Is Your Favourite Snack Too Salty, Sugary O... — VeyraNews (2026)
National
Is Your Favourite Snack Too Salty, Sugary Or Fatty? New Front-Pack Warnings May Soon Tell You
Imagine picking up a packet of biscuits, namkeen, breakfast cereal or a children’s snack at a supermarket and knowing within seconds whether it is loaded with sugar, salt or saturated fat. That is the idea behind front-o
·56K reads
Is Your Favourite Snack Too Salty, Sugary Or Fatty? New Front-Pack Warnings May Soon Tell You
Imagine picking up a packet of biscuits, namkeen, breakfast cereal or a children’s snack at a supermarket and knowing within seconds whether it is loaded with sugar, salt or saturated fat. That is the idea behind front-of-pack warning labels, and after years of regulatory back-and-forth, the Supreme Court has now given the Centre and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) a “last chance” to take a final decision.
The issue came up before a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran on August 13, when the court expressed strong displeasure over FSSAI’s approach to warning labels for foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat. The court gave the Union government two weeks to place its final decision on record, warning that it could issue further directions if the government failed to act.
What The Supreme Court Said On Warning Labels
The proposal under discussion is known as Front-of-Pack Labelling (FOPL). The basic idea is that instead of making consumers search through a detailed nutrition panel, the front of a packet would carry a prominent warning if the food contains high levels of sugar, salt or saturated fat.
The Supreme Court had already indicated in February that it wanted FSSAI to consider warnings along the lines of “High Sugar”, “High Sodium” and “High Saturated Fat”. It had also made it clear that its earlier direction was not merely a suggestion.
But FSSAI’s latest proposal went in a different direction. In an August 3 compliance affidavit, the regulator proposed displaying the recommended daily limits for added sugar, saturated fat and salt alongside the nutrient values and serving size. The limits cited were 25 grams of sugar, 10 grams of saturated fat and 5 grams of salt. There would not necessarily be a prominent warning telling shoppers that a product was “high” in any of these nutrients.
In other words, a consumer could be given the numbers, but would still have to interpret them.
Why Is The Court Unhappy?
That distinction appears to be at the heart of the Supreme Court’s concern. The bench questioned why FSSAI was reluctant to adopt a clearer warning-based system and raised the possibility that industry concerns were influencing regulatory decisions.
“The matter concerns the health of citizens – particularly growing children,” the court said, stressing that such decisions should not be influenced by corporate pressure.
At another point, the court asked whether the government was facing pressure from large corporate entities and accused the authorities of “yielding to that pressure”.
The bench was particularly emphatic about the consumer’s right to know. “Manufacturers might not like it, but the consumer ought to know,” the court observed.
And when the Centre argued that international standards could be difficult to apply to traditional Indian foods, the court asked: “Should India remain as an undeveloped country?”
What Does The Food Industry Have To Do With It?
The government has raised concerns about how warning labels could affect Indian products, including traditional foods.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar pointed out that applying certain international nutritional thresholds could result in products such as namkeen receiving warning symbols. He also cited eggs as an example, submitting that the permissible daily limit for fat was 10 grams while two eggs could contain around 11 grams.
The Centre also argued that nutritional standards developed for countries where dietary patterns may be different cannot simply be applied to India. It submitted that traditional foods are economically important and said around one-third of the revenue of micro, small and medium enterprises comes from traditional foods.
The court, however, said the purpose of a warning label was not to ban a product or stop its sale. It was about ensuring that consumers knew what they were eating.
The bench even pointed to the difference between affordability and dietary choices, observing: “How many people can afford dry fruits? And how many children buy Kurkure?”
Concerns Over Ultra-Processed Foods
The debate comes amid growing concern over ultra-processed foods and diets high in salt, sugar and fat. Public-health experts have argued that nutrition information buried in detailed tables is not necessarily useful to a consumer making a quick purchase decision.
A study cited before the Supreme Court found that 60.8 per cent of participants correctly identified products as high in a particular nutrient when shown a warning label, compared with 55 per cent using a numerical table and 45 per cent using a star-rating system.
This is also not the first labelling model considered by India. FSSAI had earlier proposed the Indian Nutrition Rating, a half-star-to-five-star system. Critics argued that an overall rating could give some unhealthy products a “health halo” if they scored well on certain parameters despite being high in sugar, salt or fat.
The Supreme Court has now put the choice squarely before the government: a prominent warning that tells consumers what is high, or a more detailed numerical system that requires them to do the interpretation themselves.
The deadline is two weeks. And the court has already delivered its warning: “This is your last chance. Next time we will dictate the judgment.”
If the government acts, the next time you reach for a packaged food item, the most important information may no longer be hidden in the fine print at the back. It could be staring you in the face on the front of the packet.
