NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has directed FSSAI to spell out details of how front-of-pack food warning labels will look, their shape, size, colour, placement on packets and the timeline of implementation, leaving nothing to the discretion of the food regulator.The court also wanted to know how Centre plans to warn children about the dangers of junk food.After FSSAI agreed to implement labelling after being pushed by SC and filed an affidavit, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran put 13 questions to the regulator and gave 10 days’ time for answers.Though SC acknowledged “significant progress” has been made by FSSAI on this issue of national importance, it said the regulator’s affidavit was silent on various issues and several aspects of practical implementation required clarification.The 13 questions are part of the detailed order uploaded by the court on Friday, which also includes its observations from the previous day on why FSSAI proposed a two-phase rollout of the labelling requirements instead of implementing them in one go.
‘Red hexagon’ to send out warning to customers
According to FSSAI’s proposal, during Phase I, a red hexagonal warning would be placed on products high in two or more nutrients of concern, namely added fat, added sugar and salt, based on thresholds in the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024. The warning could carry declarations such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” and “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE”. The proposed Phase II would extend the warning to products high in any one of the specified nutrients. The order questions the regulator on what basis it suggested the inclusion of food products high in “two or more” nutrients of concern and certain sweetened beverages in Phase I, and the inclusion of food products high in “any one” nutrient of concern in Phase II, respectively.The court also said sugar, salt and fat are called the “Unholy Trinity” and that “the ‘unholiness’ arises not only from the added sugar and added fat in a food product but the total value of these nutrients available in a product, which has to be considered.” The Supreme Court incorporated the suggestion of advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi that the threshold must be decided based on “total sugar” and “total fat” and not on the basis of “added sugar” and “added fat”. Referring to the 2021 FSSAI meeting, the Bench said, “It is clear from the aforesaid minutes that ‘total sugar’ and ‘saturated fat’ would be used for the purpose of the labelling. In this regard, we would like FSSAI to weigh in and indicate whether there has been a change in stance in comparison to the consensus arrived at in the aforesaid stakeholder consultation. If so, we would like to know how the underlying concerns are sought to be addressed.”
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
The court also asked the regulator: “What are the dimensions of the ‘red hexagon’ proposed to be used in the FoPL (labelling)? Whether it would have standardised specifications or whether it would be calculated in proportion to the area of the package? Whether the font size used for FoPL would be relative to the dimensions of the hexagon themselves? The manner and method of the placement of such hexagon(s)?” It further asked, “Why has FSSAI suggested a combined/composite/singular hexagon for two or more nutrients of concern instead of separate/distinct/individual hexagons for each nutrient of concern?” The court posted the matter for hearing on September 28.