The Supreme Court has put the Centre on notice over introducing nutritional education in schools to help children understand food labels and make informed dietary choices, while seeking a detailed response from the food regulator on almost every aspect of its proposed front-of-pack warning labels (FoPL), including their size, font, placement, colour and timeline for implementation.
The court cited the UNICEF Child Nutrition Report 2025, noting that the proportion of overweight school-age children and adolescents aged five to 19 increased from 2% to 10% between 2000 and 2022. It also noted that while around 80% of food and beverages available inside schools are freshly cooked meals, nearly 80% of those available in the vicinity of schools are packaged snacks.
The court questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over its proposal to introduce the warnings in two phases — initially for packaged foods high in two or more nutrients of concern and later for products high in any one of them, saying the absence of a fixed timeline could result in the second phase being “indefinitely postponed”. It said FoPL could facilitate informed consumer choices and encourage product reformulation, contributing to healthier food environments, particularly for children.
It also suggested that the distinction between moderately processed foods and ultra-processed foods could be factored into the thresholds. Another concern flagged by the court was the possibility that reducing salt, sugar and fat in packaged foods could lead manufacturers to increase their use of artificial preservatives, emulsifiers and other additives, given the functional roles played by the three ingredients in taste, texture, shelf life and processing. The court asked FSSAI to address this potential unintended consequence through corresponding regulation. FSSAI had proposed the labels after the Supreme Court in August questioned its reluctance to adopt interpretive front-of-pack warnings and warned that it would issue directions if the government failed to act.
But the bench questioned whether simply applying these thresholds would erase the distinction between food categories 2 and 3 under the 2024 guidelines, and asked FSSAI whether the differences in processing and nutrient levels should be reflected in the FoPL. The court further questioned the choice of red, noting that Indian consumers are accustomed to associating the colour with non-vegetarian ingredients on food labels, and asked whether the colour should therefore be reconsidered.
The court’s intervention came a day after the Centre told it that it was open to making red warning labels mandatory on packaged food products high in even one nutrient of concern — sugar, salt or fat — dropping the FSSAI’s earlier proposal to trigger warnings only when a product exceeded limits for two or more such nutrients. Earlier reporting noted: The proposed system involves prominent red-coloured, hexagonal warnings on the front of packaged food, carrying declarations such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR” and “HIGH SALT”.
Earlier reporting noted: The shift came after a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran questioned the rationale behind the two-phase approach proposed by the food regulator, which had envisaged warnings initially only for products high in two or more nutrients and extending them to products high in a single nutrient at a later stage. Earlier reporting noted: Centreopen to warning for even one high-risk nutrient in food labels The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it was open to making red warning labels mandatory on packaged food products high in even one nutrient of concern—sugar, salt or saturated fat—dropping the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) earlier proposal to trigger the warnings only when a product exceeded limits for two or more such nutrients.
