Click the Play button to listen to article

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it will consider introducing front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food products that are high in any one nutrient of concern such as sugar, salt or fat.

FSSAI changed its position after the Supreme Court questioned its earlier proposal to mandate warning labels only for products that are high in two or more nutrients of concern. Responding to the Court's query on why the proposed warning labelling was to be introduced only if the packaged item was high in "two or more" nutrients of concern, FSSAI said it would instead make the warning applicable in a single phase to products that are high in even one nutrient of concern.

The submission came during the hearing of a public interest litigation concerning FSSAI's proposal to introduce red-coloured, hexagonal warning labels on packaged foods containing high levels of these nutrients.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the matter. The Court deferred further proceedings and indicated that it would pass an order after considering FSSAI's recent compliance affidavit and the submissions made by the parties.

During the hearing, Justice Pardiwala sought clarification from FSSAI's counsel on the proposal to introduce the warning labels in two phases and whether a product would attract a warning if it was high in only one of the specified nutrients.

Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, FSSAI's counsel initially explained that a phased implementation would be practical, with products high in two nutrients attracting warnings in the first phase and products high in even one nutrient being covered in the second phase.

However, the counsel subsequently clarified that the two-phase rollout was only a suggestion and was subject to the Court's orders. FSSAI agreed to the Court's suggestion that the warning labels could instead be made applicable in a single phase, covering products that are high in even one nutrient of concern.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for a food processors' association, raised concerns over the criteria proposed for determining whether a product would carry a warning label. He pointed out that the proposal involves both a test based on 100 grams of the product and a test based on the quantity per serving. Singh said the association had made a representation to FSSAI referring to ICMR guidelines, which, according to him, prescribe a 100-gram basis, while international practices also take serving size into account.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat made submissions on the distinction between ultra-processed foods and nutritious foods. He argued that the two categories should not be conflated, citing the example of Kurkure and salted cashews. According to Kamat, products such as Kurkure should attract a higher warning.

Kamat also suggested that the warning label could be displayed in a colour other than red, pointing out that red is commonly associated with non-vegetarian food in India.

Advocate Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi, appearing for the petitioner NGO, also referred to the petitioner's rejoinder and the gaps it had highlighted in FSSAI's proposal.

Justice Pardiwala said the Court wanted further information from the parties before proceeding with the matter.

"We have also done some homework. We will pass the order, maybe uploaded tomorrow. Study the order and come back with appropriate further reports," the Court said.

The bench indicated that the matter would be taken up on September 28, after FSSAI and the petitioner file their responses to the order.

"We are concerned with the health of people, more particularly growing children. We have taken it up very seriously and we expect cooperation from one and all in a cause that is in national interest," Justice Pardiwala said while adjourning the matter.

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

Tags: