The government has indicated it may support tougher front-of-pack warning labels for foods high in sugar, salt or saturated fat, potentially increasing compliance pressure on India’s large packaged food and beverage industry.
The Centre has told the Supreme Court that it is open to introducing stronger warning labels on food products, a move that could significantly affect manufacturers and the wider packaged food industry.
The development comes as food safety authorities across India step up enforcement, with central and state regulators conducting surprise inspections at restaurants and eateries. Several establishments have reportedly faced action, including closures, after authorities found hygiene and food-safety violations.
Centre Open to Tougher Food Warning Labels
The issue came up during a Supreme Court hearing on Thursday concerning demands for stricter nutritional warnings on packaged foods.
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had recently proposed a two-stage system for front-of-pack warning labels. Under the initial proposal, products exceeding prescribed limits for at least two of three nutrients — added sugar, salt and saturated fat — would carry a red-coloured hexagonal warning symbol.
The regulator had proposed introducing stronger requirements at a later stage.
However, health experts and activists have argued that such a system could allow several unhealthy products to avoid warning labels if they cross the limit for only one nutrient.
Supreme Court Questions Two-Phase Approach
During Thursday’s hearing, Supreme Court Justice J.B. Pardiwala questioned the reasoning behind implementing the proposed warning system in two stages.
The judge specifically questioned whether a product should need to exceed limits for both sugar and salt before a warning label becomes mandatory.
Responding to the court, Additional Solicitor General of India Brijender Chahar, representing the FSSAI, indicated that the government was now considering implementing the proposed phases together.
If adopted, the tougher approach could mean that a food product exceeding the prescribed threshold for even one of the three nutrients — added sugar, salt or saturated fat — would receive a red warning symbol.
Health Groups Push for Stronger Regulations
The Supreme Court is hearing a petition filed by health group 3S And Our Health, which has called for stronger nutritional labelling requirements.
Health advocates have criticised the FSSAI’s earlier proposal, describing the two-nutrient threshold as a potential loophole that could leave consumers without clear warnings about products containing excessive amounts of sugar, salt or fat.
The debate has gained additional attention following reports that industry lobbying influenced the government’s earlier decision to pursue a less stringent labelling framework. Major global food and beverage companies and industry groups have argued that warning labels may not necessarily change consumer behaviour.
At the same time, several companies have voluntarily introduced front-of-pack warning systems in some European markets.
Food Industry Raises Concerns Over Proposed Labels
The proposed regulations have triggered concerns among food manufacturers and industry representatives.
India’s food and beverage market is a major growth market for multinational companies such as Nestle, Unilever, Mondelez and Mars, while domestic companies including ITC and Dabur also have a significant presence.
Thousands of smaller manufacturers and businesses are involved in producing popular Indian snacks, sweets and other packaged foods.
The All India Food Processors’ Association, which represents several Indian and international food companies, has called for a review of the proposed labelling framework.
The association has argued that applying warnings based on nutrient content per 100 grams could result in a wide range of commonly consumed foods receiving warning labels, potentially affecting the global perception of Indian food products.
Industry Wants Labels Based on Serving Size
During the Supreme Court hearing, the industry’s lawyer used a packet of food to explain why the proposed 100-gram benchmark could be problematic.
The argument was that consumers typically do not eat 100 grams of certain products in a single sitting. Pickle, for instance, is generally consumed in much smaller quantities.
Industry representatives therefore favour calculating warning requirements according to serving size rather than a fixed 100-gram quantity.
The United States has also proposed a front-of-pack system based on serving sizes, while several other countries use a 100-gram reference point.
Obesity and Unhealthy Diets Raise Health Concerns
The push for stronger food labelling comes amid growing concerns over obesity and unhealthy dietary patterns in India.
Health experts and policymakers are increasingly focused on the consumption of foods containing high levels of sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, particularly among children.
A recent study published in The Lancet estimated that around 450 million Indians could be overweight or obese by 2050, highlighting the potential scale of the country’s future public-health challenge.
The Supreme Court also stressed the importance of protecting public health, particularly the wellbeing of children.
The judges said the issue was being taken seriously and urged all stakeholders to cooperate in what the court described as a matter of national interest.
Written Supreme Court Order Expected
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a written order on the matter before Friday.
The court’s eventual directions could influence how India approaches front-of-pack nutritional warnings and determine whether packaged foods containing excessive amounts of sugar, salt or saturated fat will face stricter red warning requirements.
For consumers, the outcome could mean clearer information at the point of purchase, while food companies may face additional pressure to reformulate products and comply with tighter labelling standards.