adjacent excipients because the monograph is tighter |
| USP / NF | USP Convention | Drug substances (USP) and excipients (NF) | Accepted for pharma and export supply chains; not a food designation |
| E-number | European Union | An identity code for an additive permitted in the EU — E330, E211, E 415 | Not a purity grade and not an Indian legal designation. It identifies the substance, not the quality of the batch |
| INS number | Codex Alimentarius | The international numbering system for food additives, used by FSSAI in Indian additive listings and labelling | INS 330, INS 211, INS 415 — the numbers usually match the E-number, but INS is the reference an Indian label uses |
| IS | Bureau of Indian Standards | Indian Standard specifications, e.g. IS 3470 for food-grade hexane | The correct reference where an Indian Standard exists for the material |
The practical India reading: FSSAI operates its own permitted-additive framework under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Food Products Standards and Food Additives Regulations, 2011, using INS numbering. So "E330" on a foreign CoA tells your QA team the substance is citric acid. It tells them nothing about whether the batch meets the FCC assay range or the heavy-metals limit. Ask for the monograph, not the number.
What a food-grade CoA must show — and what to reject a batch on
A food-grade CoA that a QA head can sign against carries six things. Anything less and the grade is a label on a drum.
| The CoA must show | Reject the batch if |
|---|---|
| The monograph named and the edition dated (e.g. IP 2022, FCC, IS 3470) | The CoA says only "food grade", "FFG" or "conforms to standard specification" |
| Batch number and date of manufacture | Batch number missing, or it does not match the drum or bag marking |
| Assay reported as a number, inside the monograph range | Assay reported as "complies" with no figure, or reported outside the range |
| Heavy metals and arsenic results | The monograph specifies them and the CoA is silent |
| Substance-specific impurity tests — the DEG/EG limit for glycerine, sorbitol and PG; benzene and aromatics for hexane; microbiological limits for hydrocolloids | The monograph is named but its characteristic tests were not run — the most common failure we see |
| Name and address of the manufacturing site, plus an authorised signature | The CoA is unsigned, or the CoA date precedes the manufacturing date |
Food grade vs technical grade — the cost question
Buyers ask why the food grade costs more when the molecule is identical. It is not a different molecule, and the price gap is not margin. It reflects three real costs: the testing burden (each additional limit test is instrument time and an analyst), segregated handling (dedicated storage, dedicated pumps and lines, no shared transfer equipment with technical stock), and packaging integrity (new liners and drums rather than reconditioned ones). Where a monograph adds microbiological limits, add sampling and incubation time to the list.
The corollary matters more than the cost: buying food grade and then decanting it through a technical-service line destroys the thing you paid for. If the material enters food, the chain of custody has to be food grade end to end.
Packaging and traceability for food-grade material
Under the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging) Regulations, 2018, packaging used for food must be fit for purpose against the applicable Indian Standards — which puts liner integrity and container history inside the compliance boundary, not outside it. In practice that means: new HDPE-lined bags rather than reused sacks, dedicated drums rather than reconditioned drums that previously held a technical solvent, and intact tamper-evident seals on arrival.
Traceability is the other half. We buy direct from producing plants, imported and domestic, which means the batch number on the drum ties back to the producing plant's own CoA rather than to a repacker's declaration. That is a supply-chain capability, not a certification — and it is what lets a food buyer answer an auditor's question about where a specific batch came from. Supreme Petro Chemicals imports and distributes; we do not manufacture, and the CoA that matters is always the producing plant's.
FAQ
Is food-grade hexane the same as technical hexane?
No. Both are commercial hexane fractions with n-hexane (CAS 110-54-3) as the principal component, but the food grade is specified against IS 3470 with limits on benzene (max. 0.050 %V), total aromatics (max. 0.070 %V) and non-volatile residue (max. 0.0005 g/100 mL). A technical hexane carries no such constraints and must not be used for edible-oil extraction.
What does FCC grade mean?
FCC grade means the material meets its monograph in the Food Chemicals Codex, the food-ingredient standards compendium published by the United States Pharmacopeial Convention. The monograph fixes identity, an assay range and impurity limits including heavy metals. FCC is a specification standard, not a regulation — it binds you when your contract or your regulator references it.
Is propylene glycol safe in food?
Propylene glycol is listed as INS 1520. In the EU it is authorised as E1520 only as a carrier and solvent for additives, flavourings and enzymes; permitted uses elsewhere differ, so check the category and limit under the framework you are supplying into. Safety also depends on the grade: pharmacopoeial or food-grade PG carries limit tests for ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol. Industrial-grade PG carrying no such tests is not food-appropriate.
What is the difference between IP grade and FCC grade?
IP is the Indian Pharmacopoeia, a legally recognised pharmaceutical standard under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. FCC is a food-ingredient standard published by USP. They test overlapping but different parameters. IP grade is generally the tighter specification, which is why food formulators often accept it — but confirm acceptance with your QA team rather than assuming one substitutes for the other.
Does an E-number mean the same as a food grade?
No. An E-number is an EU identity code for a permitted additive — E330 is citric acid, E211 is sodium benzoate, E 415 is xanthan gum. It identifies the substance and says nothing about batch purity. Indian labelling uses the equivalent Codex INS numbers under the FSSAI framework. Always specify the monograph alongside the number.
Specifying a food grade with us
State the material, the CAS number, the monograph and edition you need cited on the CoA, the packaging, and the delivery location. We will tell you plainly whether the grade you need is on the shelf or has to be indented, and which tests the producing plant's CoA actually carries — before you raise the order. Contact Sanketh on WhatsApp +91 86087 80096, email admin@supremepetrochemicals.com, or use the contact page. We supply from Chennai across South India.