Background
The matter originates from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking warning labels for packaged foods containing high levels of salt, sugar and saturated fats.
The Court's intervention has pushed FSSAI towards a front-of-pack labelling (FOPL) system.
Unlike the detailed nutrition panel generally placed on the back of packages, FOPL is designed to communicate nutritional risks immediately at the point of purchase.
The key unresolved issue is the threshold—the precise quantity above which a food product will be classified as “high”.
The Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024 provide dietary advice to individuals, but they do not automatically constitute a legally enforceable food-labelling threshold.
A regulatory standard requires clear, measurable and testable numerical limits that manufacturers and enforcement authorities can uniformly apply.
Features
Front-of-pack placement
Warning is displayed prominently on the front of the package.
Enables consumers to identify nutritional risks without studying the detailed nutrition panel.
Red hexagonal warning
FSSAI has proposed a visually prominent red hexagonal symbol.
Nutrients covered
The proposal focuses on added sugar, added fat and salt.
Two-nutrient trigger
The proposed warning would apply when a product is classified as high in two or more of these nutrients.
Public-health orientation
The objective is to enable informed consumer choice and encourage manufacturers to reformulate products with excessive levels of nutrients of concern.
Challenges
Absence of clear numerical thresholds
The biggest concern is that the proposal does not clearly specify the cut-off values for sugar, salt and fat.
Problem with the two-nutrient trigger
A product extremely high in only one nutrient could escape the warning.
Example: A sugar-sweetened beverage may be high in sugar but low in salt and fat. Under a two-nutrient trigger, it may not receive a warning.
Limited coverage of unpackaged foods
Front-of-pack labelling primarily covers packaged and labelled products. Loose or unbranded foods such as sweets and fried snacks remain outside its immediate scope.
Consumer comprehension
Simply providing nutritional numbers does not guarantee that consumers understand the health implications.
Risk of ineffective labelling
India has previously considered systems such as the Indian Nutrition Rating, where products receive star ratings.
Public-health advocates have argued that such approaches may encourage marginal reformulation without giving consumers a sufficiently clear warning about excessive nutrients.
Way Forward
Establish scientifically derived and legally enforceable numerical thresholds.
Base thresholds on Indian dietary patterns, disease burden and internationally accepted evidence.
Use independent scientific expertise and transparent stakeholder consultation.
Adopt a simple warning symbol and language that consumers can understand quickly.
Consider separate warnings for individual nutrients rather than requiring multiple thresholds to be breached.
Extend nutritional disclosure to restaurants, food chains and other standardised food outlets.
Introduce periodic review of thresholds as scientific evidence and dietary patterns evolve.
Complement labelling with restrictions on unhealthy-food marketing to children and nutrition-awareness programmes.
Conclusion
The court's decision has taken the discussion away from whether it would be appropriate to have a front-of-pack warning label, and brought it back to the more significant discussion of how to design the label. It must be noted that a warning label can only carry meaning if there is clarity on the threshold itself. The threshold needs to be scientifically sound and enforceable.
