Bowing to corporate pressure? Supreme Court slams FSSAI's reluctance to put warning labels on foods high in sugar, salt, fat

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the reluctance of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to introduce front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat..A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan was hearing a case in which the Court had earlier urged the FSSAI to consider introducing such warning labels in the interest of public health. Today, the Court took critical note that the FSSAI was hesitant to implement such a measure, going by a the minutes of a meeting held by the food standards watchdog.The Court asked if the FSSAI was bowing down to corporate entities involved in food manufacture."Are you taking the court for a toss? ... There is immense pressure at the end of all these corporate houses on you. And you are succumbing to that pressure! We are doing this in public interest. Keep it in mind. We are not doing it for ourselves. Why are you not abiding by our order? What have you done so far? We know the pressure on you. Will you do it on your own or should we pass an order?" the Bench remarked. The Court was also not impressed by an explanation that many Indian foods, like namkeens, would also end up being labelled as high in fat, sugar or salt if such warning labels are introduced. "You don’t want people of this country to remain healthy? More particularly growing children?" the Court asked. .You (FSSAI) are succumbing to (corporate) pressure! You don’t want people of this country to remain healthy?Supreme Court .The Court went on to comment that it is not against any particular food product but only on ensuring the public awareness in such matters. "In this country, how many people can afford dry fruits? And how many children buy Kurkure? That makes all the difference. We are not against any particular product. We only want the person purchasing it to know what he is consuming," it said. The Court has given the Central government/ FSSAI two weeks to place on record its final decision in the matter."This is your (Union) last chance. Next time we will dictate the judgement," it said. .In this country, how many people can afford dry fruits? And how many children buy Kurkure? That makes all the difference. We only want the person purchasing it to know what he is consuming.Supreme Court.The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) plea seeking the display of warning labels on packaged food items to indicate their salt, sugar and fat levels. In April 2025, the Court disposed of the PIL with a direction to an expert committee constituted by FSSAI to finalise its recommendations on the issue.The FSSAI later filed an affidavit before the Court, which indicated that a final decision was yet to be taken.The affidavit stated that although an expert committee had deliberated on the Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) system and received over 14,000 stakeholder comments, there was no consensus on the proposed format. It further indicated that additional research, stakeholder consultation and global trend analysis were being contemplated before any final decision.The Court proceeded to direct the FSSAI to consider introducing front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat. Labelling of this nature is internationally prevalent and is intended to enable consumers to make informed dietary choices quickly and easily, the Bench noted at the time. .Today, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Brijender Chahar, representing the FSSAI and the Union of India, expressed that such a measure may not be ideal in India since Indian food tends to be higher in salt, fat and sugar that 'bland' food in other countries. "The difficulty is that each of our traditional foods will have the red symbol on it. Whether it is namkeen etc warning that it is very harmful. The permissible limit for fat is 10g a day. Even two eggs have 11g of fat. Even an egg will have a red symbol. in developed countries food is bland, less sugar, less fat, those yardsticks will not be applicable to Indian traditional food ... Every food item will have a red label on it," he said. The Court was not convinced. "Even without a red label, everybody knows there is sugar, fat, carbs etc. no? This is create public awareness. You must be concerned about the health or young children, who are addicted to all this," it remarked. The Court also specifically questioned why the FSSAI was hesitant to introduce such a public health measure. "Manufacturers may not like this because it may affect their business. Even after these warnings, it’s the discretion of the person who purchases it. He may still purchase it or he may not purchase. Why are you (FSSAI) reluctant to do this?" the Bench asked. .Manufacturers may not like this because it may affect their business. Why are you (FSSAI) reluctant to do this?Supreme Court."One third of MSME (micro medium small enterprises) revenue is from traditional foods. All these MSMEs will (be affected)," replied the ASG.The Bench, however, proceeded to warn that if the FSSAI continues to stall the implementation of such labelling measures, the Court may be constrained to pass an order for the same. "If the Union does it on its own, well and good; otherwise we will proceed to pass further directions. We grant two weeks time to place the final decision on record," the Court said. The Court added in its order that it did not favor the government's stance that the standards applicable to India should be different from international food labelling standards. "We do not approve the stance of the Union when it says that it’s not possible to match the international standards, more particularly developed countries. Should India remain as an undeveloped country? That’s the question we are putting forward for the Union to consider. The world should know that India is concerned about the health of its citizens and, more particularly, children," the Court said. The Court also shot down a manufacturer's attempt to weigh in on the issue. Addressing Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, who represented the food manufacturer, the Court said,"You have no say in this Mr. Singh. You are a manufacturer. There’s something to do with the health of citizens. Why are you so desperate? We know the seriousness of the issue.".The world should know that India is concerned about the health of its citizens and, more particularly, children.Supreme Court.[Live Coverage]