SC junks per-serve labelling plea, calls FSSAI's phased FOPL rollout 'ambiguous'; seeks timeline in 10 days

The Supreme Court rejected the packaged food industry’s plea to use per-serve measurements for determining high fat, salt and sugar content for front-of-pack labelling (FOPL), calling the proposal a“red herring”. Terming the proposal of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) “ambiguous”, the court asked the regulator to justify the two-phase implementation of the proposed regime, particularly the plan to put warnings only on products with two nutrients of concern.

It asked the authority to provide a clear timeline for stricter implementation of food warning labels on packaged foods, giving it 10 days to do so. The court said in its order that it “would like to highlight that the absence of a fixed timeline separating the two-phases, by itself, raises some concerns”, adding that “the implementation of Phase II might take a backseat or be indefinitely postponed”.

Also read: Supreme Court seeks clarity from FSSAI on science, design and rollout of food warning labels


The All India Food Processors’ Association had filed an affidavit on Wednesday arguing that different food categories should be assessed according to the quantities in which they are normally consumed, that is on a per-serve basis, rather than applying the same 100- gram benchmark across products. The FSSAI told the top court that it was considering mandatory red hexagonal front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods and beverages high in nutrients such as sugar, salt or saturated fat.

The regulator was pulled up by the court for not implementing FOPL even after adecade of deliberations. The court also asked the FSSAI to examine whether the level of processing should have a bearing on FOPL thresholds. It said that “bunching ultra-processed foods with other packaged foods which are minimally processed, would ignore that nutritional benefits provided by minimally processed foods far outweigh those offered by ultra-processed foods”.

Identifying a potential unintended consequence of the FOPL regime, the court said that in order to reduce sugar, fat or salt, manufacturers might increase the use of artificial preservatives, emulsifiers and other additives, so it was important to account for these in warnings.

The court also directed the FSSAI to clarify whether the FOPL thresholds for sugar and fat would be calculated on the basis of “total sugar” and “saturated fat”, as agreed at a stakeholder consultation in 2021, or on some different basis, such as added sugar, salt or fat.

The apex court sought clarity on the dimensions and prominence of the “red hexagonal shape” warning labels on the front panel, stating, “A discussion on the size, dimensions and other details of the hexagonal FoPL are also crucial.” Given that the average Indian consumer is habituated to associating the colour red with non-vegetarian ingredients, the court asked the food authority to reconsider it.

The Supreme Court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by non-profit 3S and Our Health seeking warning labels on packaged foods to indicate high levels of salt, sugar and saturated fats. The petitioner said that warnings on the front of packaging serve as a powerful tool to empower consumers to make informed choices about their diet.