Industry Odisha Bureau, Sep 06: A Supreme Court petition is challenging FSSAI’s proposed warning-label framework. It targets front-of-pack labels for packaged food. The dispute centres on a two-nutrient trigger rule. The petitioner wants single-nutrient products covered too. It also seeks faster, fuller implementation overall.
The petition comes from 3S and Our Health Society. It is described as a non-profit organisation. A rejoinder was filed on September 5. It responded to FSSAI’s earlier affidavit. FSSAI had proposed red hexagonal warning labels. These would apply to packaged food and beverages. The trigger requires two or more specified nutrients. Named nutrients are saturated fat, sugar and salt.
The petitioner’s core objection concerns single-nutrient products. A product extremely high in sugar alone matters here. If it lacks high salt or saturated fat, no warning triggers. The petitioner argues this creates a meaningful gap. Such products could avoid warnings under current phase-one plans.
FSSAI’s proposal separates implementation into two phases. Single-nutrient products would move to a later phase. The petitioner wants one comprehensive phase instead. Alternatively, it seeks a binding Phase II timeline. Without one, the filing warns of indefinite postponement. That would undermine the purpose of phased implementation, it argues.
Another demand concerns how sugar is measured. The petitioner wants total sugar, salt and fat counted. FSSAI’s affidavit currently focuses on added nutrients only. The filing cites fruit concentrates and jaggery-based products as examples. These can carry high total sugar despite little added sugar.
Warning visibility is a further point of contention. The petitioner wants warnings covering 15-20% of packaging. It also wants labels visible from a distance. FSSAI has proposed warning text one point larger. That would exceed the back-of-pack nutrition table’s font size.
The petitioner also pushed FSSAI toward its 2022 draft rules. Those draft regulations already underwent public consultation. They included a proposed definition for high-fat, sugar and salt foods. Starting a fresh consultation now would cause delay, it argues.
The rejoinder additionally questions how FSSAI reached its latest proposal. It says the affidavit did not disclose internal consultations. Details on the food authority’s resolution were also missing, it claims. The same applies to the specific agenda item approving thresholds. These are presented as questions, not established violations.
Separately, the petitioner wants mandatory bilingual warnings. English and Hindi labels would reach more consumers, it argues. This could reduce linguistic barriers, the filing states.
The petition also cites broader market context. India’s ultra-processed food market grew sharply, per the Economic Survey. It grew more than 150% between 2009 and 2023. That growth underpins the urgency behind the petitioner’s demands.
FSSAI’s proposal remains just that, a proposal. The Supreme Court has not ruled on these demands. The dispute now centres on scope, speed and clarity. How regulators respond could shape food labelling nationwide.
