Back
Supreme Court Flags Gaps in FSSAI's Red Hexagon Warning Label Plan for Packaged Foods
In a significant development for public health, the on Thursday raised several concerns over the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India's (FSSAI) proposed system. The Court, while acknowledging progress, pointed out ambiguities in the phased implementation, nutrient thresholds, and design of the red hexagonal warning labels meant to alert consumers to foods high in fat, sugar, or salt.
The case stems from a filed by , seeking mandatory warning labels on packaged foods to combat rising obesity, diabetes, and other non-communicable diseases, especially among children.
A Court Pushing for Action
The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran had earlier criticized the FSSAI's delay, questioning whether the regulator was bowing to corporate pressure. In its affidavit, FSSAI proposed a phased introduction of red hexagon labels for products high in two or more specified nutrients – added saturated fat, added sugar, and salt. However, the Court found this approach lacking in scientific justification.
Phased Implementation Under Scrutiny
The Court questioned the basis for dividing the implementation into two phases. Phase I covers products high in two or more nutrients, while Phase II would extend to those high in any one nutrient. The petitioner argued that requiring a product to be high in two nutrients before triggering a warning is not backed by science, as excess sugar, salt, and saturated fat are independently harmful.
The Court also noted the absence of a fixed timeline between the phases, fearing indefinite postponement of Phase II. It suggested an alternative approach inspired by the Israeli model, where higher thresholds are initially used and progressively lowered within a defined period.
Threshold Levels and the 2024 Guidelines
The FSSAI proposed using thresholds from the 's Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024. However, the Court pointed out confusion in the definition of , noting that the 2024 Guidelines use a conjunctive "and" while the 2022 Draft Regulations use a disjunctive "or". The Court urged the FSSAI to resolve this disparity.
Additionally, the Court raised concerns about whether the thresholds should account for differences between (Group B) and (Group C), and between food categories 2 and 3 based on calorific value. This could lead to different warning labels for different levels of processing.
Design and Placement of Labels
The Court criticized the proposed font size, which is only one point larger than the nutrition table on the back of the pack, and sought details on the dimensions and placement of the hexagon. It questioned the use of a combined hexagon for multiple nutrients instead of separate hexagons for each, and suggested incorporating pictorial representations to cater to diverse literacy levels.
The colour red was also questioned, as consumers may associate it with non-vegetarian ingredients. The Court asked whether a different colour should be considered.
'Added' vs 'Total' Nutrients and Other Concerns
The Court noted that the 2021 stakeholder meeting had reached a consensus on using "total sugar" and "saturated fat" for FoPL, but the FSSAI's proposal uses "added sugar" and "added fat". It sought clarification on this change and whether trans-fat levels would be reflected.
Another concern was the potential increase in artificial preservatives and emulsifiers to compensate for reduced salt, sugar, or fat. The Court directed FSSAI to issue corresponding regulations.
Nutritional Literacy in Schools
Recognizing children's vulnerability, the Court asked the Union to explain how schools will incorporate nutritional literacy into their curriculum, including interpreting FoPL information.
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
"The right to life under
encompasses the
. When the Constitution guarantees this right, it casts a corresponding duty on the State to not only refrain from actions that impair the health but also to take affirmative steps to protect it."
-
"Should India remain as an underdeveloped country? That’s the question we are putting forward for the Union to consider."
-
"The normal conditions of purchase and use in India are itself difficult to fit into a single, homogenous box and must therefore, not be addressed by through a blanket approach."
What Lies Ahead
The Court has given FSSAI 10 days to file a response answering 13 specific questions, including the timeline for phases, basis for the two-nutrient trigger, threshold calculations, label design, and compliance timelines. The matter will be next heard on . The outcome could reshape the packaged food industry in India and significantly impact consumer health.
