The Supreme Court on September 10 flagged several gaps in the FSSAI’s proposal for hexagon shaped warning labels on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and fat [3S And Our Health Society v. Union of India & Anr.]. .A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran sought a timeline for introducing the labels and questioned the proposed two-phase rollout, particularly the plan to initially cover only products high in at least two of sugar, salt and fat rather than all products high in any one of these nutrients.The Bench gave the FSSAI 10 days to respond and posted the matter for further hearing on September 28..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.During an earlier hearing, the Bench had criticised the FSSAI’s handling of the issue and questioned whether the regulator was bowing to corporate pressure instead of acting on a matter concerning public health, particularly the health of children.The FSSAI subsequently filed an affidavit dated August 28 proposing red-coloured hexagonal labels for products high in any two or more of added saturated fat, added sugar and salt. The proposed labels would state “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” and, where applicable, “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE”. The font would be one point larger than the font used in the nutrition table on the back of the package..Bowing to corporate pressure? Supreme Court slams FSSAI's reluctance to put warning labels on foods high in sugar, salt, fat.Under the proposal, the first phase would cover products high in at least two of the specified nutrients and certain sweetened beverages. The second phase would cover products high in any one of the nutrients.The Court acknowledged that “significant progress” has been made since its previous order but said several aspects of the proposal remained unclear.It questioned the basis for dividing the rollout into two phases, noting that sugar, salt and saturated fat could each be harmful independently. It also sought a fixed timeline between the phases, warning that the second phase could otherwise be indefinitely postponed..The Bench said consumer acceptability and the time required by the industry for reformulation could not, by themselves, justify uncertainty over when the second phase would be implemented.The Court also sought clarification on the thresholds proposed under the ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines 2024. It asked the FSSAI to explain the distinction between different categories of processed food and the thresholds applicable to “specified sweetened beverages”..Several questions also concerned the design of the red-hexagon warnings. The Court asked about the size, placement and background of the labels, noting that the FSSAI had not specified the dimensions of the hexagon or explained how they would be measured in relation to the package.It also asked whether the red colour could confuse consumers accustomed to seeing a red symbol for non-vegetarian food products. The Bench questioned whether separate hexagons should be used for each nutrient instead of one composite label.The Court further said that word-only warnings may not adequately serve people with different literacy and language levels. It asked the FSSAI to consider combining words with pictorial representations..Other issues included whether the labels should refer to added sugar and fat or total sugar and saturated fat, and whether reducing salt, sugar and fat could lead manufacturers to increase the use of artificial preservatives and emulsifiers. The Court also sought clarity on whether the warnings should be mandatory from the outset or whether any voluntary period would have a reasonable time limit..The Union government was asked to explain steps being taken to improve nutritional literacy among schoolchildren through curricula, workshops and other initiatives.The Court directed the FSSAI to revisit its proposal and answer the issues raised before the next hearing..The petitioner, 3S & Our Health Society, was represented by Advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi. .[Read Order]
