13 Questions, One Red Label: FSSAI’s Warning Label Stand Before the Supreme Court

13 Questions, One Red Label: What FSSAI Told the Supreme Court About Packaged Food Warnings

The Supreme Court asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) 13 questions about its proposed warning labels for packaged foods. FSSAI has now responded in a 43-page affidavit, submitted on September 23, more than two months before the November 28 deadline.

The broad answer is clear: FSSAI supports a red warning label for packaged foods that are high in sugar, salt or fat.

The proposed label will be a red hexagon placed inside a white square at the top-left corner of the front of the package. It will carry the words “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” or “HIGH FAT”, depending on the nutrient level.

But the details of the proposal raise several questions. Here is what FSSAI told the Supreme Court — and what remains unclear.

Which Sugar and Fat Will Be Counted?

The Supreme Court asked whether the proposed thresholds would be based on total sugar and saturated fat, as discussed during a 2021 stakeholder meeting, and how trans fat would be treated.

FSSAI’s answer is different.

The proposed warning system will consider added sugar and added fat, rather than total sugar and saturated fat.

FSSAI said saturated fat has been left out because the ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines 2024 do not prescribe a per-100-gram limit for it. Trans fat will also not receive a separate front-of-pack warning because existing regulations already limit industrial trans fat to 2%.

FSSAI explained that naturally occurring sugar in foods such as fruit and milk comes with nutrients and fibre, while added sugar primarily contributes calories.

However, the approach leaves some practical questions unanswered.

For example, could a product containing large quantities of fruit concentrate avoid a warning because its sugar is not classified in the same way as added sugar?

There is also the issue of verification. Once a product is packaged, determining in a laboratory whether fat was added separately or was naturally present can be difficult. The affidavit does not fully explain how declarations made by manufacturers would be independently verified.

Another apparent inconsistency concerns the nutritional limits themselves. At one point, FSSAI refers to ICMR limits involving total sugar and fat, while elsewhere it says the warning system will count added sugar and added fat.

The affidavit also raises a policy question: FSSAI’s school food guidelines restrict foods high in saturated and trans fats, yet neither nutrient would trigger the proposed front-of-pack warning.

When Could Consumers Actually See the Labels?

The Supreme Court asked FSSAI to provide a reasonable and fixed timeline for implementation.

FSSAI said it would take around four months to finalise the rules, including a 60-day period for public and WTO consultations.

After that, food companies would get a 365-day transition period, which FSSAI describes as a voluntary implementation period. Under current FSSAI policy, changes to food labelling take effect from July 1.

Based on this timeline, the earliest mandatory implementation could be July 2028.

The affidavit does not specify a final implementation date.

FSSAI’s justification for the lengthy transition period is that manufacturers should not be forced to discard packaging material that has already been printed.

Will Processed and Ultra-Processed Foods Be Treated Differently?

The Supreme Court asked whether the proposed thresholds would take into account the degree of food processing, including whether ultra-processed foods containing additives should be treated differently from minimally processed foods.

FSSAI’s answer is no.

It said processing and nutrition are “distinct concepts” and that the warning will be determined by the amount of sugar, salt and fat in a product.

That means the degree of processing itself would not determine whether a warning label is required.

The approach raises a broader question about whether nutritional content alone is sufficient to distinguish between different categories of packaged foods.

Will the Warning Be Easy for Everyone to Understand?

The Supreme Court also asked how the system would work for consumers with different levels of literacy and why FSSAI had opted for a combined hexagon rather than separate warnings for individual nutrients.

FSSAI said the warning will use English or Hindi in accordance with existing labelling rules.

It has rejected separate pictograms for each nutrient, arguing that symbols could create confusion and that “symbols alone cannot replace nutritional literacy.”

A single hexagon would list the nutrients for which a product crosses the prescribed threshold.

That leaves questions about accessibility.

Why should the label use English or Hindi rather than both? And how easily will consumers who are not comfortable reading either language understand the warning?

Countries such as Chile and Mexico use separate front-of-pack warnings for individual nutrients. FSSAI has instead proposed a combined system.

The affidavit also says the size of the warning would “align with” Canada’s model, but does not appear to specify a precise percentage of the package’s front surface that the label must occupy.

What About Nutrition Education in Schools?

The Supreme Court asked how children would be taught to understand food labels and make informed nutritional choices.

FSSAI said it has written to the Ministry of Education and the CBSE chairman, proposing a curriculum chapter on nutrition literacy, including lessons on reading food labels.

It has also suggested that schools be encouraged to obtain its Eat Right School certification.

CBSE’s sugar and oil boards have already been introduced in schools since 2025.

However, FSSAI’s letters to the Education Ministry and CBSE were sent on June 1, before the Supreme Court’s September order. The affidavit does not include responses from either institution.

For now, therefore, the proposed curriculum remains just that — a proposal.

Why Did FSSAI Drop the Two-Phase Approach?

The Supreme Court had asked FSSAI to explain its proposed two-phase implementation plan.

FSSAI has now abandoned that approach and moved to a single-phase system.

Under the revised proposal, a product crossing the threshold for even one of the specified nutrients — sugar, salt or fat — would carry the warning.

The affidavit does not explain in detail why FSSAI changed its earlier approach.

For beverages, sugary drinks would carry the beverage category inside the warning hexagon. FSSAI has not proposed separate nutritional thresholds specifically for beverages.

The authority was also asked whether the red warning could be confused with India’s non-vegetarian food symbol. FSSAI said the two are sufficiently different because the non-vegetarian mark is brown and uses a different shape.

On additives, the Supreme Court asked whether manufacturers could simply replace sugar with additives to avoid the warning.

FSSAI said existing regulations governing food additives are sufficient. Products containing artificial sweeteners will also have to declare their presence on the front of the package.

One Important Record Is Still Missing

The affidavit refers to the Food Authority’s decision approving the proposed red hexagon and the nutritional thresholds.

However, the actual decision is not included in the affidavit.

That leaves another question: where is the detailed record explaining how these thresholds were considered and approved?

What Does FSSAI’s Affidavit Mean?

FSSAI has clearly told the Supreme Court that India should have a front-of-pack warning system for packaged foods high in sugar, salt or fat.

But several details remain unresolved.

The proposed system focuses on added sugar and added fat, rather than total sugar and saturated fat. Trans fat and saturated fat would not trigger the front-of-pack warning. The degree of food processing would also not determine whether a product receives the label.

Implementation could take until 2028, depending on how quickly the rules are finalised and the transition period is completed.

The Supreme Court’s 13 questions were aimed at understanding not just whether a warning label should exist, but how the system would work in practice.

FSSAI has now provided its answers. The next step is for the Supreme Court to consider whether those explanations adequately address the concerns raised by the court.