FSSAI moves on warning labels, but loopholes 'could undermine' public health

By A Representative 

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has proposed a red hexagonal warning label for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat, following a series of directions from the Supreme Court. While the move could mark an important step towards helping consumers identify unhealthy packaged foods, public-health advocates say the proposal contains five significant loopholes that could substantially weaken its impact.

The issue has been before the Supreme Court since February 10, 2026, when the court directed FSSAI to implement interpretive warning labels on packaged food products high in sugar, salt and saturated fat. On August 3, FSSAI filed an affidavit proposing a numerical table, a format that was subsequently considered inadequate. On August 13, the Supreme Court gave the Union government a “last chance”, warning that it would “proceed to pass further directions” if action was not taken. On August 28, FSSAI submitted a compliance affidavit proposing the red hexagonal warning label.

Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi) has welcomed the move towards interpretive warning labels but has raised concerns over the details of the proposal.

The first concern is the proposed “two or more” threshold. Under the proposal, a warning would be triggered only when a product is high in at least two of the three nutrients of concern—added saturated fat, added sugar and salt. NAPi argues that this could allow products containing very high amounts of sugar to escape a warning if they are not simultaneously high in fat or salt.

The organisation says the warning should instead be triggered independently by any one nutrient of concern, with energy included as an additional criterion. It points to warning-label systems adopted in countries including Chile, Mexico, Canada and Israel, arguing that such approaches have been associated with improvements in consumer purchasing decisions.

A second concern is the absence of a binding timeline for the proposed second phase. FSSAI's proposal envisages an initial phase covering products high in two or more nutrients, followed by a second phase covering products high in any one nutrient. However, NAPi says no definite timeline has been specified for moving to the second phase.

The organisation argues that phases should instead be used to progressively tighten nutrient thresholds, with a binding commitment to reach the final threshold within no more than 12 months of Phase I. It also points to the HFSS definition already acknowledged in parliamentary responses as a basis for determining the eventual thresholds.

The third concern relates to the use of “added” nutrients as the basis for thresholds for saturated fat and sugar. NAPi argues that the ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines 2024 provide thresholds for total sugar and total fat per 100 grams, rather than only added sugar and added fat. According to the organisation, assessing added sugar alone also presents practical difficulties, while the health implications of excessive sugar consumption cannot be addressed adequately without considering total or free sugars.

NAPi is therefore calling for thresholds based on total sugar and total fat per 100 grams, consistent with the relevant dietary guidance and the HFSS framework referred to in earlier FSSAI regulations and communications.

The fourth concern is the proposed size of the warning. Under the proposal, the warning-label text would be one point larger than the font used in the back-of-pack nutrition information.

NAPi says this could result in warnings that remain difficult to read, particularly because back-of-pack nutrition information is frequently printed in fonts of around six to eight points. The organisation argues that the warning should instead be sized in proportion to the main display panel of the package, as done in several countries that have adopted front-of-pack warning systems.

The fifth concern relates to exemptions. NAPi has also called for tighter controls on broad exemptions, referring to provisions suggested in earlier FSSAI notifications and its own communications to the regulator.

According to Dr Arun Gupta, founder of the Breastfeeding Promotion Network of India (BPNI), convenor of Nutrition Advocacy for Public Interest (NAPi), and a former member of the Prime Minister's Council on India's Nutrition Challenges, the proposed label is a step in the right direction but risks being undermined by the threshold criteria.

“FSSAI's red hexagonal warning label is a step forward, but the 'two or more' threshold is a massive loophole. A product with high sugar carries no warning if it is low in fat and salt. That is not public health; that is regulatory capture. Further, definition of HFSS is critical to include total sugar and fats,” Gupta said.

The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for September 10, 2026. Public-health advocates are expected to press for clearer nutrient thresholds, a time-bound implementation schedule, appropriately prominent warnings and narrower exemptions before the proposed system is finalised.