Supreme Court Pushes FSSAI on Food Warning Labels: 13 Questions and a 10-Day Deadline

India's packaged food market grew to $137.25 billion in 2026, from $129.18 billion in 2025, and is projected to reach $238.83 billion by 2034, according to research firm IMARC Group.

There are several brands selling unhealthy and poor quality  products made with cheaper ingredients like palm oil in the Indian market. It has been identified that the same brands sell the very same products made with sunflower oil in European and American markets.

Maggi was launched in India in the 1980s. The product was marketed as a quick evening snack for children after school and soon gained success. The product’s success strengthened Nestle's foothold in what is today the company's fastest-growing region, where all variants of Maggi are made ​with palm oil, whereas many versions sold in Britain use pricier sunflower oil. Similarly, Nestle's KitKat bars in India have less cocoa in them than Australian versions.

Thums Up looks similar to Pepsi and Coca Cola but tastes different. In 1993, Coca-Cola Co. bought the brand for about $60 million to slowly phase it out and replace it with its own flagship drink. But Indian shoppers were so loyal to the taste ⁠that Coke decided ​to keep it.

Earlier this year,  a non-profit named 3S and Our Health Society reached out to the government asking for clear front-of-pack labels on packaged goods to increase awareness amongst the general public. 

Supreme Court told FSSAI to go ahead and roll out these warning labels on packaged foods.

FSSAI filed an affidavit proposing a two phase roll out, Phase I would cover foods high in two or more "nutrients of concern" (plus certain sweetened drinks), and Phase II would later extend this to foods high in even just one nutrient of concern. The proposed warnings specifically relate to added saturated fat, added sugar and salt, based on thresholds under the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024 issued by ICMR-NIN.

The affidavit also proposed exempting single-ingredient food products and foods inherently rich in fat, sugar or salt, including ghee, edible oil, salt, sugar, jaggery and honey, subject to other applicable labelling requirements.

The Supreme Court reviewed FSSAI’s plan and pushed back with certain concerns:

• No clear timeline: The court asked FSSAI to draft a clear timeline separating Phase I and Phase II, and said "consumer acceptability" and "time for industry to reformulate" weren't good enough excuses for leaving this vague. It wants FSSAI to give it a proper, science-backed schedule. The court also questioned why foods high in even one nutrient of concern should have to wait until a later phase for warning labels.

• Red hexagon design: FSSAI's plan uses red hexagon warning labels, but the court asked if red was the right choice, since Indian consumers are used to associating red with non-vegetarian food. 

• Too much text, not enough symbols: The court noted FSSAI's proposal relies heavily on word-based warnings, which assumes a level of literacy that may not exist across all states, languages, and age groups. It suggested combining text with pictures instead. The affidavit had proposed that the warning be displayed in a font one point larger than the nutrition information table on the back of the pack, while the court also raised questions about the design and practical implementation of the labels.

• The court asked why FSSAI wants one combined hexagon for multiple nutrients instead of separate hexagons for each one (added sugar, salt and added saturated fat). 

• Judges also seemed to be worried that if companies cut sugar, salt, and fat to avoid warnings, they might just add more artificial preservatives and emulsifiers instead; they wanted FSSAI to draft a prevention plan for this.

The Supreme Court asked FSSAI to file an affidavit with a solution to all the problems identified by it in the first draft. The matter has been posted for hearing on September 28.

Additionally, the court said that children are especially vulnerable to making poor food choices on impulse, and asked the government to explain how schools will teach kids to actually understand nutrition labels, through curriculum, workshops, etc. It backed this up by citing UNICEF's 2025 report showing overweight rates among school-age children rose sharply between 2000 and 2022.

(Rh/MF/MSM)