Supreme Court questions FSSAI timeline, reserves verdict on food warning labels

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on the timeline proposed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for implementing front-of-pack warning labels (FoPL) on packaged food products.

The court observed that the timeline prescribed by the food regulator appeared unreasonable, while also acknowledging the efforts made by FSSAI on the issue. It said its order would be passed in the interest of the country and its citizens and that the regulator would be required to comply with the directions issued by the court.

The verdict will cover the proposed implementation timeline as well as other issues linked to compliance with the FoPL requirements.

FSSAI has proposed prominent warning labels on the front of packaged food products that exceed prescribed levels of nutrients such as added sugar, saturated fat and salt.

The objective is to make key nutritional information easier for consumers to identify without requiring them to read the detailed nutrition panel on the back of a package.

The regulator had initially proposed a two-phase system using red hexagonal warning labels. The first phase was intended to cover products high in two or more specified nutrients, while the second phase would extend the warning to products exceeding the limit for any one of them.

Under the proposal, the warnings would appear in a red hexagon and could carry declarations such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR” and “HIGH SALT”.

FSSAI had also proposed warnings for certain highly sweetened beverages, with the labels to be displayed prominently on the front of the package.

The regulator has since moved towards a single-phase approach. Under this proposal, a product exceeding the prescribed threshold for even one specified nutrient would fall under the warning label system.

The Supreme Court has been examining how and when the proposed warning label system should be implemented.

On 10 September, the court asked FSSAI to provide a clear and scientifically justified timeline and also raised questions about whether food companies should be given a voluntary period before compliance becomes mandatory.

FSSAI subsequently proposed taking around four months to finalise the regulations, followed by a 365-day transition period for food businesses.

The transition window is intended to give companies time to comply with the new requirements, including managing existing packaging material before the revised labels become mandatory.

The Supreme Court is also considering several other aspects of the proposed FoPL framework, including the design, size, colour and placement of the warnings, nutrient thresholds and the treatment of sweetened beverages.

The proceedings have also raised questions about whether manufacturers could replace sugar with additives and about nutritional awareness among consumers, particularly children.

The court’s forthcoming verdict will determine the regulatory path for the proposed warning labels and the timeline that food businesses will have to follow.