Supreme Court pushes FSSAI to tighten timeline for front‑of‑pack nutrition warnings

Court reserves order, flags implementation timeline On Monday, a two‑judge bench of the Supreme Court (Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran) reserved its decision on a petition seeking compulsory front‑of‑pack (FOP) warning labels for packaged foods high in sugar, fat or salt. While the Court praised the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for its efforts, it stressed that much remains to be done to achieve the intended public‑health outcomes.

Why the Court challenged a one‑year voluntary window The bench singled out FSSAI’s proposal to grant food manufacturers a 365‑day voluntary compliance period after the final regulations are issued. Justice Pardiwala asked, “Why voluntary compliance for a year? Why do you need so much time?” The Court also queried why another round of hearings was needed, noting that work on FOP nutrition labelling began in 2022 and questioning the regulator’s progress over the past four years.

FSSAI’s revised single‑phase warning‑label model In response, FSSAI indicated it would move to a single‑phase implementation, abandoning an earlier two‑stage plan. Under the new draft, any product that exceeds the threshold for even one nutrient of concern must display a red hexagon on a white background stating “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR” or “HIGH SALT”. The design mirrors Canada’s mandatory warning‑label system. The regulator seeks about four months to finalize the draft, complete stakeholder consultation and obtain WTO notification before issuing the final rules.

Industry and public‑health perspectives The All India Food Processors Association (AIFPA) has submitted that thresholds should be based on nutrient content per serving rather than per 100 g or 100 ml, arguing that serving‑size metrics better reflect consumer intake. Public‑health organisations, meanwhile, have welcomed the move toward mandatory warnings and urged a quicker rollout, especially given concerns about children’s consumption of ultra‑processed foods.

Next steps and court’s expectations The Supreme Court made it clear that any directions it eventually issues will be binding on FSSAI and must be implemented “scrupulously” and in the “true spirit” of the law. The matter will be listed again to assess compliance, and the bench warned the regulator not to disappoint the Court when the compliance report is filed.

Implications for the food sector If the Court’s eventual order mandates the proposed labels, manufacturers will need to redesign packaging, manage existing stock and possibly reformulate products to avoid the warnings. The move could also influence consumer choices, potentially reducing intake of high‑sugar, high‑fat and high‑salt foods.

What to watch - The Supreme Court’s final order and the timeline it sets for FSSAI. - Publication of the final FOP regulation draft and the WTO notification process. - Industry responses to the per‑serving‑size demand and any subsequent amendments. - Early compliance data once the mandatory label regime is in force.