FSSAI Proposes Red Front-of-Pack Warning Labels For High Sugar, Salt, Fat Foods After Supreme Court Nudge

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India informed the Supreme Court of India of its proposal to put prominent red warning labels on the front of packaged foods high in added fat, added sugar or salt.

FSSAI's move comes as a response to the Supreme Court's directions giving the Union Government two weeks to place on record its final decision on introducing front-of-pack warning labels for packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat, warning that it would issue further directions if the government failed to comply.

The proposed labels would be displayed in a font size one point larger than the font used in the nutritional information table on the back of the pack, states the affidavit filed by FSSAI joint director Dr Kavitha Ramasamy.

In a compliance affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, FSSAI envisages a red hexagonal warning on the front of food packages where the product is high in any two or more of the specified nutrients of concern —fat, sugar or salt. The thresholds would be those prescribed under the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, issued by the ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition (NIN).

The proposed warning would carry declarations such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR” and “HIGH SALT”, depending on the nutrients crossing the prescribed thresholds. For products meeting two criteria, the label would display the corresponding two warnings, such as “HIGH FAT HIGH SALT” or “HIGH FAT HIGH SUGAR”. A separate “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE” warning has also been proposed for specified sweetened drinks.

The FSSAI has further said the proposal is prepared to provide consumers with “simple, prominent and easily comprehensible” information about food products high in specified nutrients of concern. 

Recently, the Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran was hearing the matter after earlier directing the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to consider introducing warning labels to make consumers, particularly children, aware of the nutritional risks associated with packaged foods.

During the hearing, the Bench had expressed strong displeasure after counsel for the petitioner drew its attention to the minutes of an FSSAI meeting held on March 7, alleging that the position taken by the food regulator was contrary to the Court's earlier directions.

The Bench had questioned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Brijender Chahar, appearing for the Union Government, over the government's approach.

ASG Cites impact on Traditional Foods, MSMEs

ASG Chahar sought to explain the government's concerns, submitting that applying warning labels based on international standards could result in several traditional Indian food products carrying a red warning symbol. He referred to foods such as namkeen and eggs and submitted that the permissible daily limit for fat was 10 grams, while two eggs could contain around 11 grams of fat.

Chahar argued that nutritional standards applicable in developed countries, where diets may contain less sugar and fat, could not necessarily be applied in the same manner to traditional Indian foods. He also submitted that around one-third of the revenue of MSMEs comes from traditional foods and suggested that imposing such warning labels could have a significant impact on the sector.

The Bench, however, questioned the basis for resisting greater nutritional disclosure. “Why? You don't want people of this country to remain healthy? More particularly growing children?” the Court asked. The Bench said consumers were already aware that packaged foods contain sugar, fat and carbohydrates, and emphasised that the purpose of warning labels was to create greater public awareness.

'Manufacturers may not like us, but consumer should know what he is consuming' the Court observed that manufacturers may not favour warning labels if they affect their business, but ultimately the decision to purchase a product would remain with the consumer. “Why are you reluctant to do this?” the Bench asked FSSAI.

The Court stressed that the issue was being considered in public interest and was particularly concerned about the health of children who may become accustomed to consuming such products. The Bench also rejected the suggestion that its concern was directed against any particular food product.

About the PIL

In February, the Court had asked Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to consider introducing mandatory front-of-package warning labels (FOPL) on packaged food products high in sugar, sodium and saturated fat observed that such regulatory measures are essential to safeguard citizens’ right to health.

In April last year, court had directed the Expert Committee constituted by the FSSAI to prepare its recommendation and submit a Report within 3 months. On 30th January 2026, a compliance affidavit affirmed by Dr. Kavitha Ramasamy, Joint Director, FSSAI was filed before the Supreme Court. FSSAI told the court by way of a compliance affidavit that it intends to conduct further research and undertake a systematic mapping of a representative sample of different varieties of packaged foods across both solid and liquid categories.

It further intends to conduct surveys among consumers to assess the extent of usage of label information; conduct periodic review of the FoPNL trends globally and ensure wider stakeholder consultation with the industry; small, medium and micro enterprises.

"Prima-facie, we are of the view that whatever exercise has been undertaken so far has not yielded any positive or good result. The PIL was filed with a particular purpose. It raised an important issue as regards the right to health of the citizens of this country. Today, what has been suggested by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also makes some sense and we want the authority to take this aspect into consideration. The suggestion is that on the wrapper/packet of any pre-packaged food product, there must be warning in the form of front of-package labelling", the bench had noted.

The petitioner, 3S and Our Health Society, has drawn attention of the Court on the alarming rise in the spread of diabetes and associated diseases in our country. "Diabetes has emerged as a silent epidemic in India, affecting millions of individuals and posing a significant burden on our healthcare system....Shockingly, 1 in 4 individuals in the country is grappling with diabetes, predominantly attributed to obesity", the PIL states.

On the increased consumption of junk foods, it has been submitted that pervasive marketing of these unhealthy products exacerbates the situation, leading to weight gain and elevated intake of sugars, salt, and saturated fat. Highlighting the potential benefits of implementing Front of Package Labelling (FOPL) with warning labels as proposed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), the plea states, "Front of Package Labelling serves as a powerful tool in empowering consumers to make informed choices about their diet and reducing the adverse impact of commercial interests of big corporates. It enables citizens to easily identify and understand the nutritional content and harmful ingredients present in packaged food and beverages, thereby making healthier choices....".

It has been submitted that the implementation of FOPL with warning labels would not only help tackle the rise in cases of diabetes and associated diseases but also address other non-communicable diseases, including obesity, hypertension, and cardiovascular conditions.

Case Title: 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India & Ors.