FSSAI toughens food warning label plan

Food safety regulator Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has hardened its stance on front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods, telling the Supreme Court in a revised plan that a red warning symbol will warn if a product breaches the limit for even a single nutrient of concern — shifting from an earlier two-phase plan criticized as too weak.

In the revised affidavit filed before the court on 23 September, FSSAI abandoned its previous proposal submitted on 28 August, which would have flagged products only in a first phase if they exceeded thresholds for two or more nutrients, with single-nutrient breaches added in a later phase.

The earlier approach drew criticism from health experts and activists, and prompted the Supreme Court’s 10 September order demanding clarity on 13 aspects of the framework — including thresholds, label design, size, color, pictorial elements, and implementation timelines.

Food companies have, however, asked the Supreme Court to reconsider the red color, arguing that Indian consumers could confuse it with markings associated with non-vegetarian products.

The new label

The proposed warning is a red hexagon on a white square background, positioned on the top-left corner of the package’s front — a design the FSSAI says draws on Canada’s model.

If only one nutrient — added sugar, added fat, or salt — crosses the threshold, that nutrient is named inside the hexagon; if two or three nutrients breach limits, all are bundled into the same hexagon. Using multiple symbols as per the old plan would cause confusion, the regulator said. The warning text must appear in a font at least one point larger than the nutrition table on the pack’s back.

Thresholds are based on the ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, and apply specifically to added sugar and added fat rather than sugars or fats occurring naturally in foods like fruit or milk; trans fats remain covered under existing separate rules.

The labels apply regardless of how processed a food is — meaning a naturally sweet product like fresh lemon water that crosses the sugar threshold would carry the same red badge as, say, potato chips exceeding the fat limit.

A separate new requirement would move sweetener disclosures from the back of the pack to the front: any food or drink using non-caloric artificial sweeteners would need a prominent front-of-pack statement noting the presence of such a sweetener.

FSSAI told the court it needs roughly four months to finalize the regulations, including a mandatory 60-day comment window open to domestic stakeholders and the World Trade Organization.

After the rules are officially notified, food companies would get a 365-day voluntary compliance period — a cushion the regulator says is meant to help businesses use up existing stocks of pre-printed packaging without major commercial losses.

Reserving its order on 28 September after a fresh hearing, the court questioned FSSAI’s proposed 365-day voluntary compliance period.

Background

The case stems from a petition by the Kerala-based group seeking mandatory front-of-pack warnings on foods high in fat, sugar and salt. The Supreme Court has framed such labeling as a tool to help consumers make informed choices and support healthier food environments generally and had pushed FSSAI to explain why warnings couldn’t simply be mandatory from the start.

The fight over labeling comes amid a broader food-safety crackdown in India, including nationwide raids on eateries over hygiene concerns, and follows earlier reports that the government had initially favored a weaker labeling regime after lobbying from food and beverage majors.

The stakes are significant for India’s roughly $100 billion packaged food and beverage industry, which includes major multinational players alongside large domestic firms. Industry groups, including the All India Food Processors’ Association, have warned the Supreme Court that many widely consumed products — from packaged chips and colas to traditional Indian sweets — could end up carrying red warnings, which they argue could damage the reputation of Indian food more broadly.