We're concerned about kids: SC raps FSSAI over delay in warnings on packaged food

During a brief hearing on September 10, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran asked the FSSAI to explain what it meant by a 'reasonable period' within which such warnings could be made mandatory.

In Short

• Court seeks explanation on 'reasonable period' for implementing warnings.
• Bench cites rising obesity among children, demands nutritional literacy
• SC seeks Centre's response in 10 days, next hearing scheduled for Sept 28

The Supreme Court has questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over the delay in making front-of-pack warning labels (FOPL) mandatory for packaged products containing high salt, sugar and fat products. The court also sought the food regulator's response on why such warnings could not be made mandatory from the "get go."

During a brief hearing on Thursday, September 10, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran asked the FSSAI to explain what it meant by a "reasonable period" within which such warnings could be made mandatory.

The Supreme Court also questioned why a two-phased implementation for the rollout of front-of-pack labelling had been suggested by the food regulator. The bench also cited UNICEF's Child Nutrition Report 2025 while highlighting the rising prevalence of overweight and obesity among school-age children and adolescents.

The court also noted that while around 80% of the kinds of food and beverages available within schools are freshly cooked meals, nearly 80% of what is available in the vicinity of schools consists of packaged snacks.

"We are only concerned about the health of people, especially growing children. We want all the concerned to consider the cause in national interest," the bench said.

The Supreme Court asked the Centre to file its response in the matter within 10 days. The court called on the government to introduce "nutritional education" as a part of school curriculums.

It asked the Centre to respond on how schools plan to incorporate nutritional literacy through curriculum, initiatives and workshops. The court has sought details on the manner in which information provided on packaged food items, including nutritional information and Front-of-Pack Labelling (FoPL), must be interpreted.

The Supreme Court also remarked that the proposed "red hexagon" shape for package warnings may confuse consumers as it appears similar to the warning label used for non-vegetarian food.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 28.

FRONT-OF-PACK LABELLING: BRIEF OVERVIEW

Earlier, the FSSAI had told the Supreme Court that it had proposed a prominent front-of-pack warning label in red colour for food products which are high in added saturated fat, sugar and salt.

In a compliance affidavit filed before the court, the food safety regulator had said the proposal was intended to provide a simple, prominent and easily comprehensible warning to consumers regarding food products which are high in specified nutrients of concern.

"It is proposed to provide a prominent front-of-pack warning label in a red-coloured hexagonal shape for food products which are high in any two or more of the following nutrients of concern, namely added saturated fat, added sugar and salt, based on the thresholds specified under the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024 issued by ICMR-NIN," the FSSAI had said in the affidavit.

According to the submission, the warning label would indicate the applicable declarations, such as "High Fat," "High Sugar," "High Salt" and/or "Highly Sweetened Beverage," as the case may be, to enable consumers to readily identify products high in the specified nutrients.

The affidavit was filed in compliance with the court's August 13 order passed while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL). The petitioner has sought directions to the Centre, states and Union territories to implement mandatory front-of-package warning labels on packaged foods.

- Ends
(With inputs from PTI)