FSSAI Considers Warning Labels for Foods High in Nutrients
The FSSAI has revised its stance on warning labels for packaged foods, now considering labels for products high in any single nutrient of concern.
FSSAI plans to implement warning labels for foods high in sugar, salt, or fat.
The Supreme Court's questioning prompted a change from a two-nutrient to a one-nutrient threshold for warnings.
The next hearing is scheduled for September 28, focusing on public health concerns.
In a significant development, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) informed the Supreme Court that it is contemplating the introduction of warning labels on packaged food items that are high in any single nutrient of concern, such as sugar, salt, or fat. This change in position comes after the Supreme Court raised questions regarding FSSAI's earlier proposal, which limited warning labels to products high in two or more nutrients.
During the court proceedings, FSSAI's counsel clarified that the authority would now consider applying warning labels to products with elevated levels of even one nutrient of concern. This decision emerged from a public interest litigation that highlighted the need for clearer labeling to protect consumer health. The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran, deferred further proceedings to review FSSAI's compliance affidavit and the arguments presented by various parties.
Justice Pardiwala sought further clarification on the phased implementation of warning labels, which initially suggested a two-phase rollout. FSSAI's counsel explained that products high in two nutrients would receive warnings first, followed by those high in one nutrient. However, this phased approach was later deemed flexible, allowing for a single-phase implementation based on the court's guidance. The authority agreed to consider labeling products high in any single nutrient immediately.
Concerns were raised during the hearing regarding the criteria for labeling. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing a food processors' association, emphasized the need for consistency in testing methods, referencing guidelines from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). He noted that both a 100-gram test and a serving size test were proposed, which could lead to confusion. Additionally, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat argued for a clear distinction between ultra-processed and nutritious foods, suggesting that products like Kurkure should carry more prominent warnings.
As the court adjourned, it expressed its commitment to addressing public health issues, particularly concerning children. The bench indicated that it would reconvene on September 28 to review responses from FSSAI and the petitioner regarding the proposed warning labels. Justice Pardiwala underscored the importance of cooperation in promoting national health interests, signaling a proactive approach to food safety regulation.
