Supreme Court Gives FSSAI 2 Weeks on Food Warning Labels

Home / Top Stories Supreme Court Gives FSSAI ‘Last Chance’ On Front-of-Pack Warning Labels For High Sugar, Salt, Fat Foods X Supreme Court gave the Centre two weeks to decide on front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat Supreme Court gave the Union Government two weeks to place its final decision on front-of-pack warning labels and warned that it would issue further directions if the government failed to act The Supreme Court on Thursday gave 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 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 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 questioned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Brijender Chahar , appearing for the Union Government, over the government's approach. “Are you taking the court for a toss? Or else we will give you a toss like anything,” the Court remarked. The Bench said its earlier order was clear and alleged that there was “immense pressure” from corporate houses on the authorities. “We know the pressure on you. Why are you not abiding by our order? What have you done so far?” the Court asked. The Bench further asked whether the Union would implement the Court's suggestions on its own or whether the Court would have to pass an order. 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. Court questions Manufacturers' intervention Senior Advocate Maninder Singh , appearing for a manufacturer, sought to participate in the matter. The Bench, however, told him that manufacturers cou