New Delhi: Mandatory warning labels on packaged foods high in fat, sugar and salt could take nearly two more years to reach consumers under the timeline proposed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), petitioners seeking such labels told the Supreme Court.
In a rejoinder filed Friday, 3S and Our Health Society, a Kerala-based non-profit organisation, has opposed FSSAI’s proposed 365-day voluntary implementation period, arguing that food companies can comply much sooner by using stickers on packaging that has already been printed.
In its compliance affidavit filed 23 September, FSSAI proposed a new front-of-pack warning system for packaged foods, including a single-phase red hexagon on a white square background. The authority said the proposed regulations would take about four months to finalise and notify, followed by a 365-day voluntary implementation period.
The petitioners’ counsel, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, has instead proposed a one-month compliance window for manufacturers to redesign their packaging. Existing printed packaging, the petitioners said, can continue to be used if a sticker carrying the warning in the prescribed size, format and position is affixed before the product reaches consumers.
“No printed material is wasted, as it can be used with a sticker,” the rejoinder said. The petitioners also argued that there is no need to wait for manufacturers to reformulate products before introducing the labels because a warning label discloses what is already in the product.
“What the manufacturer lacks is not time to reformulate but a reason to do so, and the warning label supplies that reason,” the rejoinder added.
Dr Arun Gupta, convenor of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi), told ThePrint that FSSAI had addressed some concerns raised earlier, but the proposed implementation timeline remained a major issue.
“FSSAI has abandoned the two-phase structure and the ‘two or more nutrients’ trigger. That is welcome. But stretching implementation up to July 2028 is unreasonable from a public-health perspective. The warning should be effected by July 2027 or even earlier, because considerable delay has already taken place. There should be no further dilatory consultation,” Dr Gupta said.
The case, 3S and Our Health Society vs Union of India, concerns a petition seeking mandatory front-of-pack labelling (FoPL) for packaged foods high in nutrients of concern, including sugar, salt and fat.
In its 10 September order, the Supreme Court had sought responses from FSSAI on 13 aspects of the proposed system, including the implementation timeline, nutrient thresholds, design and placement of warnings, pictorial representation, beverages, additives and nutrition education in schools.
‘Voluntary’ period could delay mandatory warnings
Responding to FSSAI’s proposed schedule where the first four months are allotted to finalising the draft, followed by a 365-day voluntary implementation period, the petitioners said this could mean mandatory compliance only from 1 July 2028 if the regulations are finalised in early 2027.
The rejoinder noted that this would mean consumers see mandatory warning labels “nearly six years after the (first) draft of 13.09.2022”.
The petitioners opposed the voluntary period, arguing that manufacturers would have little incentive to put warning labels on their products while competing products remained without them.
“Voluntary compliance cannot be banked upon when information is the right of the consumer and health is at stake,” the petitioners said.
They also challenged FSSAI’s proposal that enforcement begin only on 1 July following completion of the voluntary period. The petitioners referred to an FSSAI office order dated 6 January 2026 concerning routine labelling changes, which states that “in emergency situations, the matter of implementation or enforcement may be decided on a case-by-case basis”.
The petitioners argued that the rising burden of childhood obesity, diabetes and hypertension should be treated as an emergency warranting faster implementation.
‘Consultations unnecessary at this stage’
They have also opposed another proposed 60-day public and stakeholder consultation, calling it unnecessary at this stage. The rejoinder pointed out that the process began with draft regulations in September 2022, which received more than 14,000 comments and were subsequently examined by an expert committee.
The petitioners argued that “consensus with the manufacturers whose products are to carry the warning cannot be the test for a public-health measure”.
They have proposed that manufacturers determine, based on the nutrition information on their products, whether they cross the notified thresholds, without requiring prior approval from FSSAI. This, they said, would prevent companies from delaying implementation by seeking individual clearances.
The rejoinder also disputed FSSAI’s reliance on a NITI Aayog high-level committee recommendation concerning inventory and repackaging costs. The petitioners said those recommendations dealt with routine labelling changes and did not assess public-health considerations.
Petitioners argued that FSSAI’s primary responsibility is consumer protection. They added, “a label that informs the consumer does not restrict trade at all: Every product remains freely saleable”.
‘Added’ sugar, level of food processing among disputes
A key disagreement between the petitioners and FSSAI concerns is which nutrients should trigger a warning.
FSSAI has proposed thresholds based on added sugar and added fat. The petitioners, however, want total sugar and total fat to be considered, using the thresholds issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN).
The petitioners questioned whether added sugar and added fat can be reliably identified through laboratory testing. Typically, laboratory tests cannot distinguish between sugar added during manufacturing and sugar naturally present in an ingredient.
“A warning criterion that cannot be tested cannot be enforced,” the petitioners said.
The petitioners also raised concerns that an added-sugar criterion could allow products containing fruit juice concentrate, fruit pulp or jaggery to claim that they contain “no added sugar” even when their total sugar and energy content is high.
“It is the total load that affects blood glucose, weight and metabolic health,” they said.
On trans-fats, the petitioners have sought a separate front-of-pack warning for industrial trans-fats, adding that “trans-fat being totally eliminated may be the best way forward”.
They have also asked the court to direct FSSAI to address ultra-processed foods (UPFs), arguing that the regulator’s current proposal does not take the level of processing into account.
Separate red hexagon for every nutrient
On the design of the warnings, the petitioners said that there should be a separate red hexagon for every nutrient that crosses the threshold. They argued, “…in the interest of consumers who cannot read, there must be a separate hexagon for each nutrient of concern”.
They have also sought pictorial symbols, such as a salt shaker, sugar cubes or an oil drop, alongside text in English and Hindi.
The petitioners said a text-only warning “presupposes the very literacy which this Hon’ble Court held cannot be assumed across the population”.
They have further opposed FSSAI’s proposed font size, under which the warning would be only one point larger than the nutrition information table. Instead, they want the warning area to occupy 15 to 20 percent of the principal display panel, citing labelling systems in Chile and Mexico.
The petitioners have also asked that warnings be placed on the front-right side of the package, arguing that consumers generally hold packets from the left edge.
School lessons on the glycemic index, snacking
In its Wednesday compliance affidavit, the FSSAI had proposed working with the Ministry of Education and CBSE to introduce food and nutrition literacy in school curricula and encouraging schools to obtain its “Eat Right School” certification.
The petitioners, however, have sought a more detailed curriculum review, including a formal review of school syllabi from around Class 7 to teach students about the glycemic index, the risks associated with frequent snacking and how to read front-of-pack warnings.
They said “The concept of the glycemic index of food is critical to distinguishing merit food from junk food”.
The petitioners have also raised concerns about sponsored events in schools. They said “schools often become platforms for sponsored occasions such as ‘World Chocolate Day’ and even ‘Junk Food Day’, where children consume high-glycemic foods”.
The rejoinder also raises concerns about the role of commercial interests in the regulatory process. The petitioners said consultations so far have been dominated by the very manufacturers whose products must carry the warnings.
The petitioners have asked the court to ensure that persons and bodies with a commercial interest in the products concerned are not members of, and do not vote in, the expert or scientific bodies deciding the regulation.
They have also sought public disclosure of FSSAI’s agenda, minutes and resolutions relating to approval of the final front-of-pack labelling system.
The petitioners further suggested renaming FSSAI’s “Eat Right” campaign “Eat Natural” to encourage consumption of fresh and minimally processed foods.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)