The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to explore ways of teaching nutrition in schools so that children can better understand food labels and make informed choices about what they eat. At the same time, the court has sought detailed answers from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on its proposed front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran, in an order passed on Thursday night, said children were particularly vulnerable to “impulse or uninformed dietary decision-making”. It asked the government to explain how nutritional literacy could be introduced through school curricula, workshops and other initiatives.
Court questions FSSAI’s two-phase plan
The bench raised concerns over FSSAI's proposal to introduce warning labels in two stages. Under the plan, products high in two or more nutrients of concern would be covered first, followed later by those high in any one nutrient.
The court said the lack of a definite deadline could mean the second phase is “indefinitely postponed”. It asked FSSAI to provide a “reasonable, scientifically justified and clearly defined timeline” if the phased approach is retained.
The court also suggested considering a system under which products with the highest levels of sugar, salt or fat are brought under the warning system first, followed by products with lower thresholds.
Questions over size, colour and design
FSSAI has proposed red hexagonal warnings carrying labels such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR” and “HIGH SALT”. The court sought clarity on the size of these symbols, their font, proportions and exact position on the front of packages.
It also questioned the use of red, noting that the colour is commonly associated with non-vegetarian ingredients on Indian food labels.
The bench further asked whether pictorial symbols could accompany words to make warnings easier to understand. It also questioned whether separate symbols for each nutrient would be more effective than putting multiple warnings inside one hexagon.
Sugar, fat and additives under scrutiny
The court sought clarity on whether thresholds should be based on total sugar and saturated fat instead of the “added sugar” and “added fat” proposed by FSSAI. It also asked how trans fats and specified sweetened beverages would be treated.
Another issue was the possible use of more preservatives, emulsifiers and other additives if manufacturers reduce sugar, salt and fat in packaged foods. FSSAI has been asked to address this potential consequence through regulation.
FSSAI gets 10 days to respond
The court noted that FSSAI had made “significant progress” but said several aspects still required clarification. The regulator has been directed to answer 13 questions in an affidavit within 10 days.
The matter will next be heard on September 28.
The proceedings stem from a PIL filed by 3S and Our Health Society seeking mandatory front-of-pack warnings for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fats.
The court also cited the UNICEF Child Nutrition Report 2025, noting that the proportion of overweight children and adolescents aged five to 19 rose from 2 per cent to 10 per cent between 2000 and 2022. It said FoPL could help consumers make informed choices and encourage healthier food environments, particularly for children.