English
English
English
The Supreme Court has questioned FSSAI over its proposed timeline for introducing front-of-package warning labels on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and fat. (Image: Dynamite News)
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over the proposed timeline for introducing front-of-package labelling (FoPL) on packaged food products, asking why the implementation process should take so long when the issue concerns public health.
A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran sought an explanation from the food regulator over its proposal to allow a 365-day voluntary compliance period after the proposed regulations are notified. The court was hearing a petition filed by public charitable trust 3S and Our Health Society, which has sought mandatory front-of-package warning labels on packaged foods from the Centre, states and Union territories.
During the hearing, the bench questioned the need for a year-long voluntary implementation window and asked why the regulatory process should be restarted after work on the issue had already begun several years ago. The judges acknowledged the steps taken by FSSAI, but said more needed to be done to give meaningful effect to the objective of improving consumer awareness and protecting public health.
The court also questioned the regulator's proposal to undertake another consultation process, noting that discussions on the issue had already been underway since 2022. FSSAI's counsel told the bench that the initiative undertaken in 2022 related to the Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) star-rating system and was based on a different framework.
The Supreme Court reserved its order in the matter.
Front-of-package labelling is designed to give consumers important nutritional information directly on the front of packaged food products. The objective is to make information about nutrients such as sugar, fat and salt easier to understand at the point of purchase, potentially helping consumers make more informed dietary choices.
Unlike detailed nutrition tables generally placed on the back or side of packages, FoPL places prominent information on the front where consumers can see it quickly.
Under its latest proposal, FSSAI plans to introduce a prominent red hexagonal warning symbol for packaged foods containing high levels of specified nutrients of concern. The proposed warning would identify products high in nutrients such as added saturated fat, added sugar and salt. The red hexagon would appear against a white square-shaped background on the front of the package.
The regulator has said the proposed system is intended to provide consumers with a simple and easily understandable warning when packaged foods contain higher levels of specified nutrients.
FSSAI told the Supreme Court that it would need approximately four months to prepare and finalise the draft regulations. Once prepared the proposed amendments would be published for a 60-day consultation period. Stakeholders would be invited to submit their views through domestic consultations as well as the World Trade Organization (WTO) platform.
After notification of the final regulations, FSSAI has proposed giving food business operators another 365 days for voluntary implementation. The timeline became a key point of discussion during Monday's hearing.
In an earlier compliance affidavit, FSSAI said its proposed two-phase approach was aimed at improving consumer acceptance while giving food manufacturers sufficient time to reformulate products where necessary. The regulator has argued that a phased approach would allow the industry to adapt to the new requirements while consumers become familiar with the proposed warning system.
FSSAI had earlier informed the Supreme Court that it was considering prominent red warning labels for packaged products containing high levels of added saturated fat, added sugar and salt.
The proceedings stem from the petition filed by 3S and Our Health Society, which has sought directions for mandatory front-of-package nutritional warnings on packaged foods. The case has brought renewed attention to how nutritional information should be presented to consumers and how quickly a mandatory warning-label framework should be introduced.
The Supreme Court's order is now awaited after the bench reserved its decision on the matter.
