Join
Shorts
The Supreme Court has questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over its proposed rules for warning labels on packaged foods containing high levels of sugar, salt and fat. The court has sought greater clarity on the scientific basis of the proposed nutrient thresholds, the phased implementation of front-of-pack labelling and the design of warning labels intended to help consumers make healthier food choices.
The case concerns the implementation of Front-of-Package Labelling (FoPL), a system under which packaged food products would carry prominent warnings about potentially harmful levels of nutrients associated with obesity, diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. The court has stressed that the issue is directly connected with public health, particularly the health of children and young consumers.
Court Seeks Clarity on FSSAI’s Two-Phase Proposal
In an affidavit submitted before the Supreme Court, FSSAI proposed introducing red-coloured hexagonal warning labels on the front of packaged food products. Under the proposed first phase, warnings would apply to products high in at least two of the specified nutrients, namely added fat, added sugar and salt, along with specified highly sweetened beverages.
The second phase would extend the warning requirement to products exceeding the prescribed threshold for even one of these nutrients. The Supreme Court has questioned the basis for separating the two phases and asked why products containing high levels of only one harmful nutrient should initially be excluded from the warning system.
The court has also sought a clear timeline for implementing both phases, observing that an indefinite or ambiguous rollout could weaken the purpose of the regulation. FSSAI has been given time to respond to the court’s questions.
Debate Over High Sugar, Salt and Fat Thresholds
The proposed warning system is based on thresholds mentioned in the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, prepared by the Indian Council of Medical Research and the National Institute of Nutrition.
According to the material placed before the court, the proposed thresholds for solid foods include approximately 3 grams of sugar and 4.2 grams of fat per 100 grams, along with 625 milligrams of salt. For liquid foods and beverages, the proposed limits include approximately 2 grams of sugar, 1.5 grams of fat and 175 milligrams of salt per 100 millilitres.
These thresholds have become a major point of disagreement between consumer health groups and the packaged food industry. Health advocates argue that excessive sugar, salt and saturated fat can independently contribute to serious health problems and should therefore trigger warnings individually.
The food industry, however, has challenged the proposed standards, arguing that they are stricter than several international systems and could unfairly affect common food products. Industry representatives have also pushed for labelling based on serving sizes rather than standard quantities of 100 grams or 100 millilitres.
Supreme Court Rejects Per-Serving Argument
The packaged food industry has argued that consumers generally eat products according to serving sizes and that warning labels should therefore be calculated on a per-serving basis. The Supreme Court has rejected this argument at the present stage, describing the serving-size debate as a distraction from the larger public health issue.
The court’s concern is that manufacturers could potentially define smaller serving sizes to avoid crossing warning thresholds. A standard measurement based on 100 grams or 100 millilitres is considered easier for consumers and regulators to compare across products.
The judges have emphasised that food labelling must provide meaningful information rather than merely satisfy technical compliance requirements.
Red Hexagon Warning Labels Under Examination
FSSAI has proposed a red hexagonal symbol carrying words such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR” and “HIGH SALT”. The warning would be displayed prominently on the front of the package.
The Supreme Court has raised questions about the shape, size, colour, placement and visibility of the proposed label. It has also questioned whether a warning consisting only of words would be sufficiently understandable across India’s diverse population.
The court noted that India has significant differences in literacy levels, languages and consumer awareness. It suggested that pictorial representations, combined with words, may make the warnings easier to understand.
The judges also pointed out that food purchases are increasingly being made through e-commerce and quick-commerce platforms. Therefore, the labelling system should remain effective not only on physical packages in stores but also when consumers view products digitally.
Questions Over Saturated and Trans Fats
Another important issue concerns the type of fat that should be identified on warning labels. Earlier discussions involving experts and stakeholders had considered saturated fat as the principal nutrient of concern, in line with international food-labelling practices.
However, the court has asked FSSAI to clarify whether its current proposal has changed from that position. It has also raised the question of whether trans fat should be separately included in the front-of-pack warning system.
The distinction matters because saturated and trans fats have different nutritional and health implications. Clear definitions would be necessary to prevent confusion among manufacturers, regulators and consumers.
Court Highlights Right to Health
The Supreme Court has linked the issue of food labelling with the constitutional right to health under Article 21. It has also referred to Article 47 of the Constitution, which directs the State to improve public health as a primary duty.
In its earlier observations, the court noted that high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt foods, as well as ultra-processed foods, have a scientifically established relationship with obesity, diabetes, heart disease and hypertension.
The judges have said that front-of-pack warnings can help consumers make informed decisions while also encouraging manufacturers to reformulate products with healthier ingredients.
Food Industry and Health Advocates Take Opposing Positions
The proposed regulations have divided stakeholders. Food companies argue that strict thresholds could increase compliance costs, affect product formulations and damage the reputation of established brands.
Consumer organisations and public health experts, meanwhile, believe that clear warning labels are necessary because many consumers do not read detailed nutrition tables printed on the back of food packets.
Health advocates have also criticised the two-phase approach, arguing that a product high in one harmful nutrient should not be allowed to avoid a warning merely because it does not exceed the limits for two other nutrients. They have urged the government to adopt a stronger and more comprehensive system from the beginning.
Read more like this :
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court’s intervention is expected to push FSSAI towards greater scientific and administrative clarity before the warning-label rules are formally notified.
The authority will need to explain the basis of its nutrient thresholds, justify the phased rollout, clarify the treatment of saturated and trans fats, and provide detailed specifications for the proposed labels.
The debate is likely to influence India’s wider food-safety policy at a time when concerns over processed foods, misleading nutritional claims and rising lifestyle-related diseases are increasing.
The case could ultimately determine how packaged food is marketed and sold in India, while setting an important precedent for balancing commercial interests with the government’s responsibility to protect public health.
