The Supreme Court has recently called on the Centre to enhance nutritional education in schools. This initiative aims to help children better understand food labels and make informed dietary choices. In addition, the court has requested a comprehensive response from the food regulator regarding the proposed front-of-pack warning labels (FoPL). Key aspects under scrutiny include the size, font, placement, color, and timeline for implementing these labels.
Court Questions FSSAI on Food Labeling Timeline
The court has raised concerns with the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) regarding its plan to implement warning labels on packaged foods in two phases. The first phase targets products high in two or more nutrients of concern, while the second phase would include items high in any one nutrient. The absence of a fixed timeline for the second phase could lead to indefinite delays.
The court emphasized that front-of-package labeling (FoPL) could empower consumers to make informed choices and promote healthier food options, particularly for children. It referenced the UNICEF Child Nutrition Report 2025, which reveals a troubling increase in the percentage of overweight school-age children and adolescents aged five to 19, rising from 2% in 2000 to 10% in 2022. Furthermore, while around 80% of food and beverages offered in schools are freshly prepared meals, nearly 80% of the options available nearby consist of packaged snacks.
Earlier reporting noted: Centreopen to warning for even one high-risk nutrient in food labels The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it was open to making red warning labels mandatory on packaged food products high in even one nutrient of concern—sugar, salt or saturated fat—dropping the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) earlier proposal to trigger the warnings only when a product exceeded limits for two or more such nutrients. It also suggested that the distinction between moderately processed foods and ultra-processed foods could be factored into the thresholds. Another concern flagged by the court was the possibility that reducing salt, sugar and fat in packaged foods could lead manufacturers to increase their use of artificial preservatives, emulsifiers and other additives, given the functional roles played by the three ingredients in taste, texture, shelf life and processing. The court asked FSSAI to address this potential unintended consequence through corresponding regulation. FSSAI had proposed the labels after the Supreme Court in August questioned its reluctance to adopt interpretive front-of-pack warnings and warned that it would issue directions if the government failed to act.
The court further questioned the choice of red, noting that Indian consumers are accustomed to associating the colour with non-vegetarian ingredients on food labels, and asked whether the colour should therefore be reconsidered. But the bench questioned whether simply applying these thresholds would erase the distinction between food categories 2 and 3 under the 2024 guidelines, and asked FSSAI whether the differences in processing and nutrient levels should be reflected in the FoPL.
The court’s intervention came a day after the Centre told it that it was open to making red warning labels mandatory on packaged food products high in even one nutrient of concern — sugar, salt or fat — dropping the FSSAI’s earlier proposal to trigger warnings only when a product exceeded limits for two or more such nutrients. Earlier reporting noted: The proposed system involves prominent red-coloured, hexagonal warnings on the front of packaged food, carrying declarations such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR” and “HIGH SALT”.
Earlier reporting noted: The shift came after a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran questioned the rationale behind the two-phase approach proposed by the food regulator, which had envisaged warnings initially only for products high in two or more nutrients and extending them to products high in a single nutrient at a later stage.
