A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran called packaged food health warnings a serious matter concerning public health and growing children.
The apex court heard a petition filed by public charitable trust 3S and Our Health Society seeking mandatory front-of-pack warning labels on packaged items.
FSSAI proposed introducing a red hexagonal front-of-pack warning label for items high in added saturated fat, sugar, and salt based on ICMR-NIN guidelines.
The Supreme Court on Thursday voiced concern over the health impact of packaged foods and urged all food-safety stakeholders to examine front-of-pack warning labels for products high in salt, sugar and fat in the national interest.
Hearing a plea by the public charitable trust '3S and Our Health Society', a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said it would issue a detailed order seeking inputs from stakeholders on what it called a "serious matter". "We are only concerned about the health of people, especially growing children. We want all the concerned to consider the cause in national interest," the bench said, while indicating that the order will be uploaded in a day or two.
The top court said it had also done some homework on the issue. It asked the parties to study the order once uploaded and posted the case for September 28.
Court Questions FSSAI
The bench questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). It said packaged foods already show contents on the back of the packet, but asked whether FSSAI has set any rule for marking items as high in sugar, salt or fat once they cross a limit.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the FSSAI, told PTI that internationally the rear panel has to carry two disclosures — the amount per 100 grams and the amount per serving, he submitted.
Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for an intervenor, told PTI that the government was placing "Kurkure" snack product on the same level as other nutritional foods such as eggs and salted cashew. He said ultra processed food should carry a stronger warning. "Red is for non-vegetarian and green is for vegetarian. So instead of red if some other colour can be used for a warning label in case of ultra processed food items," he told PTI. The bench took his suggestions on record and said it would pass an order, which will be uploaded in a day or two.
FSSAI Proposal Details
FSSAI has proposed a prominent red front-of-pack warning for foods high in added saturated fat, sugar and salt. The proposal was placed before the court in a compliance affidavit.
The affidavit said the plan was meant to give consumers a simple and prominent warning on products high in specified nutrients of concern. "It is proposed to provide a prominent front-of-pack warning label in a red-coloured hexagonal shape for food products which are high in any two or more of the following nutrients of concern, namely added saturated fat, added sugar and salt, based on the thresholds specified under the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024 issued by ICMR-NIN," the affidavit said.
The affidavit added that the label would carry declarations such as "High Fat", "High Sugar", "High Salt" and/or "Highly Sweetened Beverage". It said the warning would help consumers readily identify products high in specified nutrients. FSSAI also told the court that front-of-pack nutrition labelling is proposed in phases to allow consumer acceptability and give industry time for reformulation. Phase I would cover products high in two or more specified nutrients — added fat, added sugar and salt — and specified sweetened beverages. Phase II would extend the warning to products high in any one of these nutrients.
Earlier Supreme Court Orders
The affidavit was filed in response to the apex court's August 13 order in the same plea by '3S and Our Health Society'. The petitioner was represented by advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi and sought directions to the Centre, states and Union territories to implement mandatory front-of-package warning labels on packaged foods.
On August 13, the court directed the Centre to decide on the visual appearance of Front-of-Package-Labelling on pre-packaged food products. It asked whether India should remain an underdeveloped country and made clear it did not accept the Union government's position that matching international standards, especially those in developed countries, was not possible.
The bench had described FOPL as a nutrition information graphic that can help consumers make informed food choices and healthier dietary decisions. It said such labelling was needed to build awareness, especially among growing children who are increasingly getting addicted to junk food. The court also pulled up FSSAI for delaying warning labels and pointed out that obesity has been recognised as a public health challenge in India. It asked the Union of India to consult experts and decide on the visual appearance of the labels, including coloured indicators, interpretive words, numbers, letters or symbols, numerical information and percentage. "If the Union does it on its own, well and good. Otherwise, we shall proceed to pass further directions," the bench said, while giving the government two weeks to place its final decision on record.
The FSSAI affidavit later said front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FoPNL) should be rolled out in phases to improve consumer acceptability and give industry enough time to reformulate products. It said phase I would cover products high in two or more specified nutrients — added fat, added sugar and salt — plus specified sweetened beverages, while phase II would extend the warning to products high in any one of those nutrients.
