Supreme Court questions FSSAI on thresholds for ‘high’ sugar, salt and fat warnings

The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 10, 2026) questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over how it proposes to determine whether packaged foods are “high” in sugar, salt or fat as part of proposed front-of-pack warning labels, as it stressed that food safety is a matter of “national concern”.

FSSAI last month proposed bold red warning labels on packaged foods high in added fat, sugar or salt to mark the regulatory centre, after the apex court questioned its reluctance to introduce such warnings.

In an affidavit submitted to the court, the food regulator said the labels will take the form of a red hexagon warning on the front of the pack, where the product is found to be high in two or more specified nutrients – fat, sugar or salt. The thresholds would be based on the thresholds prescribed in the Dietary Guidelines for Indians 2024 issued by the ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition (NIN).

However, while examining FSSAI’s affidavit, Justices JB Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran questioned how the regulator would determine the threshold beyond which packaged foods would be classified as “high in sugar, salt or fat”.

“If you ask them to put a label on, say, high salt, high sugar, high sodium, high potassium, how do you determine that? Have you set any guidelines?” Lavička asked.

Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, appearing for the Center and FSSAI, said the regulator is following the guidelines issued by ICMR-NIN.

The bench heard a public interest litigation filed by non-profit organizations 3S and Our Health, which sought warning labels on packaged foods to indicate their high salt, sugar and saturated fat content. On Thursday, she said she would soon issue a detailed order seeking more information from the parties involved.

“We have done some homework and done some studies. We propose to issue an order seeking some further information from you. Study the order and come back with an appropriate further report,” Justice Pardiwala told Mr Chahar.

“Take orders seriously”

The apex court also asked the regulator to take its guidelines “seriously”, highlighting its concern over the impact of food safety norms on public health, especially the health of growing children.

“We are concerned about the health of people, more specifically growing children. We have taken it very seriously… We expect all of us to extend cooperation in a matter of national interest,” Justice Pardiwala said.

“Two Phase Boot”

The FSSAI told the court that it intends to implement the front-of-pack nutrition labeling (FoPNL) scheme in two phases to give consumers time to adjust to the new labels and the food industry time to reformulate their products. In the first phase, the warning would apply to products high in two or more of three specified nutrients, added fat, added sugar and salt, except for certain sweetened beverages. The second phase would extend it to products with a high content of even one of these nutrients.

However, the bench asked why a product should initially be high in more than one nutrient to attract a warning.

“It has to be sugar and salt. Only then do you ask them to put a label?” Justice Pardiwal asked.

Considering the court’s suggestion, Mr. Chahar told the Bench that the regulator could consider introducing warning labels “in one fell swoop” rather than in two phases. This would effectively put products high in even one of the three nutrients in warning mode from the outset.

Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for the intervenor, meanwhile argued that ultra-processed food cannot be put at par with other packaged foods, citing the example of snacks like Kurkure on one side and eggs or salted cashews on the other. He urged the court to consider stronger warnings for ultra-processed products.

“Ultra-processed food and packaged food… both cannot be compared,” Mr Kamat stated. Pointing out that red and green labels are already used to distinguish non-vegetarian and vegetarian products respectively, he suggested that a different color could be prescribed as a warning for ultra-processed foods.

The bench said it would consider the proposal and issue an order to be sent within a day or two.

The court had earlier questioned FSSAI’s reluctance to accept warning labels for foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat and asked whether pressure from food manufacturers was influencing the regulator.

“Don’t you want people in this country to stay healthy? Especially growing children?” asked the Bench, warning the authorities that this was their “last chance” to introduce warning labels.

The court made it clear that it was not concerned with banning any particular food, but with ensuring that consumers, especially children, knew what they were consuming before making a decision.

Published – 10 Sep 2026 13:42 IST