Bench asks FSSAI to consider processing levels while setting FoPL thresholds and seeks clarity on sugar, fat, label design and phased implementation
The Supreme Court has questioned FSSAI’s proposed Ultra-Processed Food Labels framework. The Court asked whether ultra-processed foods should face the same nutrient thresholds as other packaged foods. It observed that a common standard may overlook key nutritional differences linked to processing levels.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to clarify its approach. The Bench specifically referred to Food Group B and Food Group C.
Group B covers moderately processed foods without additives. Group C consists of excessively processed foods with additives.
Court Examines 2024 Dietary Guidelines
The Court referred to the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, issued by ICMR-NIN.
The Guidelines classify foods according to their degree of processing. Group A covers minimally processed foods without additives. Group B includes moderately processed foods without additives. Group C covers excessively processed foods with additives.
The Guidelines further divide these groups into Categories 1, 2 and 3 based on calorific value.
The Court noted that A2, A3, B2, B3, C2 and C3 qualify as HFSS foods under the Guidelines. It expressed concern about applying the proposed thresholds without recognising these distinctions.
According to the Bench, such an approach could effectively erase the difference between Categories 2 and 3.
Bench Suggests a Gradual Approach
The Court suggested one possible model for implementing the warning regime.
FSSAI could first target Category 3 foods. It could then bring Category 2 foods within the framework. Later phases could introduce progressively lower thresholds.
The Bench noted that Israel had adopted such a model. It observed that gradual implementation could help bring changes to the overall food environment.
The Court also stressed the distinction between Food Groups B and C. It said FSSAI should reflect that difference in the warning-label framework.
The petitioner argued that grouping ultra-processed foods with minimally processed packaged foods could obscure the nutritional advantages of minimally processed products.
The Bench clarified that FSSAI need not abandon its interpretive warning-label model to address this concern.
Processing Levels May Determine Different Thresholds
The Court asked FSSAI to examine whether different nutrient thresholds could apply based on processing levels.
This question is central to the proposed Ultra-Processed Food Labels regime. A processing-based approach could distinguish heavily processed products from packaged foods that undergo less processing.
The Bench also sought clarity about “sweetened beverages” under Phase I. It asked FSSAI to specify which beverages would fall within this category. It also asked whether different thresholds would apply to them.
Court Seeks Clarity on Total Sugar
The Supreme Court raised another issue concerning sugar and fat thresholds.
It asked whether FSSAI would calculate sugar thresholds using Total Sugar or adopt a different measure.
A stakeholder consultation held on October 29, 2021 had reached a consensus in favour of Total Sugar instead of Added Sugar. The Court asked FSSAI whether it has changed that position. If so, the regulator must explain how it proposes to address the concerns behind the earlier consensus.
The consultation minutes noted that added sugar enters food products during processing. However, sugar generally becomes a health concern beyond certain limits.
Scientific members therefore favoured displaying total sugar along with energy on the front of packages. They considered Total Sugar preferable due to health concerns, international acceptability and easier analytical testing. The consultation also noted that energy calculations rely on total sugar.
Saturated Fat Threshold Also Under Scrutiny
The 2021 consultation also favoured Saturated Fat instead of Total Fat.
The Supreme Court has now asked FSSAI another question. It wants to know whether the final FoPL system will disclose both saturated fat and trans-fat or only saturated fat.
This assumes significance because the 2024 Dietary Guidelines use thresholds for added sugar and added fat.
For solid foods, the Guidelines prescribe 3 grams of added sugar and 4.2 grams of added fat per 100 grams. They also prescribe 625 mg of salt and 250 kcal of energy.
For liquids, the thresholds are 2 grams of added sugar and 1.5 grams of added fat per 100 ml. The limits also include 175 mg of salt and 70 kcal.
For solid foods, the Guidelines calculate the sugar threshold at about 5% of energy from added sugar. Total sugar should not exceed 10% of energy.
For liquids, added sugar accounts for about 10% of energy. Total sugar should not exceed 30%.
What Has FSSAI Proposed?
The Supreme Court considered an affidavit that FSSAI filed on August 28, 2026. FSSAI submitted it pursuant to earlier directions.
FSSAI has proposed a red hexagonal warning label for packaged foods. Phase I would target products high in two or more specified nutrients.
The nutrients of concern are added fat, added sugar and salt.
The proposed warnings include “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” and “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE”.
FSSAI proposes to make the warning font one point larger than the nutrition information font on the back of the package.
Certain Single-Ingredient Foods May Remain Exempt
FSSAI proposes exemptions for single-ingredient products. The exemption would also cover foods naturally rich in fat, sugar or salt.
These include ghee, edible oil, salt, sugar, jaggery and honey.
Other food-safety and labelling requirements would continue to apply to these products.
Supreme Court Questions Two-Phase Strategy
FSSAI plans to introduce FoPL in two phases.
Phase I would cover products high in two or more specified nutrients. It would also cover specified sweetened beverages.
Phase II would extend warnings to products high in even one of the three nutrients.
