The Supreme Court has given the Centre two weeks to take a final decision on front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat, warning that it could issue binding directions if the government fails to act.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran sharply questioned the Centre and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India over the prolonged delay in introducing an interpretive labelling system aimed at helping consumers quickly identify foods with potentially unhealthy nutrient levels. The judges made clear that the next hearing could lead to judicial intervention if the authorities do not settle the policy.
The court said public health, particularly the health of children, should take priority over commercial concerns surrounding the proposed labels. It questioned why consumers should not be given prominent information about what they were purchasing and eating, stressing that the warnings would not prevent anyone from buying a product but would allow people to make a more informed choice.
The Centre defended the need for a cautious approach, arguing that nutritional thresholds drawn from international systems could produce unintended consequences when applied to traditional foods. Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar said products such as namkeen could attract red warning symbols because of their salt or fat content. He also argued that stringent thresholds could affect micro, small and medium enterprises dependent on traditional packaged foods.
The bench was not persuaded by those arguments and rejected the suggestion that standards followed in developed economies were necessarily unsuitable. It said the purpose of front-of-pack warnings was consumer awareness rather than an attempt to stigmatise particular foods or dictate individual diets.
The dispute has intensified because FSSAI has moved towards a proposed nutritional table rather than the kind of interpretive warning symbols sought by the petitioners. Its latest proposal would display recommended daily limits for added sugar, saturated fat and salt alongside the amount contained in a product per 100 grams and per serving. Critics contend that such numerical information places the burden on consumers to interpret the figures instead of providing an immediate indication that a product is high in a particular nutrient.
The court had already expressed dissatisfaction with the regulator’s progress in an order dated February 10. The proceedings arise from a public interest case seeking mandatory front-of-package warnings indicating levels of sugars, salt and saturated fats in packaged foods. FSSAI had earlier explored an Indian Nutrition Rating based on a scale from half a star to five stars, combining nutrients such as sugar, sodium and saturated fat with positive components including protein, fibre and certain vitamins and minerals. More than 14,000 comments were received on the 2022 draft framework.
The Supreme Court found in February that the exercise undertaken by the regulator had not produced a satisfactory result and asked it to examine an approach involving front-facing warnings for pre-packaged foods. FSSAI subsequently said it was studying tabular and pictorial formats and needed further consultations before completing the framework.
The regulator has said front-of-pack labelling systems operate in dozens of countries, although approaches vary considerably. Its assessment found such schemes operating in 44 countries, including 16 where they were mandatory. It has argued that differences in language, literacy, dietary patterns and demographics mean that another country's model cannot automatically be transplanted without adaptation.
The case has assumed wider significance amid concerns about the growing contribution of unhealthy diets to obesity, diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Dietary guidelines prepared by the ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition estimate that unhealthy diets are associated with 56.4 per cent of the country's disease burden, while sales of ultra-processed foods have expanded rapidly over the past decade.
Public health groups favour prominent interpretive warnings such as symbols or clear "high in" declarations, arguing that shoppers often make purchasing decisions quickly and may not have the time or nutritional knowledge required to interpret detailed tables. Food manufacturers and industry representatives, however, have raised questions over nutrient thresholds, product categorisation and the impact of warning symbols on traditional foods and smaller businesses.
