The Madras High Court has declined to withdraw its direction requiring bottled drinking water and plastic-packaged salt and sugar to carry warnings about the possible presence of microplastics.
A Bench of Justices N Sathish Kumar and D Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed a review petition filed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), along with recall applications moved by industry associations challenging the Court’s earlier interim direction.
The Court rejected the argument that warning labels should wait until scientific studies conclusively establish the health risks associated with micro and nano plastics.
According to the Bench, informing consumers that the products may contain such particles is a basic disclosure requirement and does not amount to declaring the products unsafe.
The Court observed that the February 6 order had sought only the “barest essential minimum”—to tell consumers about the possible presence of micro or nano plastics.
It consequently found no basis to review or recall that direction.
Consumer disclosure at the centre of the dispute
The Court noted that neither FSSAI nor the industry bodies had disputed the detection of micro and nano plastics in packaged water, sugar and salt.
Against that backdrop, the Bench stressed that labelling is fundamentally about providing consumers with relevant information.
The Court also rejected concerns that warning labels could trigger commercial difficulties for manufacturers. It criticised the suggestion that inconvenient facts should be overlooked because of a possible commercial backlash.
The February direction had required PET and plastic bottles containing drinking water to prominently display the warning:
“This water may contain Micro/Nano Plastics.”
Comparable warnings were ordered for sugar and salt sold in plastic packaging, with FSSAI directed to communicate and enforce the requirement among manufacturers.
Evidence of microplastics cited before Court
The earlier direction followed material indicating that microplastics had been detected in commercially available bottled water collected from several parts of India, including Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Haryana, Karnataka and Maharashtra.
Higher concentrations had also been reported in sugar and salt packaged in plastic or polythene.
FSSAI and industry associations had argued that the labelling requirement was premature because scientific evidence had not yet established the precise health consequences of exposure to microplastics or the level that humans could safely tolerate.
Another contention was that particles detected in bottled water could have originated from the water source rather than the PET container.
The High Court found that distinction insufficient to justify removing the disclosure requirement.
If micro or nano plastics are present in the water inside a bottle, the Bench said, consumers should be informed regardless of where the particles originated.
Court distinguishes warning from declaring products unsafe
The Bench made it clear that its direction should not be understood as a finding that packaged water, sugar or salt are inherently unsafe.
Instead, the requirement is limited to disclosure of a possible presence of microplastics while scientific studies into their health implications continue.
The Court also referred to the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, noting that precautionary or provisional risk-management measures can be taken where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a potential risk, even when scientific certainty is still developing.
The Bench pointed to scientific literature concerning the ability of micro and nano plastics to cross biological barriers. It referred to reports concerning their detection in placental samples and breast milk, while acknowledging that research into their precise health effects remains ongoing.
The Court drew a distinction between the existence of a plausible biological mechanism and the availability of definitive epidemiological evidence.
Indian conditions considered separately
The Bench also rejected the argument that comparable labelling requirements had not been imposed in several other countries.
It noted factors specific to India, including widespread dependence on bottled water, climatic and storage conditions, as well as concerns surrounding counterfeit and refilled bottles.
Against this backdrop, the Court said the issue had to be assessed in the Indian context rather than simply compared with regulatory approaches elsewhere.
The review petition filed by FSSAI and the recall applications submitted by the industry bodies were accordingly dismissed.
The Court, however, clarified that the labelling direction remains subject to further hearings involving the parties and the continuation of scientific studies into micro and nano plastics.