FSSAI says this approach would improve consumer acceptability. It would also give the industry time to reformulate products. Another stated aim is to help consumers make informed choices. FSSAI particularly referred to children and other vulnerable groups.
The Supreme Court questioned the scientific basis of the “two or more” trigger.
Petitioner Challenges Nutrient Trigger
The petitioner, 3S and Our Health Society, argued that sugar, salt and saturated fat can independently cause harm.
According to the petitioner, excess sugar is linked to diabetes and metabolic disease. Excess salt is linked to hypertension. Excess saturated fat is associated with cardiovascular disease and adverse cholesterol.
The petitioner therefore challenged the requirement that two nutrients must exceed their thresholds before Phase I triggers a warning.
It argued that this approach lacks scientific justification. It could also substantially reduce the number of products covered in the first phase.
The public interest litigation was filed through Advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi.
Bench Flags Conflicting HFSS Definitions
The Court also noticed an apparent inconsistency between two government documents.
The 2024 Dietary Guidelines refer to foods prepared with excessive cooking oils or fats or more added sugar and salt.
The 2022 Draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling & Display) Amendment Regulations used different wording. They defined HFSS food as a processed product with high saturated fat or total sugar or sodium.
The Court said the different use of “and” and “or” creates confusion. It asked the authorities to resolve the issue as a priority.
FSSAI must then formulate its phased strategy according to the agreed definition of HFSS foods.
Court Seeks Clear Timeline for Phase II
The petitioner also highlighted the absence of a binding timeline for Phase II.
The Supreme Court expressed concern over this uncertainty.
It asked FSSAI to provide a reasonable and scientifically justified timeline. The regulator must also clearly define the transition period between the two phases.
The Bench said consumer acceptability cannot justify an uncertain timeline. Nor can the industry’s need for reformulation time justify such uncertainty.
Court Questions Warning Label Size
The Bench also examined the visibility of the proposed red hexagon.
FSSAI’s proposal does not specify its dimensions.
The Court asked whether FSSAI would standardise the size. It also asked whether the size would depend on the principal display area.
The Bench further questioned whether the font size should correspond to the hexagon’s dimensions.
The petitioner pointed out that some countries use warnings covering around 15–20% of the principal display area.
The Court also sought clear rules on placement and background. It said consumers should easily notice and read the warning under normal purchasing conditions.
Bench Suggests Pictorial Warnings
FSSAI currently proposes warnings such as “High Fat”, “High Sugar” and “High Salt”.
The Court questioned whether words alone would communicate effectively to all consumers.
India has different languages, literacy levels, regions and age groups. A word-based model assumes that consumers can read and understand the warnings.
The Bench therefore suggested combining words with pictorial representations of individual nutrients.
Such a model could make warnings more accessible. The Court also noted the growing role of online food purchases. It said FSSAI should consider online purchasing while designing the system.
Separate Hexagons May Improve Visibility
The Court questioned another aspect of FSSAI’s proposal.
FSSAI proposes one composite hexagon when a product exceeds two or more nutrient thresholds.
For example, a product high in sugar and fat would carry both warnings within one hexagon.
The Bench asked why FSSAI could not display separate hexagons for each nutrient. Separate symbols could make individual risks easier to identify from a distance.
Court Questions Use of Red Colour
The Bench also asked FSSAI to reconsider the proposed red colour.
Indian consumers often associate green labels with vegetarian food. They may associate red with non-vegetarian ingredients.
The Court therefore asked whether FSSAI should revisit the colour of the warning symbol.
Bench Flags Potential Increase in Additives
The Supreme Court also identified a possible unintended consequence.
Sugar, fat and salt perform several functions in packaged foods. They improve taste and texture. They can also contribute to shelf life and microbiological safety. In addition, they assist heat transfer and processing stability.
Manufacturers may reduce these nutrients to avoid warning labels.
However, they could compensate by increasing artificial preservatives, emulsifiers or other additives.
The Court asked FSSAI to consider this possibility while finalising thresholds. It also asked the regulator to consider corresponding rules for such additives.
Court Examines Mandatory Implementation
The Supreme Court also sought clarity on compliance after FSSAI notifies the final regulations.
The 2022 Draft Regulations contemplated a 48-month voluntary compliance period before mandatory implementation.
The petitioner wants the final FoPL regime to become mandatory from the outset.
The Court asked FSSAI to respond to that argument. If the regulator rejects immediate mandatory compliance, it must specify a reasonable transition period.
Government Asked About Nutrition Education in Schools
The Bench also addressed nutritional literacy among children.
It asked the Union Government how it plans to introduce nutritional education at the school level.
The Court specifically referred to curricula, initiatives and workshops. Such measures could teach children to understand nutrition information and FoPL warnings on packaged foods.
FSSAI Gets 10 Days to Respond
The Supreme Court directed FSSAI to file an affidavit answering its questions within 10 days.
The petitioners will then have an opportunity to respond.
The Court has posted the matter for further hearing on September 28, 2026.
