NEW DELHI: The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it was willing to consider stronger warning labels on packaged food, opening the door to tighter front-of-pack labelling rules that could have a significant impact on the country’s packaged food industry.The issue concerns a proposed system under which food packets would carry prominent red hexagonal warnings to alert consumers when products contain high levels of nutrients linked to health risks, reported news agency Reuters.The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had recently proposed introducing the labelling system in two phases. Under the initial plan, a product would get a red warning symbol if it crossed the prescribed limits in at least two of three categories, namely added sugar, salt or saturated fat. Tighter provisions were to follow in the second phase.Health experts and activists have opposed this approach, arguing that requiring a product to be high in two nutrients before triggering a warning could allow several unhealthy products to avoid the label.The Supreme Court questioned the need for such a phased approach during Thursday’s hearing.“It has to be sugar and salt. Only then will you ask them to put a label?” Justice JB Pardiwala asked the government’s lawyer, stressing the word “and”.Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, appearing for FSSAI, said the regulator could now consider implementing both phases together following the court’s observation.That could mean a product would carry a red warning if it crosses the limit for even one of the specified nutrients, whether added sugar, salt or saturated fat.
NIN flags gaps in proposed system
The matter has been under the Supreme Court’s consideration for months following petitions seeking stronger front-of-pack nutrition warnings. The court had recently given FSSAI a two-week deadline to come back with its proposals.As that deadline approached, the National Institute of Nutrition in Hyderabad submitted its suggestions to the food regulator.NIN has argued that the proposed system should not focus only on added sugar and added fat. It has suggested that factors such as total calories, total sugar and total fat should also be taken into account when deciding whether a packaged food needs a warning.The concern is that looking at only selected nutrients could allow some foods with an unhealthy overall nutritional profile to escape the warning system.A scientist from NIN explained this using fried snacks as an example. A packet of salty fried chips may contain little added sugar and could fall below the proposed threshold for added fat, while still being extremely calorie-dense because of its fat content.Under a system focused only on added sugar and added fat, such a product could therefore avoid a red warning despite being unhealthy when consumed frequently.
Why the labels matter
Front-of-pack nutrition labelling is intended to give consumers an easy-to-understand warning without requiring them to study detailed nutritional information printed on the back of a packet.The proposed red hexagon is designed to work much like a stop sign, with words such as “high fat”, “high sugar” or “high salt” clearly displayed depending on which limit a product crosses.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
NIN has also pointed out that the nutritional quality of a food cannot necessarily be determined simply by whether it is ultra-processed. A samosa or jalebi, for instance, may be high in fat or sugar without being classified as an ultra-processed food. At the same time, some whole-grain breakfast cereals may be ultra-processed but relatively low in fat, salt and sugar.The debate before the court is therefore not merely about the shape or colour of a label. It is about what nutritional criteria should trigger a warning and whether the proposed system is strong enough to help consumers identify foods that could be harmful when eaten regularly.
Leave a Reply