Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court of India reprimanded the FSSAI for its laxity in implementing warning labels on harmful packaged foods, while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL), seeking mandatory front-of-pack warning labels on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat. The court remarked that the agency’s resistance to mandate warning labels for packaged foods high in salt, sugar, and saturated fats (HSSF), raised questions about whether it is acting under pressure from corporate houses.
The court directed the central government’s Additional Solicitor General to ensure that action is taken within two weeks, and warned that in case of non-compliance, the court would be constrained to issue specific directives on the matter. The court expressed concern regarding the health of the citizens, particularly growing children. It also rejected the central government’s argument that strict warning labels might result in traditional Indian snacks (such as namkeen) being marked with a red warning symbol due to their high fat or salt content. Dismissing this argument, the court stated that such concerns should not deter the government from raising public awareness about what people are consuming.
As reported in some sections of the press, on 28 August, FSSAI has proposed front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food and drinks. The regulator has succumbed to the pressure from the Supreme Court, media and concerned citizens.
Why warning signals are necessary
India has a long-standing tradition of preparing and consuming healthy and nutritious food. Our traditional food plate typically contains a well-balanced mix of proteins, vitamins, carbohydrates, and other essential nutrients; consequently, our diet has historically been balanced. However, the consumption of processed foods has recently surged, and the market is now flooded with ultra-processed foods.
Significantly, these ultra-processed foods—manufactured by major multinational corporations—have captured a substantial share of the market. Scientists clearly believe that these ultra-processed foods have been contributing to various non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including cancer. Moreover, companies use excessive amounts of sugar, salt, and saturated fats to entice customers and get children hooked on—or addicted to—their products. Conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and kidney and liver diseases are becoming increasingly common in India due to the high levels of sugar, sodium, and saturated fat in our diet. Because of a lack of nutritional awareness among the public and the absence of warning labels on food packaging, people unknowingly consume these harmful substances. This is driving the rise of these ailments, which are often referred to as “lifestyle diseases.”
If such harmful food products carried warnings indicating that they contain sugar, salt, or saturated fat levels exceeding recommended limits, and are harmful to health, consumers would become aware of the potential side effects. They could make informed choices when purchasing food. While it is true that sales for the companies manufacturing these products might decline, as consumers would dump their unhealthy products, there is no doubt that public health would improve as a result. Not labeling food items is a clear case of prioritizing profit over public health.
Therefore, it is absolutely essential to inform consumers that the packaged foods they are consuming can be detrimental to their health. In other countries—regardless of whether specific warning labels are actually mandated—companies face pressure due to consumer awareness and the vigilance and impartiality of regulatory bodies. While the FSSAI resisted implementing warning labels, reports from independent media reveal that these same companies sell less harmful versions of their products in other countries.
For instance, according to Reuters, Fanta (a soft drink) sold in India contains three times more sugar, than the same product sold elsewhere. Recently it’s also been revealed that Nestle’s Maggi is sold with red signal in the UK for containing excessive salt, whereas the same product is being sold without any such warning. It is evident that, due to lack of awareness among parents, children in India are falling prey to diseases by consuming such food items.
This is precisely why the Supreme Court has expressed concern and reprimanded the FSSAI, questioning how it could be so insensitive regarding the health of citizens, particularly children.
Research by independent experts clearly points to a direct link between the rising consumption of harmful packaged foods and the increase in non-communicable diseases, both domestically and globally. The only way to prevent these diseases is to avoid the excessive consumption of salt, sugar, and saturated fats. However, when products from major, well-known companies are sold without any warnings despite containing high levels of these harmful ingredients, the path to preventing these epidemics is blocked.
FSSAI push for HSR
Showing total insensitivity to the screaming realities, FSSAI continued to ignore the sane voices of the concerned citizens, scientists and public health experts. Instead of introducing warning labels on unhealthy foods, especially foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fats (HSSF), it began examining the Australian Health Star Rating (HSR) model on 4 October 2019.
In September 2021, FSSAI published a report describing the 1-5 star HSR system and its nutritional algorithm. The regulator subsequently signed an MoU with the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIM-A), commissioning a study titled Consumer Perceptions of Different Front-of-Pack Labels for Packaged food among the Indian population on 15 February 2022. IIM-A later presented the findings at the FSSAI stakeholders’ meeting.
FSSAI documents state that IIM-A recommended HSR. On 20 September 2022, FSSAI issued draft regulations, incorporating FOPNL (Front of Pack Nutrition Labelling).
We can conclude that HSR is not the outcome of the IIM-A study. This is important to note, because this study was subsequently used to support the decision in favour of HSR. There is an ample proof in the form of contemporary stakeholders’ meeting records, suggesting that HSR was introduced by FSSAI’s leadership much before the IIM-A study was commissioned. After FSSAI issued draft guidelines proposing HSR, there was a public outcry. Critics approached the then Minister of Health and Family Welfare. The opposition resulted in the slowing of the introduction of HSR.
Meanwhile, the International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), Mumbai, an autonomous institution under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, tested five options, including warning labels, HSR and traffic-light labels. The results strongly favoured warning labels for identifying unhealthy products.
Also read: Punjab’s biggest IAS batch in 30 years has no real work. Govt is keeping them in waiting room
Suspicious role of FSSAI
FSSAI, as a regulator, has the responsibility to safeguard the interests of the common people, protecting them from harmful food but its actual actions have been far from satisfactory. FSSAI was very much aware that many countries have adopted warning signals, traffic light labels, among other things, which can protect consumer interests; it chose to promote HSR. The regulator has resisted the introduction of warning labels despite the matter being hotly debated in public. Even the Supreme Court has indicated FSSAI’s suspicious role in so many words.
Now that the court has made its position clear, there is hope that, with a strong media push, warning signals are no longer a distant dream. Union government is also expected to act in the public interest and move beyond the misinformation surrounding FSSAI’s position. This is imperative, particularly for the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), if the government wants to prove its commitment to safeguard public health.
The stakes are high. If unhealthy HSSF foods continue to be sold without warnings, the burden of non-communicable diseases on people’s health will only grow—and so will the government’s public health expenditure. It seems that the Union government has now risen to the occasion and has dumped FSSAI’s resistance. Now, in the next stage, FSSAI’s officials should be taken to task for playing into the hands of the corporate, and working against the public interest, and harming the government’s image.
Ashwani Mahajan is National Co-Convener of Swadeshi Jagran Manch and a former professor at PGDAV College, University of Delhi. He tweets @ashwani_mahajan. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)