Warning needed for even single excess ingredient: Plea in SC seeks changes to FSSAI rules

New Delhi: Products high in salt, sugar or fat could be able to dodge the food safety regulator’s proposed labelling on packaged food and beverages in the first phase, according to a Supreme Court petition, urging these measures be rolled out in entirety to ensure full implementation.

The petitioner, while seeking changes to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) latest proposal, said the first phase of implementation of front-of-pack warning labels will require a product to be high in two or more specified nutrients before a warning is triggered. The petition was filed by 3S and Our Health Society, a non-profit. A product extremely high in sugar alone, for instance, therefore, won’t feature any health warning if it also doesn’t have high salt or saturated fat content, the petitioner argued.

Also Read: Nepal billionaire’s Wai Wai maker faces FSSAI action in India over unhygienic Rajasthan factory


This was a rejoinder filed in the SC on September 5, in response to FSSAI’s affidavit. The petitioner sought implementation of the warning labels in a single all-encompassing phase rather than leaving products high in only one nutrient to a second stage in the future, or to set a definite timeline for starting the second phase.

“The proposed introduction of phase II without prescribing any definite or binding timeline renders the proposed regulatory framework susceptible to indefinite postponement and defeats the very purpose of phased implementation,” said the filing.

After a decade-long delay, FSSAI, after getting pulled by the apex court, proposed mandating front-of-pack for packaged food and beverages with red-coloured hexagonal shape for food products that are high in any two or more nutrients—saturated fat, sugar or salt.

India has been facing a sharp rise in consumption of ultra-processed foods. The Economic Survey for FY26 said the domestic ultra-processed food market grew over 150% between 2009 and 2023.

Also Read: FSSAI to tighten scrutiny, weighs central ban on non-dairy paneer

Petitioner 3S and Our Health Society also urged FSSAI to base labels on total sugar, salt and fat, rather than only added nutrients as proposed in its August 28 affidavit. “...the negative impact of a food product is not only because of the added sugar but due to the total sugar content,” the filing said, citing fruit concentrates and products containing jaggery as examples where a product could have high overall sugar content despite little or no added sugar.

The rejoinder also called for larger warnings, covering 15-20% of the front display besides being prominent and visible from a distance, suggesting that the size of the warning hexagon be specified in relation to the overall size of the package. The warning text must be one point larger than the font used in the back-of-pack nutrition table, FSSAI has proposed.

The petitioner further urged the regulator to build on its 2022 draft front-of-pack regulations instead of initiating a fresh consultation process, arguing that doing so would cause avoidable delay.

The 2022 Draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling & Display) Amendment Regulations had already undergone public consultation and contained a proposed definition of high fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) foods, according to material annexed to the rejoinder.

The petitioner sought treating the 2022 process as a continuing regulatory exercise and introducing the final warning-label framework expeditiously.

The rejoinder has also raised questions over how FSSAI arrived at its latest proposal. It said the regulator’s compliance affidavit didn’t disclose the internal consultation, food authority resolution or agenda item through which the proposed red-hexagon warning design and thresholds based on “added sugar” and “added saturated fat” were considered or approved.

The petitioner has separately sought mandatory bilingual warnings in English and Hindi, saying front-of-pack labels must be immediately understandable to a wider section of Indian consumers.

It argued that using both languages would reduce linguistic barriers and make the proposed warnings more accessible.

The filing cited bilingual food labelling in other jurisdictions and existing Indian rules needing critical information in English and Hindi in some food categories.