For years, FSSAI has treated front-of-pack warning labels like a file that must never close. On Thursday, the Supreme Court, in uncharacteristically blunt language, called food safety a matter of "national interest" and asked the regulator to take its directions "seriously."
The case filed by non-profits seeking red hexagonal warnings for packaged foods high in salt, sugar and saturated fat has finally forced FSSAI to commit on paper. In an affidavit, it said labels will be red hexagons on the front if a product is high in two or more nutrients of concern - fat, sugar or salt. The thresholds, it says, will follow ICMR-NIN's Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024.
Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran were not impressed. Their question cuts to the core of regulatory science: "If you ask them to put a label, say high in salt, high in sugar, high in sodium, high in potassium, how will you determine it? Have you laid down any guidelines?"
That is the exact loophole industry has exploited. Without a clear threshold, everything becomes negotiable. Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar said FSSAI is adhering to ICMR-NIN. But adherence is not adoption. ICMR guidelines are advisory. FSSAI norms are enforceable.
India is late. Chile, Mexico, UK have mandatory warnings and have seen reformulation. India's packaged food market is exploding, childhood obesity is rising, and our labels still hide behind 100gm back-of-pack tables that no mother reads while buying biscuits for her child. The Court said it will pass a detailed order seeking stakeholder information. The pharma-style warning - a red stop sign on the front - is coming. The fight now is whether thresholds will be strong enough to matter, or diluted to protect market leaders. As Justice Pardiwala noted, "We are concerned with health of people, more particularly growing children."