The Supreme Court has sought explanation on 13 key points from the Union Government and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) regarding the Front-of-Pack Labelling (FOPL) proposal submitted by the regulator to the apex court.
"We would like the Union and the FSSAI respectively to provide an appropriate response," reads the court order.
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran raised important questions about the practical implementation, scientific criteria, visual accessibility, and regulatory clarity of the proposed labelling framework.
The order follows a public interest litigation filed by '3S and Our Health Society', which demands mandatory health warnings on packaged foods high in fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS).
While acknowledging the regulator’s proposed red hexagonal warning system, the apex court pointed out several execution gaps, directing both the Union of India and the FSSAI to submit a detailed response via affidavit.
The apex court asked the Union to explain the "reasonable and fixed timeline" for the implementation of the two phases proposed by the FSSAI, along with the basis for including food products high in "two or more" nutrients of concern and specified sweetened beverages in Phase I, while deferring food products high in "any one" nutrient of concern to Phase II.
Further, the FSSAI and the Union Government have been asked to detail the process for identifying specific sweetened beverages falling under Phase I and the corresponding threshold levels for the nutrients of concern.
The court also sought an explanation regarding the calculation of threshold levels for each nutrient of concern, inquiring whether calculations account for differences between food groups B (moderately processed with no additives) and C (excessively processed with additives).
Furthermore, the Food Authority was asked to clarify if it is considering calculations based on "total sugar and saturated fat" as indicated in earlier stakeholder meetings, and how trans-fats are factored into overall fat content calculations.
Highlighting cultural context, the Supreme Court pointed out that Indian consumers widely associate a red symbol with non-vegetarian ingredients, asking whether the FSSAI is willing to reconsider the choice of colour as well as the physical dimensions of the proposed red hexagon.
One of the primary concerns raised by the bench was consumer accessibility, as without distinct pictorial representations for each nutrient of concern on the FOPL, how does the FSSAI propose to cater to the diverse levels of comprehension, literacy, and reading capability across the population?
Additionally, the FSSAI was asked to justify the reliance on a single composite hexagon for all ingredients of concern instead of requiring separate, distinct hexagons for each nutrient.
Addressing future-proofing concerns, the bench inquired how the regulator plans to control a potential rise in the use of artificial preservatives and emulsifiers during product reformulation, which may result as a consequence of the implementation of the FOPL.
In its order, the Supreme Court further stated: "We would like the Union to respond on how schools plan to incorporate through curriculum, initiatives, workshops, etc., (i) the manner in which information provided in packaged food items, including nutritional information, FoPL, etc., must be interpreted, and (ii) other aspects relating to nutritional literacy. In recognition of the vulnerable position that children are in vis-à-vis impulse or uninformed dietary decision-making, we are of the view that some action must be taken in this regard."