FSSAI has proposed red warning labels for packaged foods high in added sugar, salt or saturated fat
Health advocates say the two-nutrient rule could let some unhealthy products escape warnings, while industry says the thresholds may be too broad
The Supreme Court will consider the food-labelling dispute on September 10 as India weighs a new warning system
India’s proposed front-of-pack warning labels are facing criticism from opposing sides, with health advocates arguing that the system could allow some unhealthy foods to escape scrutiny while food companies warn that its thresholds could result in warnings appearing on a wide range of products.
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) last week proposed a red-coloured hexagonal warning label for packaged foods that exceed limits for at least two of three nutrients, added sugar, salt and saturated fat. The proposal comes after years of regulatory debate and amid mounting pressure for clearer warnings on packaged foods. The Supreme Court is due to consider the issue on September 10.
Industry Concerns Over Thresholds
The proposed system has prompted concern in the food industry over both the level at which a warning would be triggered and the way products would be assessed. India is proposing to use a 100-gram benchmark rather than an individual serving, according to Reuters. Industry executives argue that this could produce warnings for products normally eaten in much smaller quantities, such as pickles and ketchup.
The proposed nutrient thresholds have added to those concerns. The system would flag solid products when added sugar exceeds 3% by weight and saturated fat exceeds 4.2%. Food industry representatives say the limits are considerably stricter than those used in some other markets and could result in a large number of products carrying warnings.
Earlier Nutrition Rating Proposal
The regulatory dispute follows an earlier attempt by FSSAI to introduce an Indian Nutrition Rating system. A draft amendment notified in 2022 proposed a star-based rating from 0.5 to five stars, taking into account energy, sugar, salt and saturated fat as well as positive nutritional components such as protein and fibre. FSSAI told the Supreme Court that more than 14,000 comments were received from food businesses, consumer organisations, public-health organisations and other stakeholders.
An expert committee was subsequently constituted in February 2023 to examine the feedback. In its February 2026 order, the Supreme Court noted that there was no consensus among stakeholders on the proposed Indian Nutrition Rating system and said the exercise undertaken so far had not produced a satisfactory outcome. The court also highlighted the issue as one concerning citizens’ right to health and asked the authority to consider front-of-package warnings.
The latest proposal therefore marks another turn in a debate that has pitted public-health demands for prominent warnings against concerns from manufacturers about how widely the rules could apply.
Supreme Court Hearing Ahead
Food companies including the owner of Kellogg’s and Unilever’s Indian unit have told Reuters they support clear, science-based nutrition information and would comply with Indian regulations if the rules change. Several other major companies, including Nestlé, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and Mondelez, did not respond to Reuters’ questions.
With the Supreme Court set to hear the matter on September 10, the dispute now centres on how India should design a warning system that is sufficiently clear to identify products carrying high levels of nutrients of concern without placing warnings on such a broad range of foods that their significance is diluted.
