‘Nutritional literacy’ in schools
Acknowledging that children are particularly “vulnerable” to “impulse or uninformed dietary decision-making”, the Bench also asked the Union government to incorporate nutritional literacy into school curricula, including teaching children how to interpret nutritional information and front-of-pack labels.The top court passed the directions while hearing a PIL filed by non-profit 3S and Our Health Society, represented by advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, seeking mandatory front-of-pack warnings on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fats.
‘Scientific basis’
The court also questioned why a warning should initially require a product to be high in at least two nutrients of concern when excess levels of even one could pose health risks. It noted the petitioners’ contention that the two-nutrient requirement lacked scientific basis and would leave many products outside the first phase.The Bench also took note of concerns raised by stakeholders against placing ultra-processed foods on the same footing as minimally processed packaged foods, given the greater nutritional benefits of the latter. It accordingly asked the regulator to consider whether different thresholds could be formulated based on the degree of processing.
The FSSAI was further asked to clarify which “specified sweetened beverages” would be covered in the first phase and the thresholds that would apply to them.
‘Insufficient information’ on labels
The order also raised questions about the design of the proposed warning labels. The FSSAI has proposed a red hexagon carrying warnings such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR” and “HIGH SALT”, but the court flagged that there was “insufficient information” on its size and placement.It also pointed out that a “strictly word-based warning label” presupposes a certain level of comprehension and literacy among consumers, potentially limiting its accessibility across regions, languages and age groups.
“Ideally, an all-inclusive FoPL which effectively caters to the diverse population of this country should incorporate a combination of words along with pictorial representations of the individual nutrients-of-concern. This would ensure that the information provided in the FoPL is truly accessible”, the Bench said.
While acknowledging that the FSSAI had made “significant progress” in implementing its directions on warning labels, the Bench cautioned that reducing salt, sugar and fat in packaged foods could have the “unintended and unfortunate consequence” of prompting manufacturers to increase their use of artificial preservatives, emulsifiers and other additives to preserve taste, texture and shelf life.
It accordingly asked the regulator to “keep this danger in mind” while finalising the threshold limits and considering corresponding regulations governing the addition of such chemicals to packaged foods.
10 days time
The court directed the FSSAI to file an affidavit within 10 days setting out its responses and clarifications on the concerns raised and posted the matter for further hearing on September 28.The order came a day after Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, appearing for the Centre and the FSSAI, told the court that it was open to making warning labels mandatory for packaged foods high in even one nutrient of concern — sugar, salt or fat — marking a regulatory pivot from the earlier proposal to trigger warnings only when a product exceeded limits for two or more such nutrients.
Earlier, the top court had 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 had said.