FSSAI's 'Two-or-More' Nutrient Trigger For Food Package Warning Label Unscientific : Petitioner Tells Supreme Court

The petitioners in a public-interest litigation before the Supreme Court have objected to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India's (FSSAI) proposal to initially require front-of-pack warning labels only on packaged foods that are high in two or more of the specified nutrients - sugar, salt and fat.

In a rejoinder filed before the Supreme Court, 3S and Our Health Society argued that a product excessively high in even one of these nutrients should carry a warning, contending that the proposed “two-or-more” threshold could leave products with potentially harmful levels of a single nutrient without any warning.

The objection relates to FSSAI's proposed red-hexagon warning-label regime for foods high in fat, sugar and/or salt (HFSS). The petitioners have welcomed the move towards a warning-label format, but said the proposed trigger substantially limits its effectiveness.

'High sugar alone should trigger warning'

According to the rejoinder, FSSAI's proposed Phase I would cover products that are high in two or more specified nutrients, while products high in only one nutrient would be considered under a subsequent Phase II. The petitioners said no definite timeline has been prescribed for the second phase.

The petitioner has accused the authority of 'redefining" labels running against science. It has been stated that excess sugar, excess salt and excess saturated fat are "independently" harmful and they are linked to diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular diseases, respectively.

In its rejoinder, petitioner has said that the concept of HFSS(high in fat, sugar or salt) in its ordinary and scientific meaning is a product high in fat, sugar or salt. The word used is 'or' and not 'and'. Using it otherwise would defeat the very reason the warning labels exists.

"It is submitted that a sugary product with 50g of sugar (200% of daily limit) but low fat and salt would carry NO WARNING. This is an industry-friendly loophole for unconscionable profit that may exempt the most harmful products. Countries like Chile, Mexico, Canada and Israel all require a warning for ANY nutrient of concern. The 'two or more' threshold is not science-based. It appears to protect unconscionable profits, discounting public health. A product dangerously high in even ONE content must carry a warning, regardless of its position in the concentration of other deleterious ingredients," the petitioner said.

Further, it has said that FSSAI wants to write two lines of warning in one hexagon whereas the presence of two dangerous contents should ideally result in two warning hexagons for consumers' benefit.

It has also opposed FSSAI's proposal to make the front-of-pack warning only one point larger than the back-of-pack nutrition table, arguing that the warning should be sufficiently prominent and visible from a distance. The petitioner has further suggested that the warning labels be displayed in both English and Hindi to ensure accessibility and comprehension among the widest possible section of consumers.

Total sugar instead of added sugar

The petitioner also stated that the FSSAI proposes the warning of 'added sugar' in A products whereas the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024(by ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition), provides for 'total sugar' and 'total fat' per 100 g and not just for added sugar. It has stated that as per the 2021 Minutes, there is a consensus that 'total sugar' and not 'added sugar' is a workable metric for FOPL(Front-Of-Package-Labels) because added sugar can't be verified once mixed into a finished product. 

The petitioner has stated that this issue is pertinent because many of the food products use artificial concentrates of sugar content. For instance, products containing jaggery are often claimed as 'zero added sugar'.

"It is respectfully submitted that a claim of “Zero Added Sugar” does not necessarily mean that the product is low in sugar, as the product may continue to contain a substantial quantity of naturally occurring or otherwise present sugars. Such a claim may therefore create a misleading impression of healthfulness by diverting the consumer's attention from the total sugar content of the product. Further it is submitted that it is the total sugar that is associated with health risks not just the added sugar and a lab analysis may not be able to detect added sugar."

'Added' fat metric doesn't exist 

Another thing highlighted by the petitioner is the proposal of the FSSAI on 'added saturated fat' as a warning. It has been stated that the word 'added' before saturated fat is not a metric and was rejected under the 2021 Minutes. 

The petitioner has stated that the fat introduced during processing can't be distinguished, once cooked into a product, from the fat naturally present in its ingredients.

In the 2021 Minutes, it was recorded that while consumer organisations preferred 'total fat' indicating a generic fat measure, the scientific members went with the term 'saturated fat' where the consensus was ultimately drawn. This is because a generic fat label risks discouraging consumption of unsaturated fats.

Phase II has no binding timeline

Another issue is that FSSAI proposes to introduce warning high in two or more nutrients in the first phase. It is only in Phase II that they allow a warning for products high in only one nutrient. However, Phase II is unscheduled and there is no binding timeline.

It noted that under the proposed design, a product that is high in, say, sugar alone would remain without a warning for as long as Phase I remains in force. The petitioner argued that sugar, fat and salt need not be present together to cause harm to human health, as excessive consumption of any one of these nutrients can independently They have proposed that, if a phased rollout is considered necessary, the second phase should commence and reach the prescribed final thresholds within 12 months of Phase I.

The petitioners cited the Israeli model as an example of a phased system in which thresholds were subsequently tightened within a defined period, contrasting it with what they describe as the open-ended nature of FSSAI's current proposal.

"In contrast, the present proposal contemplates Phase I for products exceeding two or more nutrients, while postponing the application to products exceeding a single nutrient to an unspecified future date, without prescribing when Phase II must commence or be completed. In the absence of a binding timeline, “Phase II” effectively becomes a euphemism for indefinite deferment of the more comprehensive warning-label regime, thereby continuing to leave a significant category of HFSS products outside the intended protection."

The rejoinder has been filed by Advocate Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi, who represents the petitioner NGO pursuant to a compliance affidavit filed by the FSSAI in the PIL filed by 3S And Our Health Society.

Case Details: 3S AND OUR HEALTH SOCIETY v UNION OF INDIA AND ANR| MA 1177/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 437/2024