The Supreme Court has sought detailed answers from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on how ultra-processed foods will be treated under the proposed front-of-pack labelling (FoPL) system, questioning whether all packaged foods should face identical warning thresholds.
A Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran raised 13 questions for the food regulator, with particular focus on whether the level of processing should influence the nutrient thresholds used for warning labels.
The Court referred to the food classification set out in the 2024 Dietary Guidelines for Indians issued by ICMR-NIN. The framework divides foods based on their degree of processing into three broad groups: Group A, covering minimally processed foods without additives; Group B, covering moderately processed foods without additives; and Group C, comprising excessively processed foods containing additives.
Each group is further divided into categories based on calorie content. Categories A2, A3, B2, B3, C2 and C3 have been identified as foods high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS).
The Bench questioned whether applying a single set of nutrient thresholds across these classifications could erase the distinction between moderately processed foods and ultra-processed products.
It suggested that the system could potentially be introduced in stages, beginning with Category 3 foods and subsequently moving to Category 2 products with progressively lower thresholds. The Court noted that a phased approach of this kind has been adopted in Israel and could help bring about a gradual shift in the food environment.
The judges also stressed that the difference between Food Groups B and C should somehow be reflected in the design of warning labels. The Court observed that treating ultra-processed products and minimally or moderately processed packaged foods alike could fail to account for the nutritional advantages that some less-processed foods may offer.
At the same time, the Bench made it clear that recognising these differences would not necessarily mean scrapping the proposed interpretive warning-label system and starting the regulatory exercise from the beginning.
The Court further asked whether separate nutrient thresholds could be developed according to the degree of processing of a product, if such an approach is technically and scientifically feasible.
Another question concerns the definition of “sweetened beverages”. The FSSAI has been asked to specify which products would fall within that category during the first phase of implementation and whether separate nutrient thresholds would apply.
Supreme Court seeks clarity on total sugar and saturated fat
The Bench has also turned its attention to the manner in which sugar and fat content will be assessed under the proposed FoPL framework.
It has asked FSSAI whether the regulator intends to use Total Sugar and Saturated Fat, as agreed during a stakeholder consultation in 2021, or whether its position has since changed.
The Court specifically referred to the October 29, 2021 consultation, where stakeholders had reached a consensus that total sugar, rather than added sugar, should be used for front-of-pack labelling.
According to the material considered by the Court, scientific members at the consultation had pointed out that while added sugar is incorporated during food processing, excessive consumption of sugars generally is a health concern. On that basis, displaying total sugar alongside energy on the front of the package was considered more appropriate.
The consultation had also identified total sugar as the more practical option from the standpoint of health considerations, international acceptance and ease of testing. Energy calculations, it was noted, are likewise based on total rather than added sugar.
The Court has therefore asked FSSAI to explain whether it has departed from that earlier consensus and, if so, how the concerns that led to the 2021 decision are now being addressed.
A similar issue has arisen over fat. The 2021 consultation had favoured Saturated Fat over Total Fat for the proposed labelling system.
The Supreme Court has now sought clarity on whether the eventual warning labels will display both saturated-fat and trans-fat levels, or whether the framework will focus only on saturated fat.
The questions indicate that the Court is seeking greater clarity on the scientific and regulatory basis of the proposed FoPL system, particularly its treatment of different types of processed foods and the nutrients that will trigger front-of-pack warnings.
