India's Supreme Court Presses FSSAI on Red Hexagon Front-of-Pack Warning Labels for HFSS Foods
核心洞察
FSSAI (搜索) has told the Supreme Court it proposes a red hexagonal front-of-pack warning label for foods high in added saturated fat, added sugar and salt.
The regulator proposes a phased rollout, with Phase I covering products high in two or more nutrients of concern and specified sweetened beverages.
The Supreme Court flagged unresolved issues on thresholds, phasing timelines, label design, font size and placement, and directed FSSAI (搜索) to file a further affidavit within ten days.
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI (搜索)) has proposed a prominent front-of-pack warning label in a red-coloured hexagonal shape for food products high in any two or more nutrients of concern — added saturated fat, added sugar and salt — based on thresholds specified under the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024 issued by ICMR-NIN (搜索). The proposal was set out in a compliance affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in a matter concerning the regulation of High in Fat, Sugar or Salt (HFSS) and Ultra-Processed Foods (UPF).
The affidavit was filed in compliance with the apex court's August 13 order, passed while hearing a plea by public charitable trust '3S and Our Health Society', represented by advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, seeking directions to the Centre, states and Union territories to implement mandatory front-of-package warning labels (FOPL) on packaged foods. At that hearing, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran had criticised FSSAI (搜索) over the delay in introducing warning labels on packaged foods, asking whether the government "does not want its people to be healthy."
Proposed label design and declarations
According to the affidavit, the warning label would indicate applicable declarations such as "High Fat", "High Sugar", "High Salt" and/or "Highly Sweetened Beverage", as the case may be, to enable consumers to readily identify products high in the specified nutrients. FSSAI (搜索) said it has prepared a proposal for providing information relating to added sugar, added fat and salt in pictorial form on the front-of-pack (FoP), with the warning displayed in a font size one point larger than that used in the nutrition information table on the back of the pack.
For the purposes of the regulation, a food product would be considered high in fat, sugar and/or salt (HFSS) where, based on the nutrient-of-concern thresholds specified under the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, the product is high in any two or more of added fat, added sugar and salt. FSSAI (搜索) said the information would be presented in a 'red hexagon' at front-of-pack in the prescribed format, and that the measure would be notified by way of an amendment to the respective regulations following the prescribed procedure.
The regulator proposed exempting single-ingredient food products and food products inherently rich in fat, sugar or salt — such as ghee, edible oil, salt, sugar, jaggery and honey — from the front-of-pack warning requirement, subject to the applicability of other requirements under the food safety and labelling regulations.
Phased implementation
FSSAI (搜索) said front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FoPNL) is proposed to be implemented in phases to facilitate consumer acceptability and provide industry adequate time for reformulation. Phase I would cover products high in two or more specified nutrients — added fat, added sugar and salt — and specified sweetened beverages, while Phase II would extend the warning to products high in any one of these nutrients. The affidavit stated that the approach is intended to address the need for an effective and consumer-friendly FoP labelling mechanism and to facilitate informed food choices, particularly in relation to children and other vulnerable groups of the population.
Court identifies unresolved questions
While acknowledging the progress made by FSSAI (搜索), the Supreme Court flagged several unresolved ambiguities in the proposal and directed the regulator to file a further affidavit clarifying its approach on thresholds, phasing, design and placement of the proposed warning label. In its earlier order dated 13.08.2026, the Court had underscored the urgent need for FoPL, drawing a link between HFSS/UPF consumption and health conditions such as obesity (搜索), diabetes (搜索), heart disease (搜索) and hypertension (搜索), and had called upon the Union and FSSAI to take prompt action, observing that the right to health under Article 21 and the State's duty under Article 47 required affirmative steps.
On the phased strategy, the Court noted that the petitioner had objected to the 'two or more' threshold as unscientific, since excess sugar, salt and saturated fat are independently harmful through different pathways. It also pointed to an unresolved inconsistency between the disjunctive language of the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024 and the conjunctive language of the 2022 Draft Labelling Regulations in defining HFSS foods. The Court noted the absence of any fixed timeline separating Phase I from Phase II, cautioning that this could indefinitely postpone the second phase, and considered an alternative model illustrated by Israel's approach of moving from higher to progressively lower thresholds, which it said FSSAI (搜索) should examine.
On threshold levels, the Court examined Table 15.1 and Table 15.2 of the 2024 Guidelines, which classify foods by degree of processing (Groups A, B and C) and by calorific sub-category (1, 2 and 3), with sub-categories 2 and 3 treated as HFSS. It observed that while sub-category 1 specifies exact permissible levels of fat, sugar and salt, no clear numerical differentiation exists between sub-categories 2 and 3, and asked FSSAI (搜索) to clarify whether this distinction, as well as the difference between moderately processed (Group B) and ultra-processed (Group C) foods, would be reflected in the design of the warning label.
On font size, the Court noted that FSSAI (搜索)'s proposal to use a font one point larger than the nutrition table, prescribed under Regulation 6(3) of the 2020 Labelling Regulations, could not be meaningfully assessed without knowing the dimensions of the hexagonal label itself. It asked whether the label's size would be standardised or proportionate to package area, noting the petitioner's submission that other countries use labels covering 15-20% of the principal display area.
Thirteen questions framed for the Union and FSSAI
The Court raised several further concerns: whether the label should be based on 'total' sugar and 'saturated' fat, consistent with a 2021 stakeholders' consensus, rather than 'added' sugar and fat as presently proposed, and how trans-fat would be accounted for; the absence of clarity on where the label would be placed on the package; the proposal's reliance on word-based warnings without pictorial representations, which may not be accessible across India's varying levels of literacy; why a single composite hexagon was proposed for multiple nutrients of concern rather than separate hexagons for each; whether the colour red was apt given its common association with non-vegetarian labelling; the risk that discouraging sugar, salt and fat could drive increased use of artificial preservatives and emulsifiers; and whether compliance with the final regulations would be mandatory from inception or subject to a voluntary transition period, as was proposed under the Draft 2022 Regulations.
The Court also referred to its earlier observations, citing UNICEF's Child Nutrition Report 2025, on the sharp rise in childhood overweight prevalence and children's disproportionate exposure to packaged snacks near schools, and directed the Union to indicate how nutritional literacy on interpreting FoPL and nutrition information would be incorporated into school curricula.
Accordingly, the Court framed a set of thirteen specific questions for the Union and FSSAI (搜索) covering the timeline for the two phases, the scientific basis for the phasing criteria, identification of covered sweetened beverages, treatment of food sub-categories and processing groups, the total-versus-added nutrient basis, the colour and dimensions of the label, accessibility for diverse literacy levels, the rationale for composite versus individual hexagons, regulation of substitute additives, the timeline for mandatory compliance, and the incorporation of nutritional literacy in schools.
FSSAI (搜索) was directed to file its response by affidavit within ten days, to be shared with the petitioner for a further response before the next hearing, fixed for 28.09.2026. The case is titled 3S and Our Health Society vs. Union of India & Anr., Miscellaneous Application No. 1177 of 2025 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 437 of 2024.