SC seeks FSSAI clarity on ultra-processed foods, FoPL nutrient thresholds

The Supreme Court has sought detailed clarifications from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on its proposed front-of-pack labelling (FoPL) regime, questioning whether ultra-processed foods should be assessed in the same manner as other packaged foods.

In an order made public on Friday, a Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran has asked whether FSSAI will distinguish between moderately processed foods without additives and excessively processed foods containing additives while fixing thresholds for nutrients of concern.

The query follows the classification in the 2024 Dietary Guidelines for Indians issued by ICMR-NIN, which divides foods into Groups A, B and C according to their degree of processing.

The categories are further divided by calorific value. The guidelines identify A2, A3, B2, B3, C2 and C3 as foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS).

The Bench observed that applying a uniform threshold could effectively erase the distinction between different categories of food. It suggested that Category 3 foods could be covered first, followed by Category 2 products through progressively lower thresholds.

The Court noted that Israel had adopted a similar phased approach. It further said the distinction between Groups B and C “must also somehow be reflected” in the warning-label framework and indicated that separate thresholds based on processing levels could be considered without requiring FSSAI to restart the FoPL exercise.

The Court has also asked FSSAI to specify which “sweetened beverages” would be covered in Phase I.

Total sugar or added sugar?

The Bench has separately questioned whether FSSAI has departed from a 2021 stakeholder consensus that FoPL thresholds should be based on total sugar and saturated fat.

Minutes of the October 29, 2021, consultation recorded a preference for total sugar over added sugar on health, international acceptability and testing considerations.

The Court has asked FSSAI to explain whether its position has since changed and, if so, how the concerns underlying the earlier consensus are being addressed.

It has also sought clarity on whether both saturated and trans fats will be reflected in the final framework.

The questions assume significance because FSSAI's August 28, 2026, affidavit relies on the 2024 Dietary Guidelines, whose threshold table refers to added sugar and added fat. For solid foods, the proposed limits are 3 grams of added sugar, 4.2 grams of added fat, 625 mg of salt and 250 kcal per 100 grams. For liquids, the corresponding limits are 2 grams, 1.5 grams, 175 mg and 70 kcal per 100 ml.

Court questions two-phase model

FSSAI has proposed red hexagonal warnings for packaged foods high in two or more specified nutrients — added sugar, added fat and salt — in Phase I. Phase II would extend warnings to products exceeding the threshold for even one nutrient.

The petitioner, 3S and Our Health Society, has challenged the “two-or-more” trigger as scientifically unsound, arguing that excessive sugar, salt and saturated fat pose independent health risks.

The Court also flagged an apparent inconsistency between the 2024 Dietary Guidelines and the 2022 draft labelling regulations over whether HFSS classification requires excessive levels of multiple nutrients (“and”) or any one nutrient (“or”).

It directed FSSAI to resolve the inconsistency and establish a scientifically justified timeline between the two phases. The Bench said consumer acceptability and industry reformulation could not justify leaving Phase II without a definite timeframe.

Questions over warning design

The Court has also questioned the proposed design of the warnings, including the absence of specifications on the size of the red hexagon and whether its dimensions should be proportionate to the front-of-pack area.

It asked why separate symbols could not be used for individual nutrients instead of combining multiple warnings in one hexagon.

The Bench also suggested supplementing text-based warnings with pictorial representations to make them accessible across different literacy levels, languages and age groups, including consumers shopping online.

The choice of red has also come under scrutiny because consumers commonly associate red food symbols with non-vegetarian products.

The Bench further flagged a potential unintended consequence: reducing sugar, fat or salt could encourage manufacturers to increase the use of preservatives, emulsifiers and other additives. It has asked FSSAI to consider this risk while finalising the framework.

The Court has also sought clarity on whether FoPL compliance will be mandatory immediately after notification or follow a transition period, and asked the Union government how nutritional literacy could be introduced through schools, curricula and workshops.

FSSAI has been directed to file its response within 10 days, after which the petitioners may respond. The matter will next be heard on September 28.