The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on Thursday indicated that it may move away from its proposed two-stage approach to front-of-pack warning labels and instead cover packaged foods that are high in even one nutrient of concern, such as sugar, salt or fat. The shift came after the Supreme Court questioned the regulator's earlier proposal to put warning labels on products only when they crossed the prescribed limits for two or more nutrients.
A bench of justice JB Pardiwala and justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking mandatory front-of-pack warnings on packaged foods containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fats.
During the hearing, the bench sought clarity on why a product would need to be high in more than one nutrient before a warning was triggered. In response, additional solicitor general (ASG) Brijender Chahar, appearing for the Union government and FSSAI, said the regulator could consider introducing the warnings in a single phase instead of rolling them out in two stages.
Under FSSAI's earlier proposal, products high in two or more specified nutrients would have been covered in the first phase, while the second phase would have extended the requirement to products high in any one of the nutrients.
The regulator's latest position would effectively bring the broader category of products within the warning regime from the outset, subject to the court's directions and the final regulatory framework.
The apex court also questioned FSSAI about how it intended to determine whether a packaged food contained excessive levels of sugar, salt, or fat.
The regulator told the Court that it is relying on thresholds prescribed in the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, issued by the ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition.
The issue of thresholds, however, remains contentious. Senior counsel Maninder Singh, appearing for a food processors' association, pointed to the proposed use of both a 100gm basis and serving-size calculations. He said the association had made a representation to FSSAI on the issue, referring to ICMR guidelines and international approaches to nutrition labelling.
The dispute over the threshold is significant because the same product could yield different outcomes depending on whether its nutrient content is assessed by weight or by the quantity typically consumed per serving.
The Court is expected to seek further information from the regulator and other parties before deciding the next course of action.
The hearing also saw submissions on whether all packaged foods should be treated the same for the purposes of front-of-pack warnings.
Senior counsel Devadatt Kamat argued that ultra-processed foods should not be placed in the same category as nutritious foods merely because both are sold in packaged form. He cited snacks such as Kurkure and salted cashews to illustrate the distinction.
Mr Kamat urged the Court to consider stronger warnings for ultra-processed foods. He also suggested that red need not necessarily be the warning colour, pointing out that red and green are already widely associated in India with non-vegetarian and vegetarian food markings.
The suggestion was noted by the bench.
Advocate Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi, representing petitioner 3S and Our Health Society, also drew the Court's attention to concerns raised in the petitioner's rejoinder about gaps in FSSAI's proposed framework.
The Supreme Court made clear that it is examining the issue primarily from the standpoint of public health and consumer awareness rather than seeking to ban particular foods.
Justice Pardiwala said the court had undertaken its own study of the issue and would issue an order seeking further information from the parties.
The Bench emphasised that the matter had to be treated seriously because of its potential impact on public health, particularly among children.
"We are concerned with the health of people, more particularly growing children. We have taken it up very seriously," justice Pardiwala said, while calling for cooperation from all stakeholders in what the court described as a matter of national interest.
The Court indicated that the matter would be taken up again on September 28 after FSSAI and the petitioner respond to its directions.
The proceedings arise from a 2024 petition filed by 3S and Our Health Society seeking mandatory warning labels on packaged foods high in sugar, salt, and saturated fats.
The petition was disposed of in April 2025 after FSSAI undertook to work on amendments to its labelling regulations. When the matter returned to the Supreme Court in February 2026, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with the progress made by the regulator.
The Court had said the exercise had not produced a 'positive or good result' and linked the issue to the constitutional right to health under Article 21.
In an unusual step, the Court's written order at the time also reproduced a visual mock-up showing prominent warnings for products high in sugar, sodium and saturated fats, underlining its concern over the effectiveness of existing consumer information.
The Court had earlier made clear that its objective was not to prohibit specific food products but to ensure that consumers, especially children and their parents, had clear information about what they were buying and consuming.
FSSAI's latest willingness to consider a single-phase warning system covering products high in any one nutrient marks a significant development in the long-running dispute over how prominently packaged food should disclose potential health risks.
You may also want to read...
