More Stories

Informist, Friday, Sept. 11, 2026

 

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court has asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India to explain the rationale for including food products high in "two or more" nutrients of concern and specified sweetened beverages in Phase I, and food products high in "any one" nutrient of concern in Phase II, respectively, for upfront labelling on packaged foods. The food safety regulator had suggested that Phase I cover products high in added fat, added sugar and salt, as well as specified sweetened beverages. Phase II would extend the warning to products high in any one of these nutrients, the regulator had said. 

 

The apex court asked the food safety regulator how it proposes to identify the specific sweetened beverages that would fall under Phase I of the proposal. The apex court also asked the food safety regulator for the threshold levels of the nutrients in question for such beverages. It also sought a reasonable, fixed timeline from the food safety regulator to implement its proposed two phases of upfront labelling on packaged foods to warn of high levels of sugar, saturated fats, and sodium.  

 

The apex court asked the food regulator to consider whether it was necessary to revisit its proposal for 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, given that the average Indian consumer is habituated to associating the colour red with non-vegetarian ingredients. The top court questioned the food safety regulator about the dimensions of the red hexagon proposed for the front-of-pack warning label. It asked whether the warnings would have standardised specifications or be calculated in proportion to the package area, and whether the font size would be relative to the dimensions of the hexagon itself. The food safety regulator has to answer how and where to place such hexagons on warning labels, it said. 

 

Without distinct pictorial representations for each nutrient of concern in the front-of-pack warning label, how does the food safety regulator propose to cater to the diverse levels of comprehension, literacy, and reading capability of the consuming population, the top court asked. It sought reasons from the food safety regulator for its suggestion to use combined, composite, or singular hexagons for two or more nutrients of concern, rather than separate, distinct hexagons for each nutrient of concern.

 

The food safety regulator must state whether the threshold limits for fat and sugar are to be calculated on the basis of total sugar and saturated fat, and not on the basis of added sugar and added fat. Further, the food safety regulator was asked how it would factor trans-fat levels into the fat-content calculations for the front-of-pack warning label.

 

The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran asked the food safety regulator to state whether, in calculating the threshold levels for each nutrient of concern, it wishes to account for the differences between categories related to moderate and higher levels of energy and fat or sugar, or both along with excessive salt. In addition, in calculating the threshold levels for each nutrient of concern, the court asked whether the regulator would account for differences between food groups that are moderately processed with no additives and those that are excessively processed with additives in the front-of-pack warning label.

 

The court was hearing a public interest litigation initiated by 3S and Our Health Society Public Charitable Trust, a non-profit organisation, seeking a direction to the government, states, and food regulator to mandate front-of-package warning labels on packaged foods. The petitioner said warnings on the front of packaging are a powerful tool to empower consumers to make informed choices about their diet and reduce the adverse impact of big corporations' commercial interests.  

 

On Aug 13, the top court highlighted that urgent and significant headway was needed in implementing front-of-package labelling on packaged foods and that inspiration could be drawn from the International Standards of Packaging to safeguard the collective health and well-being of all persons, especially growing children in India. The apex court had also emphasised the obvious, scientifically substantiated and commonly known nexus between various health issues like obesity, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and foods that are categorised as high in fat, sugar or salt or ultra-processed foods which are available in the market.

 

The apex court acknowledged that the food safety regulator has made significant progress on the matter. However, the court said it would be remiss not to point out that several aspects and specificities anchoring the practical implementation of the food safety regulator's proposal remain ambiguous and need further clarification. The top court has asked the food safety regulator to file its response by way of an affidavit within 10 days to the questions asked. The response should be shared with the petitioner, who will also file their response before the next hearing on Sept. 28.  End

 

Reported by Surya Tripathi

Edited by Saji George Titus

 

For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.

 

Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd. by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd., a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt. Ltd.

 

Informist Media Tel +91 (11) 4220-1000

Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com

 

© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2026. All rights reserved.