Centre tells Supreme Court it may tighten front-of-pack red warning labels

New Delhi, September 10, 2026: The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed concern over public health, particularly that of growing children, as it considered the issue of front-of-pack warning labels on packaged foods high in salt, sugar and fat.A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said all stakeholders concerned with food safety should consider the issue in the “national interest”. The court said it would pass a detailed order seeking information from stakeholders in the “serious matter”.“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, indicating that its order would be uploaded in a day or two.The Supreme Court said it had also done some homework on the issue and asked the parties to study the order once uploaded. It posted the matter for further hearing on September 28.Court Questions FSSAI On Warning ThresholdsDuring a brief hearing on a plea filed by public charitable trust 3S and Our Health Society, the bench questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) about guidelines for identifying packaged foods high in sugar, salt or fat.The bench noted that details about the contents of packaged food products are provided on the rear of packets and asked whether the FSSAI had laid down guidelines specifying the limits beyond which a product would be considered high in sugar, salt or fat.Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the FSSAI, submitted that internationally, two conditions are required to be displayed on the rear of a packet. He said the content has to be shown for a quantity of 100 grams and per serving.Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for an intervenor, submitted that the government was putting the Kurkure snack product on the same pedestal as nutritional foods such as eggs and salted cashew. He argued that ultra-processed foods should carry a stronger warning.“Red is for non-vegetarian and green is for vegetarian. So instead of red if some other colour can be used for a warning label in case of ultra-processed food items,” he submitted.The bench took the suggestions on record and said it would pass an order to be uploaded in a day or two.FSSAI Proposes Red Warning LabelsThe FSSAI had earlier informed the Supreme Court that it proposed a prominent red front-of-pack warning label for food products high in added saturated fat, sugar and salt.In a compliance affidavit, the authority said the proposal was aimed at providing consumers with a simple, prominent and easily comprehensible warning about food products 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 affidavit said.According to the affidavit, the warning label would carry applicable declarations such as “High Fat”, “High Sugar”, “High Salt” and/or “Highly Sweetened Beverage” to help consumers readily identify products high in the specified nutrients.The affidavit was filed in compliance with the Supreme Court’s August 13 order on the plea by 3S and Our Health Society. The petitioner, represented by advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, has sought directions to the Centre, states and Union territories to introduce mandatory front-of-package warning labels on packaged foods.Court Had Flagged Delay In Labelling RulesOn August 13, the Supreme Court directed the Centre to decide on the visual appearance of front-of-package labelling (FOPL) on pre-packaged food products and questioned whether India should remain an underdeveloped country.The court had said it did not approve of the Union government’s stance that matching international standards, particularly those of developed countries, was not possible.Front-of-package labelling is a nutritional information graphic displayed on food packaging to help consumers make informed purchasing decisions and healthier dietary choices.The court had said FOPL was necessary to increase awareness, particularly among growing children who were increasingly becoming addicted to junk food. It also criticised the FSSAI over the delay in introducing warning labels on packaged foods, noting that obesity had been recognised as a public health challenge in India.The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to consult experts and decide on the visual appearance of FOPL.“If the Union does it on its own, well and good. Otherwise, we shall proceed to pass further directions,” the bench said, giving the government two weeks to place its final decision on record.Also Watch: 'Muslim Inheritance Challenge May Hinge On Sabarimala Verdict': Supreme CourtThe FSSAI subsequently told the court that it proposed implementing front-of-pack nutrition labelling in phases to facilitate consumer acceptability and give the industry adequate time for reformulation.Under the proposal, Phase I would cover products high in two or more specified nutrients, including added fat, added sugar and salt, as well as specified sweetened beverages. Phase II would extend the warning requirement to products high in any one of these nutrients.To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/

The government has informed the Supreme Court that it is open to introducing stricter warning labels on packaged food products after health activists raised concerns over the proposed framework by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), Reuters reported.The development could impact India’s $100 billion food industry, which includes global and domestic companies selling processed food and beverages.After years of discussions, FSSAI had recently proposed a two-stage front-of-pack labelling system. Under the plan, products exceeding limits in at least two categories among added sugar, salt and saturated fat would carry red hexagonal warning labels initially.FSSAI Cracks Down On Bengaluru Firm Over Misbranded, Expired Infant Food The second phase was expected to introduce stricter norms. However, health experts criticised the proposal, arguing that the approach could allow several unhealthy products to avoid warning labels.During a Supreme Court hearing on Thursday, Justice J.B. Pardiwala questioned why the regulator planned to introduce the rules in phases."It has to be sugar and salt. Only then will you ask them to put a label?" Pardiwala said.FSSAI’s counsel, Additional Solicitor General of India Brijender Chahar, said after the court’s observations that the authority could consider implementing both phases together. This would mean products exceeding limits for even one parameter, including sugar, salt or fat, could receive a red warning label. Food industry raises objections over proposed normsThe Supreme Court is hearing a petition filed by health group 3S And Our Health seeking stricter food labelling rules. The debate has intensified after concerns were raised that the earlier proposal could favour food companies.Industry groups have opposed the proposed system, arguing that labels based on 100-gram serving sizes could unfairly impact traditional foods. The All India Food Processors' Association said many products could receive warnings despite being consumed in small quantities.The association has suggested a per-serving approach, similar to proposals in some countries.Health experts and authorities have expressed concerns over rising obesity levels in India, particularly among children. The Supreme Court said food safety was a matter of national interest and urged cooperation from all stakeholders.

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had recently proposed introducing the labelling system in two phases. Under the initial plan, a product would get a red warning symbol if it crossed the prescribed limits in at least two of three categories, namely added sugar, salt or saturated fat. Tighter provisions were to follow in the second phase.