The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it was open to making red warning labels mandatory on packaged food products high in even one nutrient of concern—sugar, salt or saturated fat—dropping the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) earlier proposal to trigger the warnings only when a product exceeded limits for two or more such nutrients.
The shift came after a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran questioned the rationale for the two-phase approach proposed by the food regulator, which had envisaged warnings initially only for products high in two or more nutrients and extending them to products high in a single nutrient at a later stage.
The bench said it was preparing an order on the issue that would serve the “national interest” and protect public health, particularly that of children. “We are concerned with the health of people, more particularly with growing children and we are very serious about the matter. It is a cause in the national interest and we expect everyone to cooperate,” said the bench.
Deep Dive
What are the proposed features of the red warning labels on packaged foods in India?
Why did the Centre decide to shift from a phased approach to a one-phase implementation for warning labels?
How will the thresholds for triggering red warning labels be determined?
Also Read | Hope we’ll have front-of-pack labels on food items quite soon: FSSAI CEO Rajit Punhani
Additional solicitor general Brijender Chahar, appearing for the Centre and FSSAI, explained that a phased rollout would allow the industry and consumers to adapt, with products high in two nutrients covered first and those exceeding the threshold for even one nutrient brought within the regime later. He clarified that the two-phase approach was only a suggestion and that FSSAI was willing to implement the warnings in a single phase for products high in even one nutrient.
What will the proposed red warning labels look like?
{{/usCountry}}Additional solicitor general Brijender Chahar, appearing for the Centre and FSSAI, explained that a phased rollout would allow the industry and consumers to adapt, with products high in two nutrients covered first and those exceeding the threshold for even one nutrient brought within the regime later. He clarified that the two-phase approach was only a suggestion and that FSSAI was willing to implement the warnings in a single phase for products high in even one nutrient.
What will the proposed red warning labels look like?
{{/usCountry}}The proposed system involves prominent red-coloured, hexagonal warnings on the front of packaged food, carrying declarations such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR” and “HIGH SALT”. FSSAI had proposed the labels after the Supreme Court in August questioned its reluctance to adopt interpretive front-of-pack warnings and warned that it would issue directions if the government failed to act.
The regulator’s August compliance affidavit had proposed that the first phase cover products high in two or more of added saturated fat, added sugar and salt, based on thresholds under the 2024 Dietary Guidelines for Indians issued by the ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition. The second phase was to cover products high in any one of the nutrients.
The court on Thursday also sought clarity on the precise thresholds that would trigger the warning. “Have you laid down any guidelines on the limits of sugar, or fat, or potassium to put that logo of ‘high in fat’ or ‘high in sugar’ or ‘high in salt’?” asked the bench.
Also Read | Explainer-Raids, shutdowns, warning labels - India's unprecedented food safety push
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for a food processors’ association, said the industry had already made a representation to FSSAI on the threshold methodology, particularly whether the calculation should be based on 100 grams of a product or its serving size.
The industry has been pressing for a per-serving benchmark, while FSSAI’s proposal is based on thresholds under the ICMR-NIN guidelines.
Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, making submissions on behalf of an intervenor, sought a sharper distinction between ultra-processed foods and nutritious foods and cited packaged snacks such as Kurkure in his arguments. “Packaged product like Kurkure is being compared to eggs or similar food,” he said.
“Who has compared eggs with Kurkure? You have insulted eggs by equating them with Kurkure,” retorted the bench.
The court’s intervention follows its criticism last month of the Centre and FSSAI for failing to move decisively on front-of-pack labelling. On August 13, the bench had questioned whether the regulator was succumbing to pressure from food manufacturers and told the government that if it failed to act, the court would pass further directions.
The PIL, filed by 3S and Our Health Society, seeks mandatory front-of-pack warnings on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fats. FSSAI is a statutory authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, tasked with laying down science-based food standards and ensuring the availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption.
The court deferred further hearing to September 28, saying it would consider FSSAI’s latest compliance affidavit and submissions on the proposed thresholds and labelling framework before passing its order.
What FSSAI’s proposed warning labels will say
This compliance affidavit envisaged a red-coloured hexagonal warning on the front of food packages where the product is high in any two or more of the specified nutrients of concern—added fat, added sugar and salt. The thresholds would be those prescribed under the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, issued by the ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition.
The proposed warning would carry declarations such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR” and “HIGH SALT”, depending on the nutrients crossing the prescribed thresholds. For products meeting two criteria, the label would display the corresponding two warnings, such as “HIGH FAT HIGH SALT” or “HIGH FAT HIGH SUGAR”. A separate “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE” warning has also been proposed for specified sweetened drinks.
The FSSAI said the proposal was prepared to provide consumers with “simple, prominent and easily comprehensible” information about food products high in specified nutrients of concern. The regulator said the approach was intended to facilitate informed food choices, particularly for children and other vulnerable sections of the population. The proposed labels would have to be displayed in a font size one point larger than the font used in the nutritional information table on the back of the pack, according to the affidavit.