SC seeks clarity on FSSAI’s warning label norms

Why in the News

The Supreme Court has questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), the statutory food regulator, on how it proposes to determine whether a packaged food is “high” in sugar, salt or fat for the purpose of front of pack warning labels. The regulator had proposed such labels a month earlier, after the Court questioned its reluctance to introduce them. Its affidavit sets the thresholds by reference to the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024 issued by the ICMR National Institute of Nutrition, without stating the triggering level itself. The Court described food safety as a cause of “national interest” and said it would pass a detailed order seeking further information from stakeholders. A warning label operates entirely through the number that switches it on, and that number is the one part of the proposal not yet on record.

What is a front of pack warning label?

1. Where it sits, and why that matters: It is a mark printed on the front of a package rather than inside the nutrition panel on the back, so a purchaser sees the risk before choosing to read anything.
2. The form proposed: A red hexagonal warning would appear on the front of the pack.
3. The trigger proposed: It would apply where a product is found to be high in two or more of the specified nutrients of concern, namely added fat, added sugar and salt.

What did the Court ask that the affidavit does not answer?

1. The threshold question: A two judge Bench asked how the regulator would fix the level beyond which a packaged food is classified as high in sugar, salt or fat.
2. Whether any standard exists at all: The Bench asked directly whether guidelines had been laid down for making that determination.
3. The answer on record: The Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Centre and the regulator, said the regulator was adhering to the guidelines issued by the ICMR National Institute of Nutrition.
4. A dietary guideline is not a labelling standard: Those guidelines advise individuals on what to eat. A labelling rule needs a numeric limit stated per unit of food, which a manufacturer can apply and an inspector can test.

How did the case reach this point?

1. The petition behind it: The proceeding is a public interest litigation filed by non profit organisations seeking warning labels that indicate high levels of salt, sugar and saturated fats.
2. The regulator moved only under scrutiny: The proposal for prominent red warnings marked a regulatory pivot, and it arrived after judicial questioning rather than from the regulator’s own standard setting cycle.
3. The Court’s stated ground: The Bench said it had undertaken its own study, asked the regulator to treat its directions seriously, and grounded its concern in the health of the population and of growing children in particular.

Challenges to front of pack warning labels

1. The threshold decides the policy, and it is the contested part: Industry attention concentrates on the cut off rather than on the label, because a lenient limit leaves most products unmarked. Eg. An earlier Indian proposal offered an Indian Nutrition Rating awarding stars, which public health bodies criticised for rewarding marginal reformulation instead of warning about risk.
   The Fix: Notify numeric limits per 100 g for solids and per 100 ml for liquids, separately for each nutrient, so the standard is testable rather than advisory.
2. A two nutrient trigger lets single nutrient products pass: A food extremely high in one nutrient alone would carry no mark at all. Eg. A sugar sweetened beverage low in fat and salt escapes a label that requires two breaches.
   The Fix: Apply one warning mark for each nutrient breached, so the label scales with the risk rather than with the count of risks.
3. Enforcement reaches only the packaged segment: Loose and unbranded food sold without a package falls outside any labelling rule. Eg. Fried snacks and sweets sold by weight carry no nutrition declaration whatsoever.
   The Fix: Pair the label with mandatory menu and point of sale declarations for chain food outlets, where the product is standardised and traceable.
4. A label changes purchase only if it is understood: Nutrient information fails where the reader cannot convert a figure into a judgement. Eg. Chile adopted a black octagonal mark carrying the words “high in” in 2016 precisely because numeric panels were going unread.
   The Fix: Test the mark for comprehension among low literacy consumers before notification, and pair it with restrictions on marketing such products to children.

Conclusion

The regulator has conceded the principle and left the operative part open. A warning is a binary statement, so it cannot be issued out of advice about balanced diets, it needs a limit written per unit of food. What follows is that the useful output of this litigation is not a further affidavit accepting labels but a notified numeric standard, with a compliance date and a named enforcement authority behind it. Until that exists, the label is a design and not a rule.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2016] With reference to pre-packaged items in India, it is mandatory to the manufacturer to put which of the following information on the main label, as per the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011? 1. List of ingredients including additives 2. Nutrition information 3. Recommendation, if any, made by the medical profession about the possibility of any allergic reactions 4. Vegetarian/non-vegetarian Select the correct answer using the code given below. (a) 1, 2 and 3 (b) 2, 3 and 4 (c) 1, 2 and 4 (d) 1 and 4 only ANSWER: (c)”