New Delhi [India], September 11 (ANI): The Supreme Court has asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to specify a reasonable and fixed timeline for implementing its proposed front-of-pack warning label (FoPL) regime for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and fat, and to respond whether the regime should be made mandatory from the get-go.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran has also sought the basis for FSSAI’s proposal to introduce the warning labels in two phases, as proposed by the food safety regulator in its earlier response.
has come up with a two-phased FoPL regime, initially for products high in two or more specified nutrients and later for products high in any one such nutrient. The Court has directed FSSAI to file its response by way of an affidavit and listed the matter for September 28.
The Court, referring to the draft 2022 guidelines, said it wanted FSSAI to specifically respond to the petitioner’s suggestion that the final FoPL regime should be made mandatory “from the get-go.”
“We would like the FSSAI to respond specifically to the suggestion of the petitioner that the final FoPL regime must be made mandatory from the get-go. If not, we would like to know what is a reasonable period after which they intend to make its compliance mandatory”, the court said.
The Court has also asked FSSAI to explain the timeline it envisages for the two phases currently proposed.
“What is a reasonable and fixed timeline that the FSSAI envisages for the implementation of the two phases currently proposed?”, it has asked.
The FSSAI’s proposal, placed before the Court, provides for a prominent red-coloured hexagonal warning label on products high in specified nutrients. The label would indicate warnings such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SALT” and “HIGH SUGAR”, as well as “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE”, as applicable. The proposed warning is to be displayed in a font size one point larger than the font used for the nutrition information on the back of the pack.
Under the proposal, single-ingredient food products and food products inherently rich in fat, sugar or salt — such as ghee, edible oil, salt, sugar, jaggery and honey — are proposed to be exempted, subject to applicable food safety and labelling requirements.
FSSAI has proposed a phased implementation to provide industry adequate time for reformulation. Phase I would cover products high in two or more specified nutrients — added fat, added sugar and salt — and specified sweetened beverages. Phase II would extend the warning to products high in any one of these nutrients.
The Supreme Court has now sought the basis for this classification.
“What is the basis for the FSSAI to suggest the inclusion of food products high in ‘two or more’ nutrients-of-concern and specified sweetened beverages in Phase I, and the inclusion of food products high in ‘any one’ nutrient-of-concern in Phase II respectively?”, it asked.
The Court has also asked FSSAI to specify which sweetened beverages would fall within Phase I and what threshold levels of the relevant nutrients would apply to them. sci-get-pdf.pdf
The Court has sought answers on how the thresholds for nutrients of concern would be calculated, including whether differences between food categories and between “moderately processed with no additives” and “excessively processed with additives” food groups would be taken into account.
It has also asked whether the thresholds for fat and sugar would be calculated on the basis of “Total” Sugar and “Saturated Fat”, and how trans-fat levels would be factored into the calculation of fat content.
The Bench has questioned the design of the proposed warning label, including the choice of red colour, the dimensions of the proposed hexagon, its font size and its placement on the package.
The Court has also questioned the absence of separate pictorial representations for each nutrient of concern and asked how the proposed FoPL would cater to consumers with different levels of literacy and comprehension.
“Without the presence of distinct pictorial representations for each nutrient-of-concern in the FoPL, how does the FSSAI propose to cater to the diverse levels of comprehension, literacy, and reading capability of the consuming population?” it asked.
It has further asked why FSSAI proposed a “combined/composite/singular hexagon” for two or more nutrients instead of separate hexagons for each nutrient.
The Court has also sought FSSAI’s response on whether implementation of FoPL could lead to increased use of artificial preservatives and emulsifiers and whether a voluntary compliance period would be allowed after the final regulations making FoPL mandatory are notified. sci-get-pdf.pdf
The Bench has separately sought the Union government’s response on nutritional literacy in schools and how information on packaged food, nutritional information and FoPL would be incorporated through curriculum, initiatives and workshops.
The Court said children are at “acute risk of developing unhealthy eating behaviours” and referred to its earlier observations on children’s exposure to packaged food products.
It noted that the UNICEF Child Nutrition Report 2025 recorded that the percentage of overweight school-age children and adolescents aged 5-19 years increased from 2% to 10% between 2000 and 2022. It also noted that while around 80% of food and beverages available within schools are freshly cooked meals, nearly 80% of what is available in the vicinity of schools are packaged snacks.
The Court has directed FSSAI to file its affidavit within 10 days and said it should be shared with the petitioner for a response before the next hearing.
The matter will now be heard on September 28 and has been directed to be listed on top of the Board.
The case before the Supreme Court arose after 3S and Our Health Society filed a plea concerning front-of-pack labelling of packaged foods. The Court has repeatedly emphasised that the issue concerns public health, particularly the health of growing children. (ANI)
SC seeks FSSAI response on when front-of-pack warnings should become mandatory
