Supreme Court Questions Food Warning Labels, Seeks Centre Plan For Nutrition Education

The Supreme Court has sought detailed answers from the Centre and food regulator FSSAI on proposed front-of-pack warning labels (FoPL) for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and fat, questioning their design, thresholds and timeline for implementation.

The court also asked the Centre to explore nutritional education in schools to help children understand food labels and make informed dietary choices. The intervention came a day after the Centre said it was open to mandatory red warnings for products high in even one nutrient of concern.

SC Questions Two-Phase FoPL Rollout

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran questioned FSSAI’s proposal to introduce FoPL in two phases — first for products high in two or more nutrients and later for those high in any one nutrient.

The bench warned that without a fixed timeline, the second phase could be “indefinitely postponed”. It asked FSSAI to provide a “reasonable, scientifically justified and clearly defined timeline” or consider introducing warnings first for products with the highest nutrient levels.

The court also questioned the distinction between products high in multiple nutrients and those high in a single nutrient, noting that excess sugar, salt and saturated fat are independently linked to health risks.

It sought clarity on nutrient thresholds, including whether total rather than added sugar and fat should be considered, and how trans fats and ultra-processed foods should be factored into the system.

Court Questions Red Hexagon, Warning Design

The bench also questioned FSSAI’s proposed red hexagonal warning carrying labels such as “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” and “HIGH FAT”.

It sought clarity on the size and placement of the warning and whether its dimensions would be standardised or proportional to the package. The court also questioned the use of red, noting its association with non-vegetarian ingredients in Indian food labelling.

It asked FSSAI to consider combining text with pictorial symbols and using separate warnings for individual nutrients rather than putting multiple warnings in one hexagon.

The court further raised concerns that reducing sugar, salt and fat could prompt manufacturers to increase artificial preservatives, emulsifiers and other additives, and sought regulatory safeguards against such unintended consequences.

The bench directed FSSAI to answer 13 questions within 10 days. The matter will next be heard on September 28.

The PIL was filed by 3S and Our Health Society seeking mandatory warnings on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fats. The court said FoPL could help consumers make informed choices and encourage healthier food environments, particularly for children.