SC seeks timeline for FSSAI’s food warning label roll-out

Why in the News

The Supreme Court has put the two phase rollout of front-of-pack warning labels (FoPL) proposed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) under scrutiny. A two judge Bench held that a “reasonable, scientifically justified and clearly defined timeline” must divide the two phases, warning that the second phase could otherwise be “indefinitely postponed”. The Court also questioned why a warning should require a product to be high in at least two nutrients of concern when excess of even one can pose a health risk. The directions came on a public interest litigation seeking mandatory front of pack warnings on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fats. The protective content of the label therefore turns on a threshold and a commencement date that the proposal left to administrative discretion.

What is front-of-pack labelling?

1. What it is: Front of pack labelling puts a summary nutrition signal on the front face of a package, so a buyer sees it without reading the nutrition table printed on the back.
2. A warning is a directive signal: A warning label declares that a product is high in a specified nutrient, which tells the buyer what to do rather than offering a score the buyer has to interpret.
3. The nutrients of concern: The Indian proposal covers added fat, added sugar and salt, each linked to non communicable disease at excess intake.
4. The threshold does the work: A product carries a warning only where it crosses a set limit on a nutrient, so the level of that limit and the number of nutrients required decide how much of the market is actually labelled.

What did the Court hold on the two phase timeline?

1. The phased design as proposed: Warnings would initially apply to packaged foods high in two or more nutrients of concern, and would extend in a second phase to products high in even one of them.
2. Why FSSAI wanted the split: The regulator proposed the phased approach to give consumers time to adapt to the new labels and the food industry time to reformulate its products.
3. The Court’s objection: The Bench held that assessment of consumer acceptability and adequate reformulation time “cannot be reason enough for this uncertainty in time”, and that a clearly defined timeline or transitionary period dividing the two phases must be indicated for the FSSAI’s approach to be a workable one.
4. The risk it named: Without a fixed timeline the second phase could be “indefinitely postponed”, which would leave the narrower first phase standing as the operative regime.

Why is the two nutrient trigger being questioned?

1. The Court’s question: It asked why a warning should initially require a product to be high in at least two nutrients of concern when excess levels of even one could pose health risks.
2. The petitioners’ ground: The petition contends that the two nutrient requirement lacks a scientific basis and would leave many products outside the first phase.
3. The alternative the Court floated: It asked FSSAI to consider a model bringing products with the highest levels of nutrients of concern under the warning regime first, followed by those crossing lower thresholds.
4. What that alternative would change: Sequencing by severity rather than by the count of nutrients would capture a product that is extreme on a single nutrient, which the two nutrient trigger currently leaves out.
5. The counter claim on the record: Stakeholders objected to placing ultra processed foods on the same footing as minimally processed packaged foods, on the ground that the latter carry greater nutritional benefit.

What else did the Court direct, and what happens next?

1. Nutritional literacy in schools: The Bench asked the Union government to incorporate nutritional literacy into school curricula, teaching children how to interpret nutritional information on a label.
2. Why children were singled out: The Bench recorded that children are particularly “vulnerable” to “impulse or uninformed dietary decision-making”, so a label by itself does not protect them.
3. The affidavit and the next date: FSSAI was directed to file an affidavit within 10 days setting out its responses and clarifications, and the matter was posted to 28 September.
4. The petition behind it: The directions came while hearing a public interest litigation filed by the non profit 3S and Our Health Society, seeking mandatory front of pack warnings on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fats.

Challenges to front of pack warning labelling in India

1. The threshold is set administratively and decides the regime: A limit fixed a little higher exempts most of the processed food shelf without any change to the rule’s text. Eg. FSSAI’s earlier Indian Nutrition Rating proposal drew criticism that its thresholds would have left most packaged snacks favourably rated.
   The Fix: Place the numerical thresholds in the regulation itself rather than in guidance, so any change requires the same consultation the regulation did.
2. A rating signal is weaker than a warning signal: A star or score lets a buyer rationalise a poor product as better than the alternative, and a warning does not. Eg. Chile’s black octagonal “high in” warnings reduced purchases of labelled products, while star rating systems elsewhere recorded smaller effects.
   The Fix: Settle on a single warning format and bar any parallel voluntary rating on the same pack face.
3. Reformulation can move a nutrient rather than remove it: A manufacturer can substitute an unlabelled ingredient to drop below a threshold without lowering the product’s health cost. Eg. Sugar replaced by non nutritive sweeteners takes a product below a sugar limit while leaving an ultra processed formulation intact.
   The Fix: Add an ultra processed classification to the pack alongside the nutrient warnings, so formulation is disclosed and not only nutrient content.
4. Advertising sits outside a labelling rule: A warning on the pack does nothing about the promotion that put the product in the trolley. Eg. Children’s programming and digital platforms carry advertising for products high in fat, sugar and salt that no packaging regulation reaches.
   The Fix: Restrict advertising of products carrying a warning label during children’s viewing hours and on platforms with a substantial child audience.
5. Most food sold in India is unpackaged: Warning labels reach the packaged segment, and not the loose, street and restaurant food where a large share of fat, sugar and salt is consumed. Eg. FSSAI’s menu labelling requirement applies only to chain restaurants above a size threshold and leaves standalone eateries out.
   The Fix: Extend calorie and nutrient disclosure to chain outlets below the current threshold and to food aggregator listings, where the menu is already digital.
6. Enforcement capacity is the binding constraint: A labelling requirement is only as real as the sampling and prosecution behind it. Eg. Food testing laboratory capacity and food safety officer strength in the States have repeatedly been flagged as short of sanctioned levels.
   The Fix: Publish a State wise compliance sampling rate for front of pack labelling, so enforcement effort is visible rather than assumed.

Conclusion

The label’s protective value sits in two numbers the proposal leaves to administrative discretion: the level at which a nutrient triggers a warning, and how many nutrients must cross it. The Court has decided neither. It has refused to let the gap between the phases stay open ended, which converts a design choice into something the regulator must now justify on the record. What to watch is whether the regulator defends the two nutrient trigger with evidence or moves to the severity first sequence the Bench proposed.

Back2Basics: Food Safety and Standards Authority of India

1. Its governing statute: FSSAI is a statutory body established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which consolidated several earlier food laws into a single framework.
2. Its ministry: It functions under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
3. What it does: It frames science based standards for food articles and regulates their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import.
4. How it regulates: It issues regulations such as the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, and licenses and registers food businesses through State food safety commissioners.

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)”