‘Are you succumbing to corporate pressure?’: Supreme Court raps FSSAI over food warning labels

The Supreme Court on Thursday, 13 August, came down strongly on the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Union government over their reluctance to introduce front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated.

The Bench also expressed concern about the influence of food manufacturers on regulatory decisions. The court was hearing a matter in which it had earlier asked FSSAI to consider introducing front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat.

What Happened

Chahar told the Bench that applying such warning labels based on international standards could result in several traditional Indian foods carrying a red warning symbol. He argued that the permissible limit for fat under the proposed approach could mean that even eggs.

• In its order, the Bench referred to its earlier order of February 10, 2026, and said the petitioner had drawn its attention to the minutes of an FSSAI meeting held on March 7.

• The court granted the Union two weeks to place its final decision on record.

• The court said the Union should demonstrate that India was concerned about the health of its citizens, particularly children.

Key Details

You don’t want people of this country to remain healthy? The court said consumers already know that food contains sugar, fat and carbohydrates, but clear warnings would improve public awareness and allow people to make informed choices.

• The court recorded that the Additional Solicitor General had submitted that it was not possible to adopt the suggestion made by the court because of difficulties in matching international packaging standards.

• Kamat said nutritional content should also be displayed and that he would submit suggestions on the categorisation and labelling framework.

• We are not against any particular product.

Why It Matters

The court also questioned why FSSAI was reluctant to introduce such warnings when the objective was to inform consumers. Chahar subsequently argued that traditional foods contribute significantly to the MSME sector, saying that around one-third of MSME revenue comes from traditional foods.

• The court clarified that it was not targeting any particular food product.

• In this country, how many people can afford dry fruits?

What Reports Say

Coverage of the story so far points to:

• Continued reporting by The South First as more details emerge