Supreme Court questions FSSAI on ‘high sugar, salt, fat’ warning labels

The Supreme Court on Thursday pressed India’s food regulator to explain how it would determine whether packaged food is “high” in sugar, salt, fat or other nutrients, a key question for its proposed front-of-pack warning-label system.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) what quantitative thresholds would trigger warnings such as “high in sugar”, “high in salt” or “high in fat”.

“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.

The court also sought to understand the scientific and regulatory basis for the proposed thresholds.

Clarity on labelling thresholds

The bench said it would pass a written order after considering its own research and directed FSSAI and the other parties to study it and provide any further information sought.

Justice Pardiwala said the court was taking the matter seriously because of its public-health implications, particularly for children.

“We are concerned with the health of people, more particularly growing children. We have taken it up very seriously, and we expect one and all to extend their cooperation in a cause which is in national interest. You all study the order carefully, and no further opportunity will be given. Either you accept it or then you allow us to proceed with it,” he said.

A detailed, written order was not available at the time of publication. The matter has been listed for further hearing for 28 September.

The case stems from a public interest litigation filed by 3S and Our Health Society, a non-profit advocating healthier lifestyles, which is seeking stronger front-of-pack warnings on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat.

On 13 August, the Supreme Court asked the Centre, in consultation with experts, to consider the visual format of such warnings. FSSAI subsequently 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 come under the warning system in the second phase.

FSSAI has proposed thresholds based on the 2024 dietary guidelines of ICMR-NIN to determine what qualifies as “high”. It has also proposed exemptions for certain single-ingredient products, including salt, sugar, edible oil, ghee, jaggery and honey.

Queries sent to FSSAI and 3S and Our Health Society remained unanswered until press time.

Pushback over thresholds

3S and Our Health Society has opposed the two-phase approach, arguing that each nutrient can independently pose health risks. A product excessively high in only sugar, salt or fat, it says, should carry a warning immediately rather than wait for the second phase.

3S and Our Health Society has opposed the two-phase approach, arguing that each nutrient can independently pose health risks. It says products excessively high in only sugar, salt or fat should carry a warning immediately rather than wait for the second phase.

The petitioner has also questioned the lack of a fixed timeline for the second phase and challenged the use of “added sugar” instead of total sugar and “added saturated fat”, arguing that these choices are not adequately supported by scientific evidence.

The NGO has proposed stronger warnings for ultra-processed foods and raised concerns that using red for the warnings could create confusion with India’s existing food-label symbols for vegetarian and non-vegetarian products.

During Thursday’s hearing, FSSAI clarified that the two-phase approach was initially suggested as a practical way to implement the warning system and was not a final position. It also told the court it was willing to implement warnings in a single phase for products high in one or more nutrients, subject to the court’s directions.

The case comes as FSSAI has stepped up scrutiny of food labels and packaging, triggering disputes with companies in several courts.

Before the Bombay High Court, FSSAI has argued that Old Monk cannot be sold simply as “rum” because of its composition and use of rum flavouring, and has sought changes to its labelling. Its maker has submitted revised labels to the court.

Dabur has challenged FSSAI action over “100%” claims on products including honey, ghee and edible oils before the Delhi High Court. In March, the Bombay High Court also dealt with labelling claims on Dabur toothpaste, including “anti-bacterial” and “anti-inflammatory” descriptions that regulators sought to remove.

On 1 September, the Delhi High Court sought responses from the Centre and FSSAI on a petition by AWL Agri Business Ltd. challenging FSSAI action prohibiting the manufacture and sale of its Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil over alleged misleading label declarations and claims.