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

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has sought detailed answers from the Centre and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on the proposed front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods, questioning everything from the scientific basis of nutrient thresholds to the design, colour and implementation of the proposed warnings.

The court has asked the Union government and FSSAI to file their affidavits within 10 days, seeking clarity on how the proposed labelling regime will work and how it will ensure that consumers can understand and use the information effectively.

Also Read: From Maggi to Thums Up, India's food debate turns to what global brands sell here


The questions come as India considers a front-of-pack labelling system under which packaged foods high in nutrients of concern such as sugar, salt and saturated fat could carry prominent warning symbols on the front of the pack.

At the heart of the proposed framework is a two-phase approach. In the first phase, products that are high in two or more nutrients of concern, along with specified sweetened beverages, would be covered. The second phase would extend the warning requirement to products that are high in any one nutrient of concern.

The Supreme Court has sought an explanation for this distinction, including the scientific basis for dividing the system into two phases and the proposed timeline for introducing each phase.

It has also asked FSSAI to clarify what would qualify as a “sweetened beverage” under the proposed framework and what thresholds would trigger a warning.

Questions over how nutrients are measured

A key area of the court’s scrutiny is the basis on which products would be classified as high in particular nutrients.

The court has asked whether the thresholds should vary across different categories of food and processing groups, rather than applying a uniform benchmark across products with substantially different nutritional profiles.

It has also sought clarity on how terms such as “sugar” and “fat” are being defined for the purpose of the proposed warnings, including whether sugar would mean total sugar and whether fat would specifically refer to saturated fat. The court has further questioned how trans fat would be accounted for in the calculations.

The questions go to the heart of the labelling system: what exactly makes a food product unhealthy enough to warrant a warning, and whether the same threshold can fairly be applied across very different categories of packaged food.

Why the red hexagon?

The court has also raised questions about the proposed visual design of the warning labels.

FSSAI has proposed red hexagonal warnings, but the court has questioned the choice of red, noting that the colour may carry different associations for Indian consumers, including its association with non-vegetarian ingredients.

It has sought details on the standard size, dimensions, font and placement of the proposed warning symbols. The court has also asked whether the size of the warning should be proportional to the overall area of the food package.

Also Read: Raids, shutdowns, warning labels - India's unprecedented food safety push

Another issue is how the warnings will work for consumers with different levels of literacy and comprehension. The court has asked whether pictorial representations could make the information easier to understand.

It has also questioned the proposal to use a combined or single hexagon where a product crosses the threshold for multiple nutrients, instead of using separate warnings for each nutrient.

Court flags unintended consequences

The Supreme Court has also asked FSSAI to address what could happen after companies reformulate their products to comply with the proposed system.

One concern is whether reducing one nutrient could encourage manufacturers to increase their use of other ingredients, including artificial preservatives or emulsifiers. The court has sought to know what safeguards would be in place to prevent such unintended consequences.

The court has further asked whether manufacturers would get a voluntary compliance or grace period after the final regulations are notified and before the requirements become mandatory.

Beyond the labels themselves, the court has also turned its attention to consumer awareness.

It has asked how the government proposes to build nutritional literacy among consumers, including through schools, curriculum and workshops, so that people understand the nutritional information displayed on food packages rather than simply reacting to a warning symbol.

The questions suggest that the court is looking beyond whether warning labels should exist and towards whether the proposed system would be scientifically sound, clearly understood by consumers and workable in practice.

The court has not, at this stage, rejected the proposed FSSAI framework. Instead, it has sought detailed explanations from the government and the food regulator before the system moves forward.

The larger issue is how India should balance public-health concerns around excessive consumption of sugar, salt and unhealthy fats with a labelling regime that is scientifically defensible, practical for manufacturers and meaningful for consumers.

Responding to the SC order that up uploaded late Thursday night, Sachin Taparia, Founder, LocalCircles said that The Supreme Court asking FSSAI to explain the basis for having a two-phase approach, including why products high in two or more nutrients would be covered in Phase I while products high in any one nutrient would have to wait for Phase II, is an important step. Our survey shows that 80% of consumers want the warning to apply from the beginning if a product is high in even one of sugar, salt or saturated fat, so the consumer expectation is quite clear,” he said.

“The Court has also raised some very fundamental questions around the effectiveness of the proposed warning — including its size, placement, whether there should be distinct warnings for different nutrients, what thresholds should be used and whether the warning should be based on total or only added sugar and fat. These are important questions because a front-of-pack warning will only work if it is prominent, easy to understand and gives the consumer meaningful information at the point of purchase,” continued Taparia.

“Our survey found that 88% of consumers want the warning to be large, clearly visible and immediately noticeable, 90% want the total amount of sugar, salt and saturated fat to be reflected, and 88% want companies to implement the warning within six months of the rules being finalised. The Court has now specifically sought clarity from FSSAI on each of these aspects, including the timeline for implementation,” said Taparia.