FSSAI’s proposed two-phase warning system faces scrutiny over nutrient thresholds, while consumer survey findings favour warnings for products high in even one nutrient
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is prepared to proceed in line with the Supreme Court’s directions on front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods, a senior official said, day before the apex court sought greater clarity from the regulator on the proposed framework.
“Nothing more to say in that because the matter is sub judice. And if you are aware, there is a matter in the Supreme Court. We have submitted our reply. Whatever the Supreme Court will suggest us, we will go ahead,” Akhilesh Gupta, Deputy Director, FSSAI said while replying to a query on the sidelines of the PHDCCI event on 7 September.
After that, on 10 September, the Supreme Court sought clarity from FSSAI on the quantitative thresholds that would determine whether a packaged food product is considered high in sugar, salt, fat or other nutrients under the proposed front-of-pack warning system. A bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran questioned how the regulator would determine the point at which a product should carry warnings such as “high in sugar” or “high in salt”.
The court also sought clarity on the scientific and regulatory basis for the proposed thresholds.
The proceedings centre on FSSAI’s proposed front-of-pack warning system for packaged foods. Under the regulator’s proposal, products high in at least two specified nutrients, including added sugar, salt and saturated fat, would initially carry red-hexagonal warnings. Products exceeding the threshold for only one nutrient would be covered in a subsequent phase.
The proposed labels include declarations such as “High Sugar”, “High Salt”, “High Fat” and “Highly Sweetened Beverage”. FSSAI has based the proposed thresholds on the 2024 dietary guidelines issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN).
A LocalCircles survey said that more than 80 per cent wanted warning labels from the first phase if a product was high in even one of sugar, salt or saturated fat. Only 12 per cent supported the proposed two-phase approach. The survey also found that 88 per cent of respondents wanted the front-of-pack warning to be large, clearly visible and immediately noticeable, while 89 per cent wanted the warning to be displayed prominently on ecommerce and quick-commerce platforms before a product was added to the cart.
Two-Phase Approach Faces Challenge
The two-phase approach has been challenged by 3S and Our Health Society, the petitioner in the public interest litigation. The petitioner has argued that excessive consumption of any one nutrient can independently pose health risks and that products high in sugar, salt or saturated fat should carry warnings from the first phase.
The petitioner has also challenged the use of added sugar and added saturated fat in determining the proposed thresholds and questioned the absence of a fixed timeline for the second phase.
During the 10 September hearing, FSSAI indicated that the two-phase approach was a proposed implementation mechanism and that it was open to considering a single-phase system. Under such a system, products exceeding the prescribed limit for one or more nutrients could carry warnings, subject to the Supreme Court’s directions.
A move towards a single-phase system could bring a wider range of packaged foods within the warning-label regime, depending on the thresholds ultimately approved.
The Supreme Court has also raised concerns over the public-health implications of the proposed framework, particularly its impact on children. Justice Pardiwala said the court was concerned about the health of the population, including growing children.
The final framework will determine the nutrient thresholds, products covered by the warnings and the manner in which the labelling system is implemented. The Supreme Court has not yet finalised the framework, and the matter remains pending
Wider Scrutiny Of Food Labels
The proceedings come at a time when FSSAI’s scrutiny of food labels and packaging has expanded across several categories, with regulatory action and labelling disputes reaching different courts. In the Bombay High Court, FSSAI has opposed the sale of Old Monk simply as “rum”, citing issues around its composition and the use of rum flavouring. The manufacturer has subsequently submitted revised labels to the court.
Dabur has challenged FSSAI action relating to “100 per cent” claims on products including honey, ghee and edible oils before the Delhi High Court. The Bombay High Court has also considered disputes involving claims on Dabur toothpaste, including “anti-bacterial” and “anti-inflammatory” descriptions.
Separately, on 1 September, the Delhi High Court sought responses from the Centre and FSSAI on a petition filed by AWL Agri Business challenging regulatory action prohibiting the manufacture and sale of Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil over alleged misleading label declarations and claims.
For packaged-food manufacturers, the Supreme Court’s eventual directions on front-of-pack warnings could therefore have implications beyond the design of a label. The decision is expected to determine how nutrient thresholds are applied, which products fall within the warning regime and how quickly the requirements are implemented.
