Questioning why the regulator needed another year for voluntary compliance when the issue directly concerns public health, the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday questioned the food safety and standards authority of India (FSSAI) over the lengthy timeline proposed for introducing front-of-pack warning labels on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and fat. The apex court reserved its judgement.
A bench of justice JB Pardiwala and justice K Vinod Chandran asked FSSAI, “Why voluntary compliance for a year? Why do you need so much time? Why do you want to start afresh with the exercise of hearing and calling for objections? You started in 2022. What did you do in the last four years?”
The SC said it appreciated the steps taken by the regulator so far, but stressed that much more needed to be done if the exercise was to have a meaningful impact.
“We are undertaking this entire exercise for the good of the nation and for the good of the citizens,” the bench said, adding that it expected the authority to accept and implement the court’s eventual directions in their 'true spirit'.
The proceedings form part of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by public charitable trust 3S and Our Health Society, which has sought mandatory front-of-pack labelling on packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, sodium and saturated fat. The petition has linked the demand to growing concerns over diabetes, obesity and other non-communicable diseases in India.
FSSAI Seeks 4 Months, Followed by 365-day Voluntary Period
Under its latest proposal, FSSAI has moved towards a single-phase system for front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FoPL), replacing its earlier proposal for a phased rollout based on the number of nutrients of concern present in a product. The regulator now proposes issuing warnings when a product exceeds the prescribed threshold for any specified nutrient.
The proposed label would be a red hexagon set against a white square background on the front of the package. It would identify the nutrient (s) that cross the prescribed threshold.
FSSAI told the SC that it would need around four months to prepare and finalise the draft amendment regulations. Once prepared, the draft would be made public for 60 days to solicit stakeholder comments through domestic consultation and the World Trade Organisation platform.
After the regulations are notified, food business operators will have another 365 days for voluntary implementation, according to the proposal. FSSAI has said the extended period is intended to give companies time to use up packaging material already printed in bulk and avoid commercial hardship.
It was this timeline that came under particular scrutiny from the apex court. The SC questioned why a fresh consultation exercise was necessary when the issue had already been under consideration for several years.
The counsel for FSSAI responded that the exercise initiated in 2022 related to the Indian Nutrition Rating, or INR star-rating system and that the methodology being considered now was fundamentally different.
Court Focuses on Public Health
The SC has been pushing FSSAI to move beyond a purely procedural approach to front-of-pack labelling, with the bench repeatedly linking the issue to consumers' right to make informed dietary choices.
Earlier proceedings had seen the court question the regulator over the proposed thresholds for nutrients of concern and whether warnings should be triggered only when a product was high in two or more nutrients or when it crossed the threshold for any one of them.
FSSAI has now proposed the latter approach. Under the latest framework, the proposed warning would be based on nutrient content rather than the degree to which a food has been processed. The regulator has also proposed using thresholds drawn from the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, issued by the ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition.
The SC had earlier sought clarification on the meaning of 'high' in relation to sugar, salt, sodium and fat, as well as details of the proposed design and placement of the warning label. The 10th September hearing had also raised questions about the proposed two-phase approach and whether products high in any one nutrient should carry a warning.
Added Sugar Vs Total Sugar
The bench also examined the distinction between added sugar and naturally occurring sugar. FSSAI has proposed focusing on added sugar rather than treating all sugar in a product in the same manner. The regulator has argued that naturally occurring sugars, such as those found in milk and fruits, are present alongside other nutrients and therefore need to be distinguished from sugars added during processing or preparation.
The proposed criteria would also distinguish between solid foods and beverages.
The court heard arguments on whether these thresholds would provide consumers with a meaningful indication of the nutritional risks associated with a product.
Questions over ‘Ultra-Processed Food’
Another issue raised during the hearing was the absence of a settled definition of 'ultra-processed food'.
The issue assumes significance because the proposed warning system is based primarily on nutrient composition rather than the degree of processing. FSSAI has indicated that the level of processing itself would not determine whether a product receives a front-of-pack warning.
The regulator has also told the court that food additives such as preservatives and emulsifiers are already governed by separate regulations and that the proposed FoPL system would not, by itself, require an increase in their use.
The bench also heard arguments over the proposed per-serving criteria and their compatibility with international approaches.
Senior counsel Maninder Singh referred to practices in countries including US, UK and Canada while arguing that the proposed Indian criteria were consistent with international standards.
The Court, however, cautioned against treating international standards as the sole answer, noting that other countries were themselves grappling with similar questions.
The bench examined how a per-serving system would work in practical situations, including products sold in very small quantities. The discussion included examples such as a 5gm (gram) pickle sachet and whether serving-size criteria could produce a meaningful warning for consumers.
The Court also considered the practical problem of packaged food already manufactured and lying in warehouses, shops and retail outlets when the new rules come into force.
One suggestion before the apex court was that manufacturers could affix stickers carrying the required warning labels to existing stock rather than allowing already manufactured products to remain outside the new regime.
The bench also questioned how such a system could work once products had already moved from manufacturers to retailers.
The issue is significant because FSSAI has cited the need to avoid commercial hardship arising from packaging material already printed in bulk as one of the reasons for proposing a lengthy voluntary implementation period.
The SC has also expanded the proceedings beyond the label itself, asking how consumers — particularly children — would be taught to understand nutritional information.
The court had previously sought details from the Union government on how schools could incorporate nutrition literacy through curricula, workshops and other programmes, particularly given children's vulnerability to impulse-driven or uninformed food choices.
FSSAI has referred to initiatives such as its eat right school programme and campaigns focused on obesity prevention. It has also proposed working with the department of school education and literacy and the CBSE to promote nutrition education.
The petition by 3S and Our Health Society has argued that the growing consumption of highly processed and nutritionally poor packaged foods is contributing to a wider public health problem.
The petitioner has drawn the Court's attention to the rising burden of diabetes, obesity, hypertension and cardiovascular disease and has argued that consumers often struggle to interpret conventional nutrition panels on the back of food packages.
Front-of-pack warnings, the petitioner has contended, would give consumers a simpler and more visible indication of products containing high levels of nutrients associated with health risks.
The SC had earlier expressed concern that the regulatory exercise undertaken by FSSAI had not produced sufficient progress and directed the authority to consider a more prominent warning system. The court subsequently sought detailed answers on the proposed design, nutrient thresholds, implementation timeline and other aspects of the framework.
The FSSAI's latest proposal represents a significant change from its earlier position. It now favours a single-phase warning system covering products high in any one of the specified nutrients, with a prominent red-hexagon warning on the front of the package.
With arguments now concluded, the SC has reserved its judgement. The bench directed the parties to file their final written submissions within three days.
You may also want to read...
