SC seeks clarity on FSSAI’s warning label norms

Why in News?

The Supreme Court questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) about the scientific thresholds for classifying packaged foods as high in sugar, salt or fat. It sought clarity on the proposed warning labels, emphasising public health, particularly children’s health.

What has FSSAI proposed?

• FSSAI has proposed a red hexagonal front-of-pack warning for packaged foods that are high in specified nutrients of concern. The proposed warnings could indicate: High Fat, High Sugar, High Salt and Highly Sweetened Beverage. 
• The proposal draws on the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, issued by the ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), for determining the relevant thresholds.
• FSSAI initially proposed a two-phase implementation:
  • Phase I: Warning where a product is high in at least two specified nutrients.
  • Phase II: Warning extended to products high in any one of the specified nutrients.

FSSAI has now indicated before the Supreme Court that it is open to implementing warnings for excess levels of even one nutrient in a single phase.

How does the proposal differ from FSSAI’s earlier approach?

• FSSAI’s 2022 draft Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) proposed ½ to 5 stars, balancing nutrients such as sugar, saturated fat and sodium against positive components such as fibre, protein, fruits and vegetables.

What exactly must FSSAI clarify?

1. Daily dietary guidance versus product thresholds:

• A recommendation for an individual’s whole-day intake does not automatically determine whether a particular packaged food is “high” in a nutrient.
• For context, WHO recommends limiting adults’ salt intake to less than 5 grams daily and free sugars to less than 10% of daily energy, preferably below 5%. These are dietary recommendations, not India’s final warning-label cut-offs.
• FSSAI must explain how dietary guidance translates into measurable product-level thresholds, including the units, scientific rationale and treatment of different food categories.

2. Per 100 grams/ml versus per serving:

• FSSAI’s proposed framework uses a standardised per 100 g/ ml basis. The food industry seeks a per-serving benchmark, contending that this better reflects actual consumption patterns.
• Per 100 g/ml:
  • Allows easier comparison between products.
  • Prevents manufacturers from manipulating declared serving sizes.
  • Provides a uniform regulatory benchmark.
• Per serving: May better reflect what consumers actually eat or drink at one time. Could be more intuitive for certain products.

3. One nutrient versus two nutrients:

• A product may contain excessive sugar while having little fat or salt. Under a two-nutrient trigger, it could escape a warning. E.g., A sugar-sweetened beverage could be high in sugar alone. Its nutritional concern does not disappear because the other two nutrients are below their thresholds. The FSSAI has indicated willingness to assess each nutrient independently.

4. Precise definitions of nutrients: 

• Total fat is different from saturated fat: The type of fat matters; unsaturated fats should not be treated as nutritionally identical to saturated or trans fats.
• Added sugar is narrower than free sugar: WHO’s definition of free sugars also covers sugars naturally present in honey, syrups and fruit juices.
• Salt is different from sodium: Sodium may come from ingredients other than common salt, so the regulatory metric must be clearly specified.

5. Clear and accessible design

• FSSAI must explain why a red hexagon is appropriate and ensure that its size, wording and placement communicate clearly. Consumer testing should address readability and possible confusion with existing food symbols.

India’s regulatory framework:

• Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006: The Act provides the statutory framework for regulating food safety and standards in India. It created the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) as the central food regulator. FSSAI is responsible for:
  • laying down science-based food standards
  • regulating manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import of food
  • regulating food labelling
  • monitoring compliance; and
  • facilitating consumer awareness.
• Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020: These regulations establish requirements relating to nutritional information and labelling of packaged foods. 

FSSAI has continued to amend the framework. Its official regulatory page records amendments in 2021, 2022, 2025 and 2026. The regulatory trajectory reflects a shift from simply providing information towards making important nutritional information more visible and actionable.

Legal and institutional dimensions:

• Article 21: Protection of health forms part of the constitutional understanding of the right to life.
• Article 47: Directs the State to improve nutrition, living standards and public health.
• FSSAI: A statutory authority established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as its administrative ministry.
• Existing school-food regulation: The 2020 regulations on safe food and balanced diets for children in schools restrict the sale of specified HFSS foods to school children on school premises and within 50 metres of the school gate.

Why are warning labels needed?

• Growing burden of diet-related diseases: The ICMR-INDIAB study published in 2023 estimated 10.1 crore people with diabetes and 13.6 crore with prediabetes in India, underscoring the need for preventive nutrition policies.
• Information asymmetry: Manufacturers understand product composition better than consumers, while detailed nutritional calculations are difficult during routine purchases.
• Children’s vulnerability: Children have limited capacity to evaluate nutritional claims and are exposed to attractive packaging, celebrity endorsements and digital marketing.
• Misleading health impressions: Claims such as “multigrain”, “with vitamins” or “high protein” may draw attention away from excessive sugar, sodium or saturated fat.
• Incentive for reformulation: Prominent warnings can encourage producers to reduce nutrients of concern to avoid the label. WHO documents such reformulation following Chile’s warning-label legislation.
• Wider economic benefits: Prevention can reduce treatment costs, productivity losses and pressure on public-health systems.

The FSSAI’s proposed front-of-pack warning labels represent a shift from “information available to consumers” to “information made meaningful to consumers.” The challenge is to ensure that the warning system is neither scientifically arbitrary nor commercially diluted.

Effective warning labels should make nutritional risks understandable at the point of purchase, while wider food policies make healthier choices affordable and accessible. 

UPSC Mains PYQs:

Q. How do you account for the growing fast food industry given that there are increased health concerns in modern society? Illustrate your answer with the Indian experience. (GS1, 2025)

Q. In a crucial domain like the public healthcare system, the Indian State should play a vital role to contain the adverse impact of marketisation of the system. Suggest some measures through which the State can enhance the reach of public healthcare at the grassroots level. (GS2, 2024)

PDF