On September 10, the Supreme Court of India raised concerns regarding the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) plan to implement red-hexagon warning labels on packaged foods high in sugar, salt, and fat. This was during the hearing of the case 3S And Our Health Society v. Union of India & Anr. Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran presided over the matter and have requested a detailed timeline for the label implementation, questioning the rationale behind a two-phase rollout strategy.
The proposed two-phase plan by FSSAI suggests that initially, only products high in at least two of the three nutrients—sugar, salt, and fat—would be labeled. The second phase would then extend to products high in any one of these nutrients. The bench has given FSSAI a ten-day period to respond to these queries and scheduled the next hearing for September 28.
The case originated from a public interest litigation (PIL) aimed at ensuring transparency about the levels of sugar, salt, and fat in packaged foods. The court had earlier criticized FSSAI for potentially succumbing to corporate pressure at the expense of public health, particularly the health of children. In response, the FSSAI submitted an affidavit dated August 28, which proposed red-colored hexagonal labels stating “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT”, and, where applicable, “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE”. These labels would feature a font size larger than that used in the nutritional information on the packaging.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court acknowledged some progress since its previous orders but highlighted several ambiguities in the proposal. The bench questioned the division of the rollout into two phases, emphasizing that sugar, salt, and saturated fat pose independent health risks. It also sought a definitive timeline to ensure the second phase is not delayed indefinitely.
The court expressed that factors such as consumer acceptance and industry reformulation time should not justify indefinite delays in implementing the second phase. Furthermore, clarification was sought on the thresholds proposed under the ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines 2024, especially regarding distinct categories of processed foods and “specified sweetened beverages”.
More Read
Several design-related questions were also raised about the red-hexagon warnings. The court asked for specifics on the size, placement, and background of these labels, pointing out the absence of detailed dimensions for the hexagon or its relation to the packaging. Additionally, there was concern that the red color might confuse consumers who associate it with non-vegetarian symbols. The court proposed considering separate hexagons for each nutrient instead of a composite label.
The bench further suggested that word-only warnings may not effectively communicate to all consumers, owing to varying literacy and language levels, and recommended combining text with pictorial representations. Other issues discussed included whether the labels should indicate added sugar and fat or total sugar and saturated fat, and the possibility of manufacturers increasing artificial preservatives and emulsifiers if required to reduce salt, sugar, and fat.
The court also asked whether the warning labels should be mandatory from the beginning or if a voluntary period should have a reasonable time limit. Additionally, the Union government was instructed to elaborate on initiatives to enhance nutritional literacy among schoolchildren through educational curricula and workshops.
More Read
The Supreme Court has directed the FSSAI to re-evaluate its proposal and address the concerns before the upcoming hearing.
