The FSSAI had last month proposed prominent red warning labels on packaged foods high in added fat, added sugar or salt, marking a regulatory pivot after the top court questioned its reluctance to introduce such warnings.
In an affidavit filed before the court, the food regulator said the labels would take the form of a red hexagonal warning on the front of packages where a product was found to be high in two or more specified nutrients of concern — fat, sugar or salt.
The thresholds would be based on those prescribed under the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, issued by the ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition (NIN).
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran, while examining the FSSAI’s affidavit, however, questioned how the regulator would determine the threshold beyond which a packaged food would be classified as “high” in sugar, salt or fat.
“If you ask them to put a label, say high in salt, high in sugar, high in sodium, high in potassium, how will you determine it? Have you laid down any guidelines?” the Bench asked.
Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, appearing for the Centre and the FSSAI, said the regulator was adhering to the guidelines issued by the ICMR-NIN.
‘National interest’
The Bench was hearing a public interest litigation filed by non-profit organisations 3S and Our Health seeking warning labels on packaged foods to indicate high levels of salt, sugar and saturated fats. On Thursday, it indicated that it would soon pass a detailed order seeking further information from the stakeholders.“We have done some homework and undertaken some study. We propose to pass an order calling for some further information from you. Study the order and come back with an appropriate further report,” Justice Pardiwala told Chahar.
The top court also asked the regulator to take its directions “seriously”, stressing its concern over the impact of food safety standards on public health, particularly that of growing children.
“We are concerned with the health of people, more particularly growing children. We have taken it up very seriously... We expect one and all to extend cooperation in a cause which is in national interest,” Justice Pardiwala said.
‘Two-phase rollout’
The FSSAI had told the court that it intended to introduce the front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FoPNL) system in two phases to give consumers time to adapt to the new labels and the food industry time to reformulate its products. Under the first phase, the warning would apply to products high in two or more of the three specified nutrients, added fat, added sugar and salt, besides certain sweetened beverages. The second phase would extend it to products high in even one of these nutrients.The Bench, however, questioned why a product would initially have to be high in more than one nutrient to attract the warning.
“It has to be sugar and salt. Only then will you ask them to put a label?” Justice Pardiwala asked.
Taking the court’s suggestion into account, Chahar told the Bench that the regulator could consider introducing the warning labels “in one go”, rather than in two phases. This would effectively bring products high in even one of the three nutrients within the warning-label regime from the outset.
Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for an intervenor, meanwhile argued that ultra-processed foods could not be placed on the same footing as other packaged foods, citing the example of snacks such as Kurkure on the one hand and eggs or salted cashews on the other. He urged the court to consider a more prominent warning for ultra-processed products.
Red and green marks
“Ultra-processed food and packaged food... both cannot be equated,” Kamat submitted. Pointing out that red and green marks are already used to distinguish non-vegetarian and vegetarian products respectively, he suggested that a different colour could be prescribed as a warning for ultra-processed foods.The Bench said it would consider the suggestion and pass an order, which would be uploaded within a day or two.
Earlier, the court had questioned FSSAI’s reluctance to adopt warning labels for foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat and asked whether pressure from food manufacturers was influencing the regulator.
“You don’t want people of this country to remain healthy? More particularly growing children?” the Bench had asked, warning the authorities that it was their “last chance” to rollout the warning labels.
The court had made clear that its concern was not about banning any particular food but ensuring that consumers, particularly children, knew what they were consuming before making a choice.
Published on September 10, 2026