SC seeks clear timeline for FSSAI’s food warning label rollout, calls for nutritional literacy in schools

The Supreme Court has asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to provide a clear timeline for introducing warning labels on the front of packaged food products. The court said consumers should be able to easily identify foods that contain high levels of nutrients such as added sugar, salt, and fat.

Under the proposed Front-of-Pack Warning Labels (FoPL) system, warning labels would initially be placed on products that contain high levels of two or more nutrients of concern. The system could later be expanded to products that are high in even one such nutrient.

The FSSAI has suggested this phased approach to give both consumers and the food industry time to adjust. However, the Supreme Court questioned the absence of a definite timeline for the second phase. The bench said that without a clear schedule, the expansion of the warning-label system could be delayed indefinitely.

The bench, headed by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, also asked the regulator to consider another approach. Instead of focusing only on the number of nutrients, the system could begin with products containing the highest levels of harmful nutrients and gradually include products with lower levels.

The court also stressed the importance of nutritional education for children. It suggested that schools should teach students how to understand food labels and make healthier choices. Such education could help children develop better eating habits from an early age.

The observations were made during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the non-profit organisations 3S and Our Health Society. The petition seeks mandatory warning labels on packaged foods that contain high levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fats.

The petitioners argued that limiting warning labels only to foods containing two or more nutrients of concern does not have a strong scientific basis. They said this approach could allow several unhealthy products containing high levels of only one nutrient to escape warning labels.

The Supreme Court also raised concerns about applying the same standards to ultra-processed foods and minimally processed foods. The two categories can have very different nutritional qualities. The court therefore asked the FSSAI to consider whether different thresholds should be created depending on how much a food product has been processed.

The design of the warning labels was another issue discussed by the bench. The proposed labels include red hexagons containing messages such as “HIGH FAT” or “HIGH SUGAR.” The court questioned whether words alone would be easy for every consumer to understand. It suggested that pictures or symbols could be used along with words to make the warnings clearer and more accessible.

The court also raised another concern about food reformulation. If manufacturers reduce sugar, salt, or fat in packaged foods, they could potentially increase the use of artificial preservatives or other additives. The bench asked the FSSAI to consider this possibility when deciding limits for nutrients and additives.

The Supreme Court has directed the FSSAI to submit a detailed response within 10 days. The matter will be heard again on September 28.

Earlier, the government had indicated that it was open to making warning labels mandatory for products that are high in even one nutrient of concern. This would represent a wider approach than the original proposal, which focused on products containing high levels of two or more nutrients.

The Supreme Court has previously emphasized that food safety standards must be taken seriously, particularly when children’s health is involved. The latest proceedings again highlight the need for clear food-labeling rules that help consumers understand what they are buying and make informed choices.