The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) proposed two-phase approach for introducing front-of-pack warning labels on packaged foods, seeking clarity on how products would be classified as “high” in sugar, salt, fat and other nutrients.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran asked FSSAI how it proposed to determine when a packaged food should carry a warning such as “high in sugar”, “high in salt” or “high in fat”.
“If you ask them to put a label, say high in salt, high in sugar, high in sodium, high in potassium, whatever it is, how will you determine it?” the bench asked.
The court specifically wanted to know whether FSSAI had prescribed clear quantitative limits beyond which a nutrient would be considered “high”. It also sought to understand the scientific and regulatory basis for the proposed thresholds.
The bench said it would pass an writte order on the issue after considering its own research and asked FSSAI and the other parties to study the order and provide any further information sought by the court in the order.
Justice Pardiwala said the court was taking the issue seriously because of its implications for public health, particularly children.
“We are concerned with the health of people, more particularly growing children. We have taken it up very seriously, and we expect one and all to extend their cooperation in a cause which is in national interest. You all study the order carefully, and no further opportunity will be given. Either you accept it or then you allow us to proceed with it,” he said.
The order was not available at the time of publication. The matter has been posted for 28 September for further hearing.
The case concerns a public interest litigation filed by 3S and Our Health Society, seeking stronger front-of-pack warning labels on packaged foods containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat.
On 13th August, the Supreme Court asked the Union government, in consultation with experts, to consider the visual format of front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods.
Following the court’s direction, FSSAI proposed a two-phase system for introducing the warnings.
Under the first phase, a red-hexagonal warning would apply to products that are high in at least two specified nutrients, including added sugar, salt and saturated fat. Products high in only one nutrient would be brought under the warning system in the second phase.
FSSAI has proposed using thresholds based on the 2024 dietary guidelines of ICMR-NIN to determine what qualifies as “high”. It has also proposed exemptions for certain single-ingredient products, including salt, sugar, edible oil, ghee, jaggery and honey.
The two-phase approach has been opposed by 3S and Our Health Society, which has sought stronger warnings.
The NGO has argued that each nutrient can independently pose health risks. Therefore, a product that is excessively high in only sugar, salt or fat should receive a warning immediately rather than waiting for the second phase.
The petitioner has also questioned the absence of a fixed timeline for the second phase. It has challenged the use of “added sugar” instead of total sugar and the proposed use of “added saturated fat”, arguing that these choices are not adequately supported by scientific evidence.
The NGO has also suggested that ultra-processed foods should carry stronger warnings than packaged foods with higher nutritional value.
It has also raised concerns about the proposed use of red for the warning labels, arguing that the colour could create confusion with India’s existing food-label symbols used to distinguish vegetarian and non-vegetarian products.
During Thursday’s hearing, counsel for FSSAI clarified that the two-phase approach had originally been suggested as a practical way to implement the warning system and was not a final position.
FSSAI also told the court that it was now willing to have warnings for products high in one or more nutrients implemented in a single phase, subject to the court’s directions.
The litigation over food warning labels in the Supreme Court comes at a time when FSSAI has stepped up scrutiny of misleading food labels and packaging, leading to disputes with companies before different courts.
One such case is the Old Monk rum dispute before the Bombay High Court. FSSAI has argued that Old Monk cannot be sold simply as “rum” because of its composition and use of rum flavouring, and has sought changes to its labelling. Old Monk’s maker has submitted revised labels to the court.
Dabur has also challenged FSSAI action over product claims. In the Delhi High Court, the company challenged regulatory action concerning “100%” claims on products including honey, ghee and edible oils.
Separately, in March, the Bombay High Court dealt with labelling claims on Dabur toothpaste, including descriptions such as “anti-bacterial” and “anti-inflammatory”, which regulators sought to remove.
More recently, on 1 September, the Delhi High Court sought responses from the Centre and FSSAI on a petition by AWL Agri Business Ltd., challenging FSSAI action prohibiting the manufacture and sale of its Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil over alleged misleading label declarations and claims.
