Supreme Court Questions FSSAI’s 1-Year Timeline For Front-of-Pack Food Warning Labels

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the FSSAI over the long timeline proposed for introducing front-of-package labelling on packaged foods, asking why the food regulator needed another year for voluntary compliance when the issue directly concerns public health.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran reserved its order after questioning the regulator’s proposal, which includes around four months to prepare and finalise draft regulations, followed by a 60-day consultation period and another 365 days of voluntary implementation for food businesses after notification.

“Why voluntary compliance for a year? Why do you need so much time?” the bench asked, also questioning why FSSAI wanted to begin another round of hearings and objections when the exercise had started in 2022.

The court, however, acknowledged the steps taken by FSSAI and said more needed to be done to give meaningful effect to the objective of helping consumers make healthier choices. It stressed that the exercise was being undertaken “for the good of the nation and for the good of the citizens”.

FSSAI told the court that the initiative started in 2022 involved the Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) star-rating system, which was based on different criteria from the warning-label framework now being proposed.

Under the new proposal, packaged foods containing high levels of nutrients considered a concern, particularly sugar, fat and salt, would carry a prominent red hexagonal warning symbol against a white square background on the front of the pack. The aim is to make nutritional risks easier for consumers to identify without having to study detailed information on the back of a package.

The case stems from a plea filed by public charitable trust 3S and Our Health Society, seeking mandatory front-of-package labelling across packaged foods. The Supreme Court had earlier asked FSSAI to provide greater clarity on how the proposed warnings for nutrients of concern would work.

In an affidavit filed last month, FSSAI said the proposed two-phase implementation was intended to improve consumer acceptability while giving food manufacturers sufficient time to reformulate products where necessary.

The court's latest questioning puts the focus on whether the proposed implementation schedule can adequately balance industry preparation with the need for consumers to receive clearer warnings about potentially unhealthy packaged foods.