The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its judgment on the proposed front-of-pack labelling framework for packaged foods and beverages, with the bench directing all parties to file their final written submissions within three days.
The court’s decision will have a bearing on the framework proposed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for displaying prominent warnings on packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, fat and salt.
FSSAI has proposed implementing front-of-pack labelling for added sugar, fat and salt in packaged foods and beverages in a single phase, with a one-year deadline for companies to comply after the regulations are finalised.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for an NGO argued that the thresholds for labelling should be based on total sugar and total fat, rather than only added sugar and added fat.
FSSAI has argued that classifying food as high in sugar without distinguishing between naturally occurring sugars, such as those in fruits and milk, and added sugars has limitations. It said naturally occurring sugars in whole foods come with fibre, vitamins, minerals and beneficial phytochemicals.
The regulator has also proposed an amendment requiring brands to display the warning ‘Contains Non-Caloric Sweetener’ on the front of the pack, instead of only on the back as at present.
The counsel also said FSSAI’s consultation process was already underway and could continue.
The court questioned the timeline proposed by FSSAI, with Justice Pardiwala saying, “We will decide the timeline as FSSAI’s timeline is unreasonable.”
The bench also flagged the lack of a clear definition of ultra-processed food. “There is no definition of Ultraprocessed food, there needs to be a clarity on its definition,” the court said.
FSSAI, meanwhile, argued that consumers need to be told and made aware about added sugar.
The Supreme Court also said whatever order it passes would be binding on FSSAI and that the regulator would need to accept it “in true spirit in the interests of the nation”.
“Why to waste so much time when we are concerned abt the health of people,” the court said.
The bench also asked counsel appearing for food manufacturers to cooperate with the process.
In a compliance affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the regulator had said around four months would be required to finalise and issue the draft regulations. It had proposed the additional one-year compliance period to avoid commercial hardship for food companies that may already have packaging material printed in bulk.
FSSAI had proposed a format similar to the one adopted by Canada, with a red hexagon on a white square-shaped background carrying the names of nutrients of concern that exceed prescribed thresholds.
The warning would be displayed prominently on the top left of the front of the pack, with a font size at least one point larger than that used in the nutrition information table on the back.
