India’s packaged-food industry, valued at more than $100 billion, is facing a regulatory fight over something much smaller, the warning label on the front of a packet.
FSSAI has proposed a red hexagonal label for packaged foods that cross specified limits for added sugar, salt or saturated fat.
The proposal has now reached the Supreme Court, with food companies challenging the way those limits are calculated and health groups arguing that the proposed system does not go far enough.
What FSSAI Has Proposed
On August 28, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India proposed a red-coloured hexagonal warning for packaged foods that are high in at least two of three nutrients: added sugar, salt and saturated fat.
The proposal is part of a broader push for front-of-pack nutrition information, which would allow consumers to see a prominent warning without having to study the detailed nutrition panel on the back of a packet.
Reports on the proposal put the thresholds for solid foods at more than 3 grams of added sugar per 100 grams, more than 4.2 grams of added fat per 100 grams, more than 0.625 grams of salt per 100 grams, and more than 250 calories per 100 grams. Separate thresholds have been proposed for liquid products.
These figures are at the centre of the current dispute because food companies say the methodology could bring a large number of products within the warning regime.
Why Food Companies Object
The All India Food Processors’ Association, which represents food manufacturers including major Indian and multinational companies, has approached the Supreme Court seeking a further review of the proposed framework.
Its main objection is not simply to warning labels. It is also about how a product is measured.
FSSAI’s proposed approach uses a standard benchmark of 100 grams for solid foods and 100 ml for liquids. AIFPA wants greater consideration of the amount consumers actually eat in one serving, or a percentage-of-daily-intake approach.
That difference can materially change the outcome. A product consumed in a small quantity could look very different when assessed per serving compared with a standard 100-gram benchmark.
AIFPA has also argued that the proposed thresholds need further scientific examination and should take Indian consumption patterns and international approaches into account.
The association has previously estimated that nearly 80% of packaged-food products could fall into the high-fat, sugar or salt category under the proposed approach. That figure is an industry estimate and should not be treated as an official government assessment.
Health Groups Want More
Health advocates are challenging the proposal from the opposite direction.
Their objection is that FSSAI’s first phase would require a warning only when a product crosses the threshold for two or more of the specified nutrients. A product that is high in only one, such as sugar, could therefore fall outside the initial warning requirement.
A public-interest petition before the Supreme Court has argued that this could leave products with high levels of a single nutrient without a front-of-pack warning. The petitioners have also questioned the absence of a firm timeline for bringing products covered by a second phase into the system.
The debate therefore has two very different concerns. Industry says the proposed thresholds and measurement method may be too restrictive. Health groups say the two-nutrient trigger may be too weak.
Bigger Food Safety Push
The labelling dispute comes at a time when food safety enforcement across India has intensified.
Reuters reported that food inspectors have tested more than 100,000 samples a year since 2020, with roughly one in five found to be unsafe, substandard or lacking proper labels, according to government data. Nearly 8,000 food-business licences have been cancelled over the past three years.
The enforcement drive has included inspections of restaurants, food businesses and manufacturing facilities. It has also brought greater attention to product labelling, expiry dates and the information provided to consumers.
That broader crackdown is important to the front-of-pack debate. The proposed warning label is not a food-safety certification or a substitute for existing safety rules. It is intended to give consumers clearer information about specified nutritional characteristics of packaged foods.
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court was scheduled to review the FSSAI proposal on September 10. The immediate question is whether the proposed framework should proceed in its current form or undergo further changes.
For food companies, the stakes extend beyond packaging. A prominent warning could affect how products are positioned on shelves and could increase pressure to reconsider formulations. For regulators, the challenge is to establish a system that is scientifically defensible, understandable to consumers and workable across India’s highly diverse packaged-food market.
For now, the important point is that the red warning label is a proposal, not a final nationwide requirement. The thresholds, the two-nutrient trigger and the way the system will ultimately be implemented remain part of the dispute before the court and regulators.
