Supreme Court seeks clarity from FSSAI on mandatory front-of-pack warnings for high-fat, sugar and salt foods

The proceedings concern the implementation of Front-of-Package Labelling (“FoPL”) for packaged foods in India, particularly products high in fat, sugar and salt (“HFSS”) and ultra-processed foods (“UPF”).

In its earlier order dated 13 August 2026, the Supreme Court emphasized the relationship between HFSS/UPF consumption and health conditions such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and hypertension, and connected the State’s regulatory obligation with the right to health under Article 21 and the public-health duty under Article 47 of the Constitution.

Pursuant to the Court’s directions, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (“FSSAI”) filed an affidavit dated 28 August 2026 proposing a pictorial FoPL in the form of a red hexagon.

Under the proposal, products high in two or more specified nutrients—added fat, added sugar and salt—and specified sweetened beverages would be covered in Phase I; products high in any one such nutrient would be covered in Phase II.

The FSSAI proposed that the label contain warnings such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” and “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE”, with the font one point larger than that used in the back-of-pack nutrition table.

The Court found that, although substantial progress had been made, important aspects of the proposal remained unclear, including the basis and timeline of the phased implementation, nutrient thresholds, treatment of total versus added sugar and fat, the size and placement of the label, use of pictorial symbols, composite versus separate warnings, colour, possible substitution by other additives, mandatory compliance, and nutritional literacy in schools.

The Court applied the constitutional principle that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to health and imposes both negative and affirmative obligations on the State to protect public health.

Article 47 was treated as a constitutional directive requiring the State to regard improvement of public health as a primary duty.

The Court also examined the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, particularly the requirements that labels be clear, unambiguous, prominent, conspicuous, indelible and readily legible under Regulation 4(7), and the specifications governing the principal display panel and minimum lettering under Regulation 6.

It considered the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, including Tables 15.1 and 15.2, as the proposed scientific basis for thresholds relating to calories, salt, added sugar and added fat.

The Court also considered the Draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling & Display) Amendment Regulations, 2022 and the 29 October 2021 stakeholder-consultation consensus concerning total sugar and saturated fat.

The Court accepted that FoPL can facilitate informed consumer choice, encourage product reformulation and contribute to healthier food environments, particularly for children.

However, it held that the FSSAI’s proposal was insufficiently developed for implementation.

The proposed “two or more nutrients” trigger for Phase I appeared inconsistent with the independent health risks associated with excessive sugar, salt and fat, and also conflicted with the differing use of “and” and “or” in the 2024 Guidelines and the 2022 Draft Regulations.

The Court therefore required the FSSAI to clarify the scientific basis of the phased model and consider an alternative approach based on progressively lower thresholds, similar to the phased Israeli model.

The Court further reasoned that the 2024 Guidelines’ distinction between food categories 2 and 3 was not intelligible if the thresholds in Table 15.1 were applied without additional differentiation.

It consequently asked whether FoPL should distinguish products by calorie level, exact nutrient content and degree of processing, including the difference between moderately processed Group B foods and excessively processed Group C foods/UPFs.

It also questioned the reliance on “added” sugar and fat in light of the earlier stakeholder consensus favouring total sugar and saturated fat, and sought clarification on trans-fat.

Applying the 2020 Regulations’ requirements of prominence and legibility, the Court found that merely prescribing a font one point larger than the back-of-pack nutrition table was inadequate without specifying the hexagon’s dimensions, proportionality, placement and visual design.

Given India’s varied literacy, language and purchasing conditions, including increasing digital purchasing, it considered that words alone might not sufficiently communicate the relevant warning and invited consideration of pictorial symbols and separate nutrient-specific warnings.

Finally, it directed consideration of unintended consequences, including substitution by other additives, the mandatory character of the regime and nutrition education in schools.

It acknowledged “significant progress” but held that material scientific, regulatory and practical questions remained unresolved.

The Union Government and FSSAI were directed to address thirteen specified questions concerning the phased timeline, scientific basis, thresholds, treatment of processing levels and beverages, sugar/fat methodology, design and placement of labels, pictorial and separate warnings, colour, additives, mandatory compliance and school-level nutritional literacy.

The FSSAI was directed to file a further affidavit answering those questions within ten days of the order, with the petitioner permitted to respond before the next hearing.

The matter was directed to be listed on 28 September 2026.