Back
FSSAI Proposes Red Hexagon Warning Labels for High Sugar, Fat, Salt Foods: Supreme Court Told
The has finally moved to adopt a robust system, proposing a red hexagonal warning label modelled on the Canadian framework for packaged foods high in sugar, fat, or salt. The regulator informed the in an that it expects to issue and finalise the within approximately four months, following a single-phase implementation approach.
This development comes after months of judicial prodding. The Supreme Court, hearing a filed by the NGO ‘’, had expressed grave concerns over the health impact of ultra-processed foods on Indians, particularly children. The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran had criticised FSSAI for its earlier reluctance to adopt international best practices. The Court’s pointed observations and specific queries on 13 aspects of the proposed framework compelled FSSAI to revisit its earlier stance.
A Long-Awaited Regulatory Shift
The petition, filed under , sought on packaged foods high in . Initially, FSSAI had proposed that a warning be triggered only if a product exceeded thresholds for two or more of sugar, fat, or salt. The petitioner challenged this “two or more” condition as unscientific, arguing that even a single high-nutrient component warranted a clear warning. The Court agreed, and FSSAI has now revised its proposal to require a warning label if the product is high in any one of these nutrients.
The revised framework marks a significant departure from the earlier voluntary or half-hearted approaches. The FSSAI’s , submitted in response to the Court’s order dated , details a comprehensive labelling system that aims to empower consumers to make informed choices.
The Proposed Framework: Red Hexagon on White Background
Under the new proposal, the warning label will consist of three elements: a white square-shaped background, a red hexagon, and the name of the nutrient or nutrients that exceed the prescribed thresholds. Where a product exceeds the threshold for one nutrient, that specific nutrient will be mentioned inside the hexagon. For products exceeding thresholds for two or three nutrients, all relevant names will appear within the same hexagon.
The label must be displayed prominently on the top left of the front of the package, with a font size at least one point larger than that used in the nutrition information table on the back. The dimensions of the red hexagon will broadly correspond to the warning label used in the Canadian model, ensuring visibility and recognisability.
Importantly, FSSAI has clarified that the level of food processing will not be a criterion for determining whether a warning is required. Instead, the nutrient content will remain the sole . This means that even minimally processed foods that are high in added sugar, added fat, or salt will attract the warning.
Nutrient Thresholds: Basing on Indian Dietary Guidelines
The thresholds for added sugar, added fat, and salt are drawn from Table 15.1 of Guideline 15 of the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, issued by the . For solid foods, the sugar threshold is approximately 5% of energy from added sugar, while total sugar should not exceed 10% of energy. For liquid foods and beverages, the corresponding figures are approximately 10% of energy from added sugar and not exceeding 30% of energy from total sugar.
FSSAI has stated that it will consider added sugar and added fat rather than total sugar and saturated fat for the FoPL framework. This distinction is crucial because naturally occurring sugars—such as those in fruits and milk—are accompanied by other nutrients and do not pose the same health risks as added sugars. The regulator explained that this approach aligns with international practices and helps avoid misleading warnings on inherently healthy products.
Trans-fat content, already subject to separate regulatory limits and disclosure requirements under existing food labels, will not be treated as an additional component for calculating the total fat threshold under the FoPL framework. Similarly, food additives such as artificial preservatives and emulsifiers remain regulated under the . FSSAI assured the Court that the implementation of FoPL would not by itself necessitate an increase in the use of such additives.
Sweetened Beverages and Non-Caloric Sweeteners
Products, including beverages, that contain non-caloric sweeteners will be required to carry a separate warning: “CONTAIN NON CALORIC SWEETENER” on the front of the package. This addresses the growing concern over artificial sweeteners and their potential health effects, particularly when consumed as substitutes for sugar.
Implementation Timeline and
FSSAI has committed to issuing and finalising the draft amendment regulations within approximately four months from the date of the . The regulatory process under the requires publication of the draft for 60 days to invite comments from stakeholders, including through the platform for trade-related concerns. After examining the feedback and obtaining approval from the Food Authority, the final notification will be forwarded to the Ministry for publication in the .
Recognising the need for industry preparedness, FSSAI has proposed a 365-day voluntary implementation period for food business operators after the regulations are notified. This phased approach aims to minimise disruption while ensuring eventual compliance.
Nutritional Literacy and School Children
The Supreme Court had specifically sought details on measures to improve nutritional literacy, especially among schoolchildren. FSSAI’s references its existing Eat Right School programme and awareness campaigns such as #StopObesity and #FightObesity. The regulator also highlighted the , which require schools to promote safe and balanced diets and prohibit the sale of foods high in saturated fat, trans-fat, added sugar, or sodium on school premises.
Going forward, FSSAI has proposed collaboration with the and the to integrate nutrition literacy and the Eat Right India programme into school curricula. Additionally, awareness campaigns, distribution of pamphlets in vernacular languages, and state-level programmes are planned to educate consumers about FoPL.
Legal Significance and Future Proceedings
The case— ()—is listed for further consideration on . The petitioner is represented by . The Court’s active role in nudging the regulator toward a scientifically sound and consumer-friendly labelling system underscores the judiciary’s willingness to intervene in matters of public health when executive inaction persists.
For legal professionals, this development signals a shift in India’s food regulatory landscape. The adoption of a mandatory FoPL system—backed by —could set a precedent for other areas of . The detailed thresholds and implementation timeline also provide clarity for food businesses, which must now prepare for compliance.
Conclusion
The FSSAI’s proposal to adopt red hexagon warning labels based on the Canadian model represents a landmark step toward curbing the rising tide of diet-related non-communicable diseases in India. By heeding the Supreme Court’s directions and incorporating scientific dietary guidelines, the regulator has laid the groundwork for a transparent and effective labelling regime. As the matter progresses, the legal community will watch closely how the final regulations balance industry concerns with public health imperatives. The next hearing on will likely provide further clarity on the timeline and any additional modifications ordered by the Court.
