Supreme Court asks government to teach nutrition in schools, quizzes FSSAI on food warning labels | India News

The Supreme Court has put the Centre on notice over introducing nutritional education in schools to help children understand food labels and make informed dietary choices, while seeking a detailed response from the food regulator on almost every aspect of its proposed front-of-pack warning labels (FoPL), including their size, font, placement, colour and timeline for implementation.In a detailed order passed on Thursday night, a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said children were particularly vulnerable to “impulse or uninformed dietary decision-making” and asked the Union government to explain how schools could incorporate nutritional literacy through curriculum, initiatives and workshops, including teaching children how to interpret nutritional information and FoPL on packaged foods.The court questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over its proposal to introduce the warnings in two phases -- initially for packaged foods high in two or more nutrients of concern and later for products high in any one of them, saying the absence of a fixed timeline could result in the second phase being “indefinitely postponed”. The court’s intervention came a day after the Centre told it that it was open to making red warning labels mandatory on packaged food products high in even one nutrient of concern -- sugar, salt or fat -- dropping the FSSAI’s earlier proposal to trigger warnings only when a product exceeded limits for two or more such nutrients. The bench said the regulator must provide a “reasonable, scientifically justified and clearly defined timeline” if it retained the phased approach, and asked it to consider an alternative model in which products with the highest levels of nutrients of concern are brought under the warning regime first, followed by products with progressively lower thresholds.Also Read | SC asks govt to teach nutrition in schools, quizzes FSSAI on food warning labelsThe court questioned the basis for distinguishing between products high in two or more nutrients and those high in a single nutrient, noting that excess sugar, salt and saturated fat are independently associated with different health risks. It pointed to an apparent disparity between the 2024 Dietary Guidelines for Indians and the FSSAI’s earlier draft regulations in their use of “and” and “or” while defining high-fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) foods.The order recorded that the 2024 guidelines prescribe thresholds per 100 ml for liquids of 70 kcal, 175 mg salt, 2 gm added sugar and 1.5 gm added fat, and per 100 gm for solids of 250 kcal, 625 mg salt, 3 gm added sugar and 4.2 gm added fat.But the bench questioned whether simply applying these thresholds would erase the distinction between food categories 2 and 3 under the 2024 guidelines, and asked FSSAI whether the differences in processing and nutrient levels should be reflected in the FoPL. It also suggested that the distinction between moderately processed foods and ultra-processed foods could be factored into the thresholds.The court raised equally pointed questions about the physical design of the proposed warning. FSSAI has suggested a red hexagon, one point larger in font than the nutritional information table on the back of the pack, carrying warnings such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR” and “HIGH SALT”.The bench said the proposal was silent on the dimensions of the hexagon and whether its size would be standardised or made proportional to the area of the package. It also asked how the font size would relate to the dimensions of the logo and where exactly the warning would be placed on the front of the package.The court further questioned the choice of red, noting that Indian consumers are accustomed to associating the colour with non-vegetarian ingredients on food labels, and asked whether the colour should therefore be reconsidered.It took issue with the FSSAI’s word-heavy approach, observing that a warning relying only on words presupposed a certain degree of literacy and comprehension across India’s diverse population. The bench said the regulator should consider combining words with pictorial representations of individual nutrients to make the warnings more accessible.Also Read | Front-of-pack labels on packaged food: SC says it is concerned about health of peopleThe court also asked why FSSAI proposed combining multiple warnings in a single hexagon rather than using separate symbols for each nutrient. It said distinct hexagons could make it easier for consumers to identify individual risks from a distance.Another concern flagged by the court was the possibility that reducing salt, sugar and fat in packaged foods could lead manufacturers to increase their use of artificial preservatives, emulsifiers and other additives, given the functional roles played by the three ingredients in taste, texture, shelf life and processing. The court asked FSSAI to address this potential unintended consequence through corresponding regulation.On the substance of the warnings, the bench sought clarity on whether thresholds would be based on total sugar and saturated fat, as reflected in the consensus recorded at a 2021 stakeholder consultation, rather than the “added sugar” and “added fat” currently proposed by FSSAI. It additionally asked how trans-fat levels would be factored into the calculation.The order also questioned the proposed inclusion of “specified sweetened beverages” in the first phase and asked FSSAI to identify precisely which beverages would be covered and what thresholds would apply to them.The court rejected, in effect, the argument that consumer adjustment or industry reformulation could by itself justify an open-ended transition. It also asked whether there would be any voluntary compliance period after the final regulations making FoPL mandatory are notified, and, if so, how long it would last.The bench acknowledged that FSSAI had made “significant progress” since the court’s August 13 order, but said several aspects of the proposal remained ambiguous and required clarification.The court has directed FSSAI to file an affidavit answering 13 questions within 10 days, with the matter to be heard next on September 28.The proceedings arise from a PIL filed by 3S and Our Health Society seeking mandatory front-of-pack warnings on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fats. The non-profit is represented by advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi. The court’s latest order said there was an “obvious, scientifically substantiated and commonly known nexus” between health conditions such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease and hypertension and foods high in fat, sugar and salt or ultra-processed foods.Also Read | Open to mandating red warnings on packaged foods high in sugar, salt, fat: Centre to Supreme CourtIt said FoPL could facilitate informed consumer choices and encourage product reformulation, contributing to healthier food environments, particularly for children.The court cited the UNICEF Child Nutrition Report 2025, noting that the proportion of overweight school-age children and adolescents aged five to 19 increased from 2% to 10% between 2000 and 2022. It also noted that while around 80% of food and beverages available inside schools are freshly cooked meals, nearly 80% of those available in the vicinity of schools are packaged snacks.