Supreme Court Seeks Detailed Information From FSSAI on Food Packaging Issue

New Delhi, Sept 11: Supreme Court has sought detailed information from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on its proposed front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat.

The court has questioned the scientific basis of the proposed thresholds, the design of the warnings and the planned rollout.

The development follows the FSSAI’s proposal for a red hexagonal warning label for products that exceed prescribed limits for at least two of three nutrients, viz., added sugar, added saturated fat, and salt.

The regulator had proposed a phased approach, but told the Supreme Court it was open to stricter warnings from the outset following concerns over the proposed framework.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran asked FSSAI to explain how it would determine whether a packaged food product is “high” in sugar, salt or fat. The court also sought clarity on the quantitative thresholds and the scientific basis for fixing them.

The court’s questions come as the proposed system relies on the Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Nutrition’s Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024. FSSAI’s initial framework would use nutrient thresholds to determine whether products require a warning on the front of the pack.

The Supreme Court also sought information on the proposed visual design of the warning label, including its colour, shape and placement. FSSAI has proposed a prominent red hexagonal symbol carrying a warning for products classified as high in the specified nutrients.

The regulator’s proposal is intended to make key nutritional information more visible to consumers than the existing disclosures generally placed on the rear of food packages. The court has also sought clarity on whether separate or pictorial warnings and other design elements should form part of the final framework.

Under the initial proposal, the first phase would cover products high in at least two of the three nutrients, including added sugar, added saturated fat and salt. The framework also provides for specified highly sweetened beverages and certain single-ingredient foods to be covered by the warning regime.

The proposed two-nutrient threshold has faced scrutiny because products exceeding the prescribed limit for only one nutrient could initially fall outside the warning requirement. Health advocates have argued that this could leave some products without a front-of-pack warning despite having high levels of an individual nutrient.

FSSAI has since indicated that it is open to implementing stricter warning requirements in a single phase rather than waiting for a later stage. The Supreme Court’s proceedings on September 10 focused on whether the proposed framework, including its phased structure, has adequate scientific and regulatory justification.

The proposed framework has also drawn representations from the packaged food industry over how nutrient levels should be assessed. The All-India Food Processors’ Association has urged the Supreme Court to consider nutrient levels on a per-serving basis instead of FSSAI’s proposed uniform benchmark of 100 grams or 100 millilitres.

The industry body has argued that consumption patterns differ across food categories and that a serving-based assessment could provide a more representative measure of actual intake. The issue is part of the wider debate over the thresholds and methodology that would determine which products carry front-of-pack warnings.

The Supreme Court has not given final approval to FSSAI’s proposed red-hexagon model. Instead, it has sought further information covering the scientific basis of the thresholds, the treatment of different food categories and beverages, nutrient methodology, label design and placement, colour, additives and compliance requirements.

FSSAI has been directed to file a further affidavit addressing the court’s questions within 10 days. The petitioner will be permitted to respond, with the matter scheduled to be heard again on 28 September.

The Supreme Court has described the issue as a matter of national interest and said it was particularly concerned about the health of people, including growing children. The next hearing is expected to consider the regulator’s additional submissions before the court decides on further directions for the front-of-pack warning framework. (BVI)