The Supreme Court on September 10 raised several questions over the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) proposal to introduce red hexagonal warning labels on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and fat.

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran sought clarity on the timeline for implementing the proposed labels and questioned the decision to introduce them in two phases.

The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by 3S & Our Health Society seeking mandatory warning labels on packaged food products indicating high levels of sugar, salt and fat.

In an affidavit filed on August 28, the FSSAI proposed red hexagonal labels for products containing high levels of any two or more of added saturated fat, added sugar and salt. The labels would carry warnings such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” and, where applicable, “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE”.

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 extend the warnings to products high in any one of the nutrients.

The Bench questioned the need for the two-phase approach, observing that sugar, salt and saturated fat can each pose health risks independently. It also sought a definite timeline between the two phases, noting that the second phase should not be left open-ended.

The Court said issues such as consumer acceptance and the time required by manufacturers to reformulate products could not alone justify uncertainty over the implementation of the second phase.

The Bench also sought clarification on the nutrient thresholds proposed under the ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines 2024. It asked the FSSAI to explain the categories of processed food covered by the proposal and the thresholds applicable to specified sweetened beverages.

Several questions were also raised regarding the design of the warning labels. The Court sought details about the size and placement of the red hexagons and how their dimensions would be determined in relation to the size of the package.

The Bench also questioned whether the use of red could confuse consumers, given that red symbols are commonly associated with non-vegetarian food products. It further asked whether separate warning symbols should be used for sugar, salt and fat instead of a single composite label.

The Court also raised concerns that word-based warnings may not be equally effective for consumers with different literacy levels and language backgrounds. It asked the FSSAI to consider using pictorial symbols along with words.

Other issues raised by the Court included whether the warnings should relate to added sugar and fat or total sugar and saturated fat, and whether manufacturers could increase their use of artificial preservatives or emulsifiers while reducing sugar, salt and fat.

The Bench also sought clarity on whether the warnings would be mandatory from the beginning or whether manufacturers would be given a voluntary compliance period, and if so, how long it would last.

The Union Government was also asked to explain the measures being taken to improve nutritional awareness among schoolchildren through school curricula, workshops and other initiatives.

The Supreme Court gave the FSSAI 10 days to respond to the issues raised and directed it to reconsider its proposal. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 28.

The petitioner, 3S & Our Health Society, was represented by Advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi.