Supreme Court Demands FSSAI Disclose Scientific Basis for Packaged Food Warning Labels

The Supreme Court of India has demanded that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) clarify the exact scientific and quantitative thresholds it intends to use for its proposed front-of-pack warning labels. During a hearing on September 10, 2026, a Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran questioned the food regulator on how it plans to identify packaged foods that are "high" in sugar, salt, or fat. The court emphasized that food safety is a matter of critical national interest, particularly concerning its impact on the health of growing children.

The inquiry marks a critical shift in a public interest litigation filed by the non-profit organizations 3S and Our Health, which seek mandatory warning labels on packaged foods containing excessive levels of salt, sugar, and saturated fats. Last month, the FSSAI proposed introducing prominent red warning labels on packaged foods, a regulatory pivot that occurred after the top court previously questioned the regulator's reluctance to implement such measures.

In an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, the FSSAI outlined a plan to introduce a red hexagonal warning label on the front of food packaging. Under this proposal, the warning would be triggered if a product is found to be high in two or more specified nutrients of concern, namely fat, sugar, or salt. The regulator stated that these thresholds would be aligned with the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, which were recently issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research and the National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN).

However, the Bench expressed immediate concern over how these limits would be calculated and enforced. Justice Pardiwala asked the regulator: "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?" Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, representing the Centre and the FSSAI, maintained that the regulator was strictly adhering to the established ICMR-NIN guidelines.

A central point of contention during the hearing was the FSSAI's proposed two-phase implementation strategy for the front-of-pack nutrition labeling (FoPNL) system. The regulator argued that a phased rollout was necessary to allow consumers time to adapt to the new visual warnings and to give the food industry sufficient time to reformulate their products. In the initial phase, the red warning label would only apply to products exceeding the limits for at least two of the three specified nutrients, alongside certain sweetened beverages. The second phase would eventually extend the warning to products high in even a single nutrient.

The Bench questioned the logic of requiring a product to exceed multiple thresholds before triggering a warning. Justice Pardiwala asked: "It has to be sugar and salt. Only then will you ask them to put a label?" In response to the court's skepticism, Chahar indicated that the FSSAI was not wedded to the phased approach and would consider implementing the warning labels "in one go" across all products exceeding any single nutrient threshold, depending on the court's final directions.

The petitioners, 3S and Our Health, have strongly opposed the phased implementation model. They argue that excessive consumption of even one of the identified nutrients poses independent health risks, meaning a product crossing the limit for just sugar, salt, or fat should carry a warning immediately. The non-profit groups also raised concerns over the lack of a concrete timeline for the second phase, the proposed exemptions for single-ingredient commodities like ghee, honey, and edible oil, and the decision to focus on "added sugar" and "added saturated fat" rather than total sugar and total fat.

The debate also touched upon the physical nature of the foods being regulated. Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, representing an intervenor, argued that ultra-processed foods should not be treated the same as standard packaged foods. He contrasted mass-market snacks like Kurkure with simpler packaged items like eggs or salted cashews. "Ultra-processed food and packaged food... both cannot be equated," Kamat submitted, suggesting that a distinct color-coded warning system should be designed specifically for ultra-processed products to differentiate them from existing vegetarian and non-vegetarian marks.

The Supreme Court's aggressive stance on food safety comes during a period of heightened regulatory and legal scrutiny surrounding food labeling practices in India. The FSSAI is currently embroiled in multiple high-profile court battles regarding product descriptions and marketing claims. Before the Bombay High Court, the regulator has challenged the labeling of Old Monk as "rum," raising objections over its chemical composition and the use of artificial rum flavorings, which has prompted the manufacturer to submit revised labels.

Similarly, consumer goods giant Dabur is challenging regulatory actions in the Delhi High Court regarding its use of "100%" claims on products such as honey, ghee, and edible oils. More recently, on September 1, 2026, the Delhi High Court issued notices to the Centre and the FSSAI following a petition by AWL Agri Business, which is contesting regulatory action against its Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil over allegations of misleading packaging claims.

The Supreme Court Bench emphasized that it expects the regulator to treat its directives with the utmost seriousness, recalling its previous warnings where it gave authorities a "last chance" to act. Justice Pardiwala reiterated the court's focus: "We are concerned with the health of people, more particularly growing children. We have taken it up very seriously... We expect one and all to extend cooperation in a cause which is in national interest."

The Bench announced that it has conducted independent research on the matter and will soon upload a detailed written order calling for specific information from the FSSAI and other stakeholders. Justice Pardiwala instructed the regulator's counsel: "We have done some homework and undertaken some study. We propose to pass an order calling for some further information from you. Study the order and come back with an appropriate further report." The Supreme Court has scheduled the next formal hearing for September 28, 2026, by which time the FSSAI must address the court's queries regarding quantitative thresholds and implementation timelines.