Supreme Court questions FSSAI on ‘high sugar, salt, fat’ warning labels | Today’s news
The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) proposed two-phase approach to introduce front-of-pack warning labels on packaged foods to make it clear how products will be classified as “high” in sugar, salt, fat and other nutrients.
Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran asked the FSSAI how it proposes to determine when packaged foods should carry warnings such as “high sugar”, “high salt” or “high fat”.
“If you ask them to put a label on, say, high salt, high sugar, high sodium, high potassium, whatever it is, how do you determine that?” asked the bench.
The court specifically wanted to know whether the 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 court said it would issue a written order on the matter after considering its own research and asked FSSAI and other parties to study the order and provide any additional information required by the court in the order.
Justice Pardiwala said the court was taking the matter seriously because of its implications for public health, especially for children.
“We are concerned about the health of the people, especially the growing children. We have taken this very seriously and expect all of us to extend cooperation in a matter of national interest. All of you study the order carefully and you will not get another chance. Either accept it or allow us to continue,” he said.
The order was not available at the time of publication. The matter was posted to September 28 for further hearing.
The case involves a public interest litigation brought by 3S and Our Health Society, which is calling for stronger front-of-pack warning labels on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat.
On August 13, the Supreme Court asked the Union government to consider the visual format of front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods after consulting experts.
The FSSAI has proposed a two-stage system for introducing warnings as directed by the court.
In the first phase, the red hexagon warning would apply to products that are high in at least two specified nutrients, including added sugar, salt and saturated fat. Products with a high content of only one nutrient would be included in the warning system in the second stage.
The FSSAI has suggested using thresholds based on the 2024 ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines to determine what qualifies as ‘high’. It also proposed exemptions for certain single-ingredient products, including salt, sugar, edible oil, ghee, jaggery and honey.
The two-stage approach was opposed by 3S and Our Health Society, which sought stronger warnings.
The NGO argued that each nutrient could independently pose health risks. Therefore, a product that has an excessively high content of only sugar, salt or fat should be warned immediately and not wait for the second stage.
The petitioner also questioned the absence of a firm timetable for the second phase. She questioned the use of “added sugar” instead of total sugar and the proposed use of “added saturated fat”, saying these choices were not sufficiently supported by scientific evidence.
The NGO also suggested that ultra-processed foods should carry stronger warnings than packaged foods with higher nutritional value.
It also raised concerns over the proposed use of red for warning labels, arguing that the color could cause confusion with the existing Indian symbols on food labels used to distinguish between vegetarian and non-vegetarian products.
During Thursday’s hearing, FSSAI counsel clarified that the two-stage approach was initially proposed as a practical way of implementing the warning system and was not a final opinion.
FSSAI also told the court that it is now willing to introduce a warning for products high in one or more nutrients at one stage, in accordance with the court’s directions.
The food warning label litigation in the Supreme Court comes at a time when the FSSAI has strengthened its scrutiny of misleading food labels and packaging, leading to disputes with companies before various courts.
One such case is the Old Monk Rum dispute before the Bombay High Court. The FSSAI argued that Old Monk could not be sold simply as “rum” due to its composition and use of rum flavoring, and sought changes to its labelling. The manufacturer of Old Monk submitted revised labels to the court.
Dabur also challenged FSSAI’s action over product claims. In the Delhi High Court, the company challenged the regulatory action on “100%” claims for products including honey, ghee and edible oils.
Separately, in March, the Bombay High Court took up the labeling claims of Dabur toothpaste, including descriptions such as “antibacterial” and “anti-inflammatory”, which regulators sought to remove.
Recently, on September 1, the Delhi High Court sought a response from the Center and the FSSAI on a petition by AWL Agri Business Ltd. challenging FSSAI’s action banning the production and sale of its Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil due to alleged misleading statements and claims on the labels.
