The Supreme Court on Monday, September 28, questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over the time it has proposed for implementing front-of-package labelling on packaged foods, asking why the regulator needs so much time when public health is involved.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran questioned the proposed timeline and the need for a year of voluntary compliance. The court’s observations put the focus firmly on whether regulatory procedures and additional time for the food industry should delay a measure intended to help consumers make healthier choices.
Why Wait Another Year?
“We appreciate whatever you have done so far and we appreciate your initiative, but there is a lot which is required to be done to give meaningful effect to what we want to achieve and where we want to reach. We are undertaking this entire exercise for the good of the nation and for the good of the citizens. We expect the authority to accept our order in its true spirit,” the bench said.
The court also questioned why FSSAI needed to begin another process of hearing objections when work on food labelling had started in 2022. “Why voluntary compliance for a year? Why do you need so much time? Why do you want to start afresh with the exercise of hearing and calling for objections? You started in 2022. What did you do in the last four years,” the bench remarked while reserving its order.
FSSAI Explains 2022 Exercise
Counsel for FSSAI told the Supreme Court that the process initiated in 2022 concerned the Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) star-rating system and was based on a completely different yardstick.
The regulator has now proposed a red hexagonal warning label for packaged food products high in nutrients of concern such as sugar, fat and salt. The warning would appear as a red hexagon against a white square-shaped background on the front of food packages.
Four Months For Draft Rules
FSSAI told the court that it would need approximately four months to issue and finalise the draft regulations. The draft amendment regulations would then be published for 60 days to invite comments from stakeholders through domestic consultation and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) platform, PTI reports.
After the regulations are notified, FSSAI has proposed a 365-day voluntary implementation period for food business operators. This lengthy transition period emerged as a central concern for the court, particularly because the proposed labels are meant to give consumers clear information about food products high in specified nutrients.
What Front-Of-Package Labels Do
Front-of-package labelling (FoPL) is a nutritional information graphic displayed on food packaging. It is intended to help consumers make informed purchasing decisions and healthier dietary choices.
The Supreme Court had earlier asked FSSAI, which has proposed phased implementation of FoPL on packaged foods, to provide more clarity on the planned labels for “nutrients of concern”, including fat, sugar and salt.
Plea Seeks Mandatory Labels
The court was hearing a plea filed by public charitable trust 3S and Our Health Society seeking directions to the Centre, states and Union territories to implement mandatory FoPL on packaged foods.
FSSAI had earlier told the court that it proposed prominent red front-of-pack warning labels for food products high in added saturated fat, added sugar and salt.
Also Watch:
Regulator Backs Phased Rollout
In a compliance affidavit filed last month, FSSAI said its two-phase proposal was intended to provide consumers with a simple, prominent and easily understandable warning about food products high in specified nutrients of concern.
According to the affidavit, phased implementation would facilitate “consumer acceptability” and “provide the industry adequate time for reformulation”. The Supreme Court’s questions, however, bring the competing considerations into sharp relief: while the regulator has cited the need for consultation and industry preparation, the court has emphasised the health interests of citizens and questioned whether the proposed timetable is unnecessarily long.
