After long standing resistance and getting rebuked by the Supreme Court (SC) earlier this year, the food regulator of India said on Thursday that it is open to adopting stricter food labelling measures than it had propos…

After long standing resistance and getting rebuked by the Supreme Court (SC) earlier this year, the food regulator of India said on Thursday that it is open to adopting stricter food labelling measures than it had proposed last month.It has agreed to implement red, hexagonal warning labels on any food product which may be ‘high’ even on one unhealthy ingredient.Also, it agrees to scrap away its two phase approach to the changes and direct strict measures from the onset.A bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala said the court is worried about the health of people, especially the growing children.The pressure to consider front-of-packaging (FOP) food labels has pushed the food regulator to take a conclusive stand.The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had earlier proposed a FOP, red colored, hexagonal warning label for food products high in sugar, saturated fat and salt, in August.However, the proposal did not sit well with many consumer welfare groups who feared it would bypass many unhealthy food products who may seemingly fall outside the criterion.Hence, petitions were filed before the court.They also questioned why FSSAI planned to execute these changes in two phases and not just one, starting from the present.Old Monk drops ‘7 years blend’ claim as revised label reaches Bombay HC; it ‘can’t be sold as rum’, FSSAI tells courtWhat did FSSAI propose?In February 2026, the Supreme Court had criticized FSSAI, saying that the efforts being made to improve food labels were not up to the mark. The court had directed the food regulator to consider food labels adopted by international markets.Then in August, the SC asked the Union government to decide how the front-of-the-packaging labels must look in the country.This pushed the FSSAI to file a compliance affidavit, proposing a red, hexagonal warning label for food rich in sugar, fat and salt.In its proposal, it said that the warning system will be implemented in two phases and the warning label will only be triggered if the food has two or more unhealthy ingredients like sugar and fat, salt and fat and so on.Also, the food regulator did not set a deadline for phase 2 of the implementation.According to Reuters, many food industry representatives have resisted against the idea of ‘warning labels’, calling them ineffective.Objections raisedThe petitioners have argued before the SC that the ‘two or more’ ingredient threshold proposed by the food regulator will allow food products high in one harmful nutrient to go unnoticed and get circulated without a warning label.Calling this proposal as an ‘industry-friendly loophole’, it also counteracted FSSAI’s warning symbol, saying that one hexagon must not represent warnings against two or ingredients and each must have its own.‘Total’ versus ‘added’ ingredientWhen Justice JB Pardiwala asked FSSAI representatives if they had devised some guidelines on how to decide if a product is ‘high’ on some ingredient and which food should trigger a warning label, the food regulator said it will follow ICMR guidelines.The food regulator intended to use ‘added sugar’ on the front-of-packaging of some food products to which the petitioners argued that it was taking a U-turn from the already established guidelines which insist on using ‘total’ in place of ‘added’.As per the petition, the labels ‘added sugar’ or added fat’ does not imply meaning correctly to the consumers.For instance, some people consuming a carbonated drink with ‘zero added sugar’ are likely to see it as healthy and not containing any sugar. Also, the added component can make ingredient calculation more tricky.Hence, it asked the food regulator to use the total count of any specified ingredient.No fixed deadlineAnother concern raised by the petitioner was the food regulator has not specified any fixed deadline to initiate phase 2 of the implementation.Reportedly, the food regulator had promised to make the labels stricter in the next phase, the details of which have not been shared by it.Next date for hearingIn no urgency to pass a verdict, the SC has kept the next date of hearing on September 28.

Source: Deccan Herald