The Supreme Court has given FSSAI two weeks to reconsider front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has sharply questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over its reluctance to introduce front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat, giving the regulator two weeks to reconsider its position.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran expressed strong displeasure at the regulator's approach during a hearing on Thursday.
Also Read
The court questioned whether FSSAI was giving in to pressure from food manufacturers and asked whether it should pass an order itself if the regulator did not act.
The bench stressed that the issue was about ensuring consumers receive clear information before buying packaged food.
What are front-of-pack warning labels?
Front-of-pack labels are designed to give consumers an immediate indication when a packaged product contains high levels of nutrients such as sugar, salt or saturated fat.
The Supreme Court had earlier asked FSSAI to examine warning-style labels such as “High Sugar Level”, “High Sodium Level” and “High Saturated Fat Level”.
The objective is to make nutritional risks easier to understand without requiring consumers to study detailed nutritional tables or perform calculations.
FSSAI proposes a different approach
FSSAI's latest proposal does not adopt the interpretive warning system sought by the court.
Instead, the regulator proposed displaying daily recommended limits for added sugar, added saturated fat and salt in a pictorial format, based on the 2024 ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines for Indians.
The proposed figures include 25 grams of sugar, 10 grams of saturated fat and 5 grams of salt per day.
The petitioner argued that simply displaying numerical information would place the burden on consumers to read the figures, compare them with recommended limits and determine whether a product is high in a particular nutrient.
Industry and FSSAI raise concerns
FSSAI referred to stakeholder consultations held in March 2026, saying industry organisations largely opposed warning labels.
The industry position favoured providing information to consumers without creating what it described as unnecessary fear around particular products.
FSSAI and the Centre also argued that international approaches to food labelling could not automatically be applied to India because dietary patterns differ.
The court was not persuaded by the argument that Indian food habits made warning labels inappropriate.
Supreme Court focuses on children
The bench repeatedly highlighted the health of children and consumers.
Justice Pardiwala questioned how many children could afford healthier alternatives such as dry fruits and referred to the popularity of packaged snacks among children.
The court said it was not targeting any particular product or manufacturer. Instead, it emphasised the consumer's right to know what a product contains before deciding whether to buy it.
Warning labels vs nutritional information
The central dispute is now about how information should be communicated.
FSSAI's approach: provide recommended daily limits and nutritional information in a pictorial format.
Petitioner's approach: provide clear interpretive warnings indicating when a product contains high levels of sugar, salt or saturated fat.
The petitioners argue that a warning label allows consumers to understand the potential concern immediately, while numerical information requires greater nutritional and health literacy.
What happens next?
The Supreme Court has given FSSAI and the Centre two weeks to place their final position before the court.
The court has indicated that if the regulator does not reconsider its approach, it may consider passing an order itself.
The case could therefore have wider implications for how packaged foods are labelled in India and how quickly consumers are given prominent information about potentially excessive sugar, salt and saturated fat.
Why the case matters
The dispute is not simply about the design of a food label. It raises a broader question about consumer information versus industry concerns.
A detailed nutrition panel provides information, but front-of-pack warnings are intended to make potentially significant nutritional content immediately visible at the point of purchase. The Supreme Court's intervention places greater focus on whether consumers, particularly those with limited health literacy, can actually understand the information provided.
For food manufacturers, mandatory warnings could affect how products are marketed and perceived. For consumers, the issue concerns how easily they can compare products and make informed choices.
The court's next decision could therefore influence India's approach to packaged-food labelling and the balance between public-health objectives, consumer choice and the interests of the food industry.
Published: 13 Aug 2026, 03:22 pm IST
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Related Topics
Disclaimer: Kindly avoid objectionable, derogatory, unlawful and lewd comments, while responding to reports. Such comments are punishable under cyber laws. Please keep away from personal attacks. The opinions expressed here are the personal opinions of readers and not that of Mathrubhumi.