New Delhi: The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) kept from the Supreme Court a 2021 record of its own meeting that found there were “no substantive studies” supporting the effectiveness of a numerical front-of-pack food label, the petitioner in the case seeking mandatory, easily understandable warnings on packaged food has alleged.
In a fresh affidavit filed through advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi on 12 August, Kerala-based non-governmental organisation (NGO) 3S and Our Health Society said the minutes of an FSSAI meeting held on 30 June 2021 recorded that there was no substantive evidence to show that a “monochrome GDA” label was effective. The format displays Guideline Daily Amounts as numbers. The petitioner has asked the Supreme Court to take the minutes on record and seek an explanation from FSSAI for not disclosing them with its 3 August compliance affidavit.
The case concerns how packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat should be labelled in India. The NGO has sought mandatory front-of-pack warning labels, stating ‘High in Sugar’, ‘High in Salt (Sodium)’ and ‘High in Saturated Fat’.
In an order dated 10 February 2026, the Supreme Court had asked FSSAI to consider such colour-coded warnings. FSSAI instead told the court on 3 August that it proposed a numerical table showing recommended daily limits for added sugar, added saturated fat and salt, along with the product’s serving size.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court questioned the regulator’s decision to propose a numerical nutrition table instead of the warning labels it had earlier asked it to consider.
A bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala also questioned the Centre over alleged industry pressure. “We know the pressure on you. Will you do it on your own or shall we pass an order. You have to do what the court has asked you to do. If you can’t do it… we will pass the order,” the bench said.
What the 2021 record shows
The petitioner said the minutes are important because FSSAI had discussed several issues in 2021 that are now part of its proposal, including whether nutrients should be expressed per serving or per 100g/ml, whether labels should show total or added sugar, and what evidence existed for different front-of-pack formats.
On the reference unit, industry representatives had argued for a serving-size approach, saying it reflected what consumers actually eat. Consumer groups and scientific members supported 100g/ml because it allowed consumers to compare different products more easily.
The minutes recorded that “100g/ml criteria shall be kept as reference unit for thresholds on Front-of-Pack Labelling (FOPL)”.
The petitioner said FSSAI’s latest proposal brings back a serving-size variable without explaining why it has changed its earlier position.
The 2021 meeting also favoured using total sugars rather than added sugars. The minutes said “Total Sugars” appeared to be the best option because of its global acceptability and ease of analytical testing.
FSSAI’s current proposal, however, uses added sugar.
The NGO argued that this change could make it harder for consumers to understand the actual sugar content of a product, since a product may contain substantial total sugar even if the amount of added sugar is low.
What FSSAI said about numerical labels in 2021
The petitioner said the most significant part of the 2021 record concerns the evidence for different front-of-pack labelling formats.
According to the petitioner, the minutes state that “there are no substantive studies to support effectiveness of monochrome GDA”. A monochrome GDA is a black-and-white numerical label that shows how much of a nutrient a serving of the product contributes towards the recommended daily intake.
The NGO said this is directly relevant to FSSAI’s current proposal because the regulator has again chosen a numerical format rather than a prominent warning label.
It has asked FSSAI to explain what evidence has emerged since 2021 to support the effectiveness of the proposed format.
The petitioner also pointed to evidence from a 2022 study involving 2,869 adults across six states. It found that 60.8 per cent of participants correctly identified products high in nutrients of concern when shown warning labels. The corresponding figure was 55 per cent for a similar nutrition table, 45 per cent for a star rating and 39.1 per cent when no label was provided.
The NGO said this showed that warning labels performed better than the numerical format proposed by FSSAI.
‘Gross disregard’ of SC order
The latest affidavit follows the petitioner’s rejoinder filed on 8 August, which accused FSSAI of the “gross disregard” of the Supreme Court’s February direction, where it had asked the FSSAI to consider colour-coded warnings such as “High in Sugar”, “High in Salt (Sodium)” and “High in Saturated Fat”.
The FSSAI’s 3 August affidavit instead proposed a table showing recommended daily limits for added sugar, added saturated fat and salt, along with serving size.
The petitioner said this approach leaves consumers to interpret the numbers themselves rather than directly telling them whether a product is high in a nutrient of concern.
“The proposed FSSAI’s tabular declaration does no more than restate the Indian Council of Medical Research- National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR–NIN) daily allowance,” it said.
A warning label, it argued, performs that interpretation for consumers.
The NGO also alleged that FSSAI’s proposal reflects objections raised by industry groups during a March 2026 consultation, while comments supporting warning labels from 29 public health and consumer groups were not reflected in its affidavit.
FSSAI has said its approach is intended to help consumers make an “informed decision” without creating fear. The petitioner rejected this argument, saying warning labels do not prevent consumers from buying or consuming a product.
“It neither prohibits the sale or consumption of such products nor compels consumers to avoid them,” it said. “The ultimate choice continues to rest entirely with the consumer.”
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)
Also Read: FSSAI bans plastic packaging for pan masala. Paper, cardboard, tin containers allowed