A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran asked the food regulator whether it had fixed specific quantitative thresholds for determining when a product would qualify for warnings such as “high in sugar” or “high in salt”. The court also sought clarity on the scientific basis for the proposed limits.
The Bench indicated that it would issue a written order after considering the material before it and its own research. It asked FSSAI and the other parties to carefully examine the order and furnish any additional information that may be required.
Justice Pardiwala said the court was treating the issue as one of significant public importance, particularly given its implications for children’s health.
“We are concerned with the health of people, more particularly growing children,” the judge said, adding that the court expected all parties to cooperate on an issue involving the national interest.
Also Read
The proceedings arise from a public interest litigation filed by 3S and Our Health Society, which is the petitioner in the case, seeking mandatory front-of-pack warnings for packaged foods containing excessive amounts of sugar, salt and saturated fat.
The Supreme Court had on August 13 directed the Centre, in consultation with experts, to examine the visual format of such warnings. In response, FSSAI proposed a two-stage implementation mechanism.
Under the proposal, products exceeding prescribed limits for at least two nutrients, including added sugar, salt and saturated fat, would initially receive a red hexagonal warning. Products exceeding the limit for only one nutrient would be brought within the warning regime during a subsequent phase.
FSSAI has proposed determining the thresholds with reference to the 2024 dietary guidelines issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN). Certain single-ingredient commodities, including salt, sugar, edible oil, ghee, jaggery and honey, have also been proposed for exemption.
The petitioners have opposed the phased approach, contending that excessive consumption of any one of the identified nutrients can independently create health risks.
They have, therefore, argued that a product crossing the prescribed limit for even a single nutrient should carry a warning from the outset. They argued that the proposed “two-or-more” threshold could leave products with potentially harmful levels of a single nutrient without any warning.
The NGO has also objected to the absence of a definite timeline for introducing the second phase. It has questioned the proposed focus on “added sugar” rather than total sugar and the use of “added saturated fat”, arguing that the choices require stronger scientific justification.
During Thursday’s hearing, FSSAI clarified that the two-phase model had initially been suggested as a practical mechanism for implementing the warning regime and did not represent an inflexible final position. The regulator indicated that it was open to implementing warnings for products high in one or more specified nutrients in a single phase, subject to the Supreme Court’s directions.
The litigation comes amid increased regulatory scrutiny by FSSAI of food labels and product claims. The regulator is separately involved in several court disputes concerning labelling practices.
Before the Bombay High Court, FSSAI has questioned the description of Old Monk as “rum”, citing issues relating to its composition and use of rum flavouring. The manufacturer has submitted revised labels during those proceedings.
Meanwhile, Dabur has challenged regulatory action concerning “100%” claims on products such as honey, ghee and edible oils before the Delhi High Court.
More recently, on September 1, the Delhi High Court sought responses from the Centre and FSSAI on a petition by AWL Agri Business challenging action against its Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil over alleged misleading declarations and claims on its packaging.