The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday rebuked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over its apparent reluctance to introduce warning labels on packaged food products possessing high levels of salt, sugar and saturated fat. The court questioned the regulator whether it was bowing to pressure from the food industry.

A bench of the top court, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, was hearing a plea seeking front-of-pack warning labels to help consumers identify potential nutritional risks in packaged food products in a single glimpse.

Taking strong exception to the delay, the bench questioned why a measure aimed at improving public awareness was yet to be implemented. The bench questioned, “Are you taking the court for a toss?,” while raising concerns over whether pressure from food manufacturers was influencing the regulator’s approach.

“Don’t want people to stay healthy”: SC

The apex court clarified that the issue was not about singling out any particular food product or manufacturer, but was aimed at ensuring that consumers received adequate information before making purchasing decisions.

The bench then asked the FSSAI, “What have you done so far? We know the pressure on you. Will you do it on your own or should we pass an order?” Furthermore, the judges also voiced concern over the potential impact of unhealthy packaged foods on children.

The court has now provided a period of two weeks to both the Union government and the FSSAI to place their final decision on the proposed warning-label framework before it.

Centre cites traditional Indian foods

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, appearing on behalf of the Union Government and the FSSAI, argued that mandatory warning labels could pose difficulties as several traditional Indian foods contain comparatively high amounts of salt or fat.

However, the bench seemed unconvinced of the argument and questioned why the commercial interests of food manufacturers should influence decisions concerning consumer awareness and public health.

The bench remarked, “Manufacturers may not like this because it may affect their business,” while pointing out that consumers would continue to have the freedom to decide whether to purchase a product displaying a warning.

FSSAI yet to reach consensus

The court made the aforementioned observations while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking front-of-pack labelling for packaged foods containing high levels of sugar, fat and salt. Earlier, the SC had directed the FSSAI to examine the issue and consider appropriate measures.

The food regulator had earlier indicated that there was no consensus on the proposed labelling framework. An expert committee from the FSSAI examined the Indian Nutrition Rating System and received more than 14 thousand comments from stakeholders. Post-feedback, further research and consultations were being considered before arriving at a final position.