Supreme Court pulls up FSSAI over delay in front-of-pack warning labels

The Supreme Court gave the Centre two weeks to place its final decision on front-of-pack warning labels on record, warning that it would otherwise issue further directions

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday pulled up the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for failing to act on its earlier direction to consider mandatory front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat.

 

"If you can't do it, we will," the court remarked.

 

Warning that the apex court would itself come out with directions on front-of-package labels, a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran questioned whether the regulator was under pressure from the food industry.

 

The Bench gave the Centre two weeks to place its final decision on the issue on record, warning that it would otherwise issue further directions.

   

The court's remarks came after the FSSAI proposed a different labelling approach, displaying recommended daily consumption limits for added sugar, saturated fat and salt, instead of clear warnings identifying products high in these ingredients.

 

Under the proposal, consumers would be told that the recommended daily intake is 25 grams of sugar, 10 grams of saturated fat and 5 grams of salt, based on the 2024 ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines for Indians.

 

Kerala-based non-profit organisation 3S and Our Health Society, the petitioner in the case, argued that such a system would require consumers to read the nutritional table, locate the relevant figures, and compare them with recommended limits, defeating the purpose of front-of-pack labelling, which is intended to facilitate an immediate and informed choice.

 

The Bench expressed strong displeasure at the regulator's approach and questioned why it had not followed the court's earlier direction.

 

Justice Pardiwala also remarked whether the FSSAI was “bowing down to the manufacturing industry” and indicated that the court would itself pass an order if the regulator failed to act.

 

The court also rejected the argument that international standards on food labelling could not be applied in India.

 

“Should India remain as an undeveloped country?” the Bench asked, emphasising that the primary consideration should be the health of citizens, particularly children.

 

The Union government had argued that applying international standards could result in traditional Indian foods such as namkeen and eggs carrying warning symbols.

 

It also raised concerns about the impact on micro, small and medium enterprises, with the government submitting that a significant portion of their revenue comes from traditional foods.

 

The court, however, was not persuaded by the argument and asked the central government if it wanted the people of India, especially growing children, to remain unhealthy.

 

The two-judge Bench observed that manufacturers might not favour warning labels if these affected their businesses, but consumers had the right to know what they were consuming.

 

The court further stressed that the issue was not directed at any particular product or manufacturer but concerned public health.

 

“There is immense pressure at the end of all these corporate houses on you. And you are succumbing to that pressure! We are doing this in public interest. Keep it in mind. We are not doing it for ourselves,” the court said.

 

When a manufacturer sought to make submissions, the Bench remarked that manufacturers could not dictate the court's approach on an issue concerning the health of citizens.

 

It also pointed to differences in affordability and consumption patterns, observing, “In this country, how many people can afford dry fruits? And how many children buy Kurkure? That makes all the difference.”

 

The court's latest intervention follows its February 10 order, when it had expressed dissatisfaction with FSSAI's earlier compliance affidavit, and said the exercise undertaken by the regulator had not yielded any “positive or good result”.

 

It had then asked FSSAI to consider a system of prominent warnings such as “High Sodium Level”, “High Sugar Level” and “High Saturated Fat Level”.

 

The proceedings arise from a public interest litigation filed by 3S and Our Health Society, which has sought mandatory front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food products.

 

The plea has highlighted the rising incidence of diabetes, obesity and other non-communicable diseases and argued that prominent warnings would help consumers make informed dietary choices.

 

The FSSAI had earlier told the court that it was undertaking further research, mapping packaged food products, conducting consumer surveys and reviewing international practices before finalising the framework.

 

In its February order, however, the court said the issue raised an important question concerning citizens' right to health.

 

The Bench on Thursday gave the government what it described as a final opportunity to reconsider its position.

 

“This is your last chance. Next time we will dictate the judgment,” the court warned.