The Supreme Court has asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to clarify how warning labels on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and fat should work, saying consumers need clear and accessible information before making food choices. In an order following Thursday’s hearing, the court raised 13 questions about the proposed labels, including their size, design, scientific basis, implementation timeline and how children should be taught to understand nutrition information.
The issue may sound technical, but it is something consumers will see every time they pick up a packet from a shop.
FSSAI has proposed putting a warning on the front of packaged foods that are high in certain nutrients. The proposed system uses a red hexagon carrying words such as “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH FAT” and “HIGH SALT.”
The Supreme Court is now asking whether that system will actually be clear enough for people to understand.
The court does not want the warning buried in the details
At present, much of the nutrition information on packaged food is on the back of the packet.
For an ordinary buyer, that information can be difficult to read and compare, particularly when shopping quickly.
The court has therefore questioned the proposed size and placement of the front-of-pack warning. It also asked whether words alone are enough in a country with different languages, literacy levels and age groups.
The judges suggested that pictures or symbols along with words could make the warnings easier to understand.
That is an important point.
A warning label is useful only if people notice it and understand what it means.
One phase or two?
FSSAI had proposed introducing the system in two phases.
The first would cover products high in two or more specified nutrients and certain sweetened beverages. The second would extend the warning to products high in any one of the nutrients.
The Supreme Court has questioned why consumers should have to wait for the second phase and has asked FSSAI to provide a clear, scientifically justified timeline between the two stages.
The court has also asked how FSSAI decided what level of sugar, salt or fat should be considered “high”.
That matters because the number printed on a packet is only useful if there is a clear basis behind it.
The children’s question
The court has also brought children into the discussion.
It has asked the Centre to explain how schools could teach students to understand nutrition information and front-of-pack warnings.
That is not a small addition to the case.
Children are among the biggest consumers of packaged snacks, sweetened drinks and other processed foods. The court noted that young people can be particularly vulnerable to unhealthy eating habits before they have the knowledge to assess what they are consuming.
If a warning is going to appear on a packet, children should also know what that warning means.
There are other questions too
The court has asked FSSAI to clarify whether labels should consider total or added sugar and fat, how saturated and trans fats should be treated, and whether highly processed foods need to be treated differently.
It has also raised a less obvious concern: if manufacturers reduce sugar, salt or fat, could they end up using more artificial preservatives, emulsifiers or other additives?
That question will also have to be addressed.
The court has not finally approved or rejected FSSAI’s proposed red-hexagon system. Instead, it has asked the regulator and the government to answer the questions raised in the order. FSSAI has been given 10 days to file its response, and the matter will come up again on September 28.
Why this matters to every shopper
Most people do not spend several minutes studying a food packet before buying it.
They look at the price, brand, expiry date and perhaps the front of the packet.
If the government wants consumers to make healthier choices, the information has to be visible, understandable and difficult to miss.
That is what the Supreme Court is now asking FSSAI to work out.
For consumers, the eventual result could be very simple: a clearer warning before they put a packet into their shopping basket.
And sometimes, knowing what is inside the packet is itself a right worth protecting.
