Supreme Court Gives Centre Two Weeks to Act on Front-of-Pack Food Warning Labels

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave the Centre two weeks to comply with its proposal for front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat, warning that it would issue a verdict at the next hearing if the government failed to act.

The court expressed strong displeasure with the stance taken by the Central Government and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), questioning whether the authorities were under pressure from corporate entities.

“The matter concerns the health of citizens - particularly growing children - and decisions regarding it should not be influenced by corporate pressure,” the court told the Centre and the FSSAI.

The remarks came during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation before a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran. The bench pulled up the FSSAI after the petitioner pointed out that the food regulator had contended that the industry was opposed to the proposed labelling system.

The petitioner’s counsel cited the minutes of the FSSAI meeting held on March 7 and submitted that the decisions taken at the meeting were in direct contradiction to the court’s earlier directives.

It was also pointed out that the FSSAI’s affidavit mentioned the food industry’s opposition to the proposal but ignored evidence submitted by civil society representatives in favour of warning labels to discourage consumption of foods high in added saturated fats, sugar and salt.

In response, the bench posed pointed questions to Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Brijender Chahar, who was representing the Centre. The court asked whether the government was unwilling to take the necessary action and reiterated that its earlier order was clear.

The bench further remarked that the government was facing immense pressure from large corporate entities and was “yielding to that pressure”. The court said it was taking the action in “public interest”.

The bench questioned why its order had not been complied with and what steps the government had taken so far.

“Will the government do it itself, or will we have to issue an order?” the angry court asked.

ASG Brijender Chahar requested the court to allow him to explain the government’s intended course of action. However, the bench made it clear that the government must do exactly what the court had directed.

“If you cannot do it, we will pass an order,” the bench reiterated.

The Centre cited examples of traditional Indian foods and argued that the proposed labelling could result in “red warning marks” on many items such as namkeen, or savoury snacks.

The ASG argued that food items in developed countries typically contain lower levels of salt, sugar and fat, and therefore it would be inappropriate to directly apply the same standards to traditional Indian foods.

“Should India remain an underdeveloped country?” the court asked, rejecting the Centre’s argument that it was difficult for India to adhere to the international packaging standards followed by developed nations.

The court then questioned whether the government did not wish to ensure the health of the country’s people, particularly children.

“Manufacturers might not like it, but the consumer ought to know,” the court observed.

The bench stated that the purpose of a warning label was not to stop the sale of a product but to inform consumers about what they were consuming. It said that while manufacturers might dislike the system because it could affect their business, the final decision, despite the warning, would rest with consumers on whether or not to purchase the product.

Rejecting the Centre’s line of argument, the court stated: “Manufacturers do not play a decisive role in this matter.”

The Supreme Court has now granted the Centre two weeks to comply with the labelling proposal and warned that “a verdict will be pronounced next time.”