The Supreme Court has rejected the packaged food industry’s demand to assess high levels of fat, salt and sugar on a per-serving basis, while directing the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to bring greater clarity to its proposed front-of-pack labelling (FOPL) framework.
The court termed the per-serve proposal a “red herring” and questioned the regulator’s two-phase implementation plan, directing FSSAI to provide a clear timeline for the rollout within 10 days.
Court Questions Two-Phase Implementation
The Supreme Court raised concerns over the absence of a fixed timeline separating the two phases of FOPL implementation. It observed that without a defined schedule, the second phase could be delayed or indefinitely postponed.
The court particularly sought an explanation for the proposal to initially require warnings only when packaged products contain two nutrients of concern.
Industry Pushes for Per-Serve Assessment
The All India Food Processors’ Association had argued that packaged foods should be assessed according to their usual consumption quantities rather than a uniform 100-gram reference.
The industry body said a per-serve approach would better reflect actual consumer intake across different food categories. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this argument.
FSSAI Asked to Clarify Nutrient Thresholds
The court also directed FSSAI to clarify the basis for calculating sugar and fat thresholds under the proposed labelling system.
It asked whether the thresholds would be based on total sugar and saturated fat, as discussed during a 2021 stakeholder consultation, or whether alternative parameters such as added sugar would be considered.
Ultra-Processed Foods Under Scrutiny
The court asked FSSAI to examine whether the degree of food processing should influence FOPL thresholds.
It noted that treating ultra-processed foods in the same manner as minimally processed packaged foods could overlook differences in their nutritional characteristics and benefits.
Concerns Over Additives and Reformulation
The Supreme Court also flagged a possible unintended impact of stricter FOPL rules. It observed that manufacturers seeking to lower sugar, fat or salt levels could potentially increase the use of preservatives, emulsifiers and other additives.
The court said these factors should also be considered while framing the warning-label regime.
Questions Over Red Hexagonal Warning
The proposed red hexagonal warning symbol also came under scrutiny, with the court seeking clarity on its size, dimensions and prominence on the front panel.
It further asked FSSAI to reconsider the use of red, noting that Indian consumers commonly associate the colour with non-vegetarian food products.
PIL Seeks Stronger Consumer Warnings
The proceedings stem from a public interest litigation filed by non-profit organisations 3S and Our Health, seeking prominent warnings on packaged foods containing high levels of salt, sugar and saturated fats.
The petitioners have argued that front-of-pack warnings can help consumers quickly identify products high in nutrients of concern and make more informed dietary choices.
The Supreme Court has now given FSSAI 10 days to present a clearer implementation timeline and address the concerns raised over the proposed FOPL framework.
