The food regulator’s proposal for a front-of-pack warning label regime has come under challenge before the Supreme Court,with the petitioner objecting to the decision to initially require warnings only for foods that are high in two or more specified harmful nutrients.
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has proposed a red-hexagon warning label for products classified as “High in Fat, Sugar and/or Salt” (HFSS). The proposal followed an order by the Supreme Court on August 13 asking the Union government, in consultation with experts, to decide on the visual format of the front-of-pack label.
The rejoinder was filed on September 5 but details were made public by the petitioner’s lawyers on Wednesday.
In its rejoinder, the petitioner, 3S and Our Health Society, a public health advocacy group, argued that the proposed framework would leave a significant category of unhealthy products without any warning during Phase I.
Under the proposal, products high in two or more of the specified harmful would attract the warning, but those exceeding the threshold for only one nutrient of concern would be covered only in a subsequent Phase II.
The petitioner pointed out that the compliance affidavit does not prescribe a date for commencement or completion of Phase II. It urged that, if a phased system is retained, the second phase should begin and reach the final threshold within 12 months of Phase I.
The rejoinder also questioned the FSSAI’s decision to use “added sugar” as a metric. The petitioner cited minutes of a 2021 stakeholder meeting, which, it said, recorded a consensus in favour of using “total sugars” — partly because added sugar cannot be independently verified in a finished product.
The petitioner also objected to the proposed use of “added saturated fat”, calling it a new and unexplained metric. It pointed out that the 2021 stakeholder minutes recorded a consensus on saturated fat, rather than total fat, but did not discuss an “added fat” concept. It also flagged an apparent inconsistency in the present proposal, under which the threshold refers to added saturated fat while the proposed on-pack warning will simply read “HIGH FAT.”
Another objection concerns honey and jaggery. The rejoinder said these products have been exempted from the warning requirement, which could allow products containing substantial amounts of sugar to avoid a high-sugar warning. The document itself describes the reason for the exemption only as a possibility, rather than an established explanation.
The petitioner has sought separate red warning hexagons for each nutrient of concern, rather than putting two warnings in a single hexagon. It also argued for warnings to be written in both English and Hindi.
The rejoinder cited international experience from countries including Chile, Mexico, Israel and Canada, where front-of-pack warnings identify products high in specified nutrients such as sugar, sodium and saturated or trans fats.
The petitioner has urged the Supreme Court to direct the FSSAI to adopt a single-phase warning regime based on scientifically supported thresholds and to reconsider the proposed metrics.
The rejoinder was filed by advocate Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi for 3S and Our Health Society following the FSSAI’s compliance affidavit before the Supreme Court.
The food regulator’s affidavit proposes a front-of-pack warning label in a red hexagonal shape for food products which are high in any two or more “nutrients of concern” such as added saturated fat, added sugar and salt, based on thresholds specified under the Dietary Guidelines for Indians 2024.
