The Supreme Court has pointed out multiple shortcomings in the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) proposal to introduce red hexagon-shaped warning labels on packaged foods that are high in salt, sugar and fat, in a case involving 3S And Our Health Society v. Union of India & Anr, according to Bar and Bench.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran, while acknowledging progress, identified several unresolved issues, Bar and Bench reported,
Phased rollout logic: The justices questioned why implementation should be split into two stages at all, noting that excess salt, sugar or saturated fat can each independently harm health. They asked for a definite timeline separating the phases, cautioning that without one, the second phase risked being delayed indefinitely. The judges also stated that industry reformulation timelines and consumer acceptability concerns weren’t sufficient justification for leaving the second-phase timing open-ended.
Threshold clarity: The bench wanted more detail on how the ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines 2024 thresholds would apply, including how different categories of processed foods would be distinguished and what specific thresholds would govern “specified sweetened beverages.”
Label design: Judges raised questions about the hexagon’s size, positioning and background color, noting FSSAI hadn’t specified dimensions or how these would be measured relative to package size.
They also asked whether using a single combined hexagon for multiple nutrients made sense, versus separate symbols for each nutrient — and specifically whether a red hexagon might be confused with the existing red symbol used for non-vegetarian food products in India.
Accessibility: The court suggested that text-only warnings might not reach people with limited literacy or different language backgrounds, recommending FSSAI explore pairing words with pictorial icons.
Other open questions: These included whether labels should track added versus total sugar and fat, whether cutting these ingredients might push manufacturers toward greater use of artificial preservatives and emulsifiers, and whether the warnings should be mandatory immediately or subject to a capped voluntary compliance period.
The Union government was separately asked to detail its efforts to boost nutritional literacy among schoolchildren via curriculum changes, workshops and similar programs.
The matter arose from a public interest litigation seeking mandatory warning labels on packaged foods to alert consumers to high salt, sugar and fat content. The court had previously criticized FSSAI’s approach to the issue, questioning whether the regulator was yielding to corporate interests rather than prioritizing public health, especially children’s wellbeing.
Following that criticism, FSSAI submitted an affidavit on August 28 outlining a plan for red hexagonal labels reading “High Fat,” “High Sugar,” “High Salt,” and, where relevant, “Highly Sweetened Beverage” — with text slightly larger than the nutrition information on the packaging’s rear label.
The regulator proposed rolling this out in two phases: the first covering products high in at least two of the three nutrients along with certain sweetened beverages, and the second later extending coverage to products high in even a single nutrient.
Per Bar and Bench’s report, FSSAI has been given 10 days to respond to the Court’s questions and revise its proposal. The matter is next listed for hearing on September 28.
The food industry had already pushed back formally. The All India Food Processors’ Association (AIFPA), whose members include Nestlé, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Hindustan Unilever, filed a court submission — the industry’s first formal legal challenge to the plan — asking regulators to revisit the proposed thresholds.
