The Center has notified the Supreme Court of its readiness to consider introducing stricter warning labels on packaged foods rich in sugar, salt, or fat. This opens the possibility of tightening labeling rules on the front of packaging, which could significantly impact the country's packaged food industry.
The issue concerns a proposed system where prominent red hexagonal warnings must appear on product packaging, informing consumers about high levels of nutrients associated with health risks, as reported by the Reuters news agency.
Previously, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had proposed implementing this system in phases. According to the initial plan, a product would receive a red warning symbol if it exceeded established limits in at least two out of three categories: added sugar, salt, or saturated fats. The second phase involved introducing stricter provisions.
Health experts and activists opposed this approach, arguing that requiring high content in two nutrients before activating a warning might allow several unhealthy products to avoid labeling.
National Institute of Nutrition points out gaps in the proposed system
During hearings on Thursday, the Supreme Court questioned the necessity of such phased implementation. Justice J.B. Pardival asked the government lawyer, emphasizing the word 'and', stating: 'Must there be sugar and salt. Only then will you ask them to put up the label?'
Additional General Advisor Bridgender Chahar, representing FSSAI, stated that the regulator can now consider implementing both phases simultaneously following the court's observation. This could mean that a product would carry a red warning if it exceeds the limit for at least one of the specified nutrients—be it added sugar, salt, or saturated fat.
This matter has been under consideration by the Supreme Court for several months since petitions demanding stronger nutritional warnings on the front of packaging were filed. The court recently set a two-week deadline for FSSAI to submit its proposals.
As this deadline approached, the National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) in Hyderabad submitted its recommendations to the food regulatory body. NIN objected to the system focusing exclusively on added sugar and added fat. It suggested considering factors such as total calories, total sugar, and total fat when determining the need for a warning on a packaged product.
The concern is that considering only individual nutrients might allow some products with an unhealthy overall nutritional profile to evade the warning system. A scientist from NIN explained this using the example of fried snacks. A packet of salted chips might contain little added sugar and remain below the proposed threshold for added fat, yet be extremely high in calories due to its fat content. Thus, under a system focused only on added sugar and added fat, such a product might avoid a red warning despite being unhealthy with frequent consumption.
Why are labels important?
Front-of-pack nutritional labeling is intended to provide consumers with an easily understandable warning that does not require studying detailed nutritional information printed on the back of the package. The proposed red hexagon is designed to function like a 'Stop' road sign, clearly displaying words such as 'high in fat', 'high in sugar', or 'high in salt' depending on which limit the product exceeds.
NIN also noted that food quality cannot be determined solely by whether a product is ultra-processed. For instance, jalebi or samosa may contain a lot of fat or sugar without being classified as ultra-processed products. Conversely, some whole-grain breakfasts might be ultra-processed but relatively low in fat, salt, and sugar.
Therefore, the debate before the court is not merely about the form or color of the label. It relates to which nutritional criteria should trigger a warning and whether the proposed system is robust enough to help consumers identify products that may be harmful with regular consumption.
