Supreme Court presses FSSAI on how packaged foods will be flagged high in sugar, salt, fat

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned its scrutiny on the way packaged foods in India may soon be labelled, asking the country's food regulator to explain how it would decide when a product deserves a warning that it is high in sugar, salt or fat.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran put the question to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), which has proposed rolling out front-of-pack warnings in two stages. The court asked whether the regulator had laid down clear quantitative limits beyond which a nutrient would count as "high", and what scientific and regulatory basis supported those thresholds.

"If you ask them to put a label, say high in salt, high in sugar, high in sodium, high in potassium, whatever it is, how will you determine it?" the bench asked.

Justice Pardiwala said the court was treating the matter with seriousness because of what it means for public health, especially for children. He said the court expected cooperation from all sides in a cause that was in the national interest, and told the parties to study the order it would pass and to come prepared, adding that no further opportunity would be granted.

The bench said it would issue a written order after considering its own research, and asked FSSAI and the other parties to examine it and supply any additional information the court sought. The order was not available at the time of publication. The matter will be heard again on 28 September.

The case arises from a public interest litigation filed by 3S and Our Health Society, which has sought stronger front-of-pack warnings on packaged foods containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat. On 13 August, the Supreme Court asked the Union government to consider, in consultation with experts, the visual format such warnings should take.

In response, FSSAI proposed a two-phase system. Under the first phase, a red-hexagonal warning would apply to products high in at least two specified nutrients, including added sugar, salt and saturated fat. Products high in only one nutrient would be covered in the second phase. The regulator has proposed thresholds drawn from the 2024 dietary guidelines of ICMR-NIN, along with exemptions for certain single-ingredient products such as salt, sugar, edible oil, ghee, jaggery and honey.

The petitioners have opposed the staged approach. They argue that each nutrient can independently pose health risks, so a product excessively high in only sugar, salt or fat should carry a warning immediately rather than wait for the second phase. They have also questioned the absence of a fixed timeline for the second phase, and challenged the use of "added sugar" instead of total sugar and the proposed "added saturated fat" on the ground that these choices lack adequate scientific backing. The NGO has further suggested that ultra-processed foods should carry stronger warnings than packaged foods with higher nutritional value, and has raised concerns that using red could cause confusion with India's existing vegetarian and non-vegetarian label symbols.

During the hearing, counsel for FSSAI said the two-phase approach had originally been suggested as a practical route to implementation and was not its final position. The regulator told the court it was now willing to bring warnings for products high in one or more nutrients into effect in a single phase, subject to the court's directions.

The proceedings come amid heightened scrutiny by FSSAI of misleading food labels and packaging, which has led to disputes before several courts. In the Bombay High Court, the regulator has argued in the Old Monk rum matter that the product cannot be sold simply as "rum" given its composition and use of rum flavouring, and has sought labelling changes; its maker has submitted revised labels. Dabur has challenged FSSAI action in the Delhi High Court over "100%" claims on products including honey, ghee and edible oils. In March, the Bombay High Court dealt with labelling claims on Dabur toothpaste, including "anti-bacterial" and "anti-inflammatory" descriptions that regulators sought to remove. More recently, on 1 September, the Delhi High Court sought responses from the Centre and FSSAI on a petition by AWL Agri Business Ltd. challenging action prohibiting the manufacture and sale of its Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil over alleged misleading label declarations and claims.