The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its judgement on the matter related to the front-of-the-pack labelling regulations for the packaged food industry. It asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India why it needed more time to implement the warnings.
The Supreme Court on Monday (September 28) questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on the proposed timeline for implementing front-of-pack labelling (FOPL) on packaged foods, asking why the process should effectively start afresh when the exercise has been underway since 2022.
“You started in 2022, no? And what did you do in the last four years?” the court asked, noting that the earlier system had involved a star-rating mechanism and that the yardstick had since changed.
The court asked FSSAI why it needed more time to implement the proposed labelling system and questioned the suggested 1 July timeline. “Why do you need so much time? And why do you want to start afresh with this exercise of receiving what you call objections?”
The court also questioned the proposal for voluntary compliance and stressed the urgency of implementing measures aimed at protecting public health, and added that it will set a timeline that all concerned parties “must follow”.
It reserved judgement on the front-of-pack warning label and directed counsel for the parties to file their written submissions within three days. It is also indicated that it would list the matter later to ensure compliance with its directions.
“Today, we are hearing all the parties concerned, and whatever order we now pass, it will be binding on you, authority, and we expect you to understand it and implement it scrupulously,” the court said.
“We are undertaking this entire exercise for the good of the nation, for the good of the citizens. So we expect the authority to accept our order in its true spirit,” Justice J B Pardiwala added.
On verifying added sugar
Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, the lawyer for petitioner non-profit 3S and Our Health Society, raised the difficulty of physically verifying the amount of “added sugar” in packaged food.
The counsel argued that added sugar cannot be verified through a laboratory report or other physical test and said this issue had already been flagged before the court.
FSSAI, however, explained that certain foods naturally contain sugar, citing examples such as nuts, milk and seeds. The authority said the objective was to make consumers aware of what sugar had been added to a product, rather than merely informing them about naturally occurring sugars.
The court said it would consider the issue.
On voluntary compliance
The petitioner also strongly objected to the proposal for voluntary compliance with the labelling requirements. The argument was that implementation should begin from the outset rather than waiting for the entire supply chain to be completed.
The counsel referred to paragraph 50 of an earlier court direction, arguing that the court had already indicated that implementation should begin “from the word go”.
The urgency was illustrated through a medical analogy: If a person buys medicine prescribed by a doctor, they would not necessarily wait until reaching home before taking the first capsule. “So this is of that kind of urgency,” the counsel said while arguing against voluntary implementation.
The court subsequently asked FSSAI to explain its position on voluntary compliance.
On the timeline for implementation
The timeline for implementation was another major point of contention.
The court questioned why the authority required such a long period and why the process of inviting objections should begin afresh when the FOPL exercise had already been underway for several years.
The counsel, opposing the proposed timeline, argued that the earlier system used a different yardstick, including the star-rating approach, whereas the current proposal represented a different framework.
The court said it would balance the competing considerations.
On the definition of ultra-processed food
The court was also told that the framework under consideration contained no definition of ultra-processed food.
A request was therefore made for a direction to provide a definition of ultra-processed food, particularly in the context of implementing FOPL and addressing the role of ultra-processed foods.
The court indicated it could consider the issue.
On international standards
FSSAI argued that the proposed FOPL framework had mandatory criteria and was based, in part, on international standards.
The court, however, questioned reliance on international standards, pointing to the continuing obesity problem even in countries that had adopted such approaches.
The counsel also referred to nutrient thresholds and standards adopted in other jurisdictions, including Canada.
The court said it would keep these aspects in mind but said its order would be final and binding. “Do not disappoint us,” the court said, stressing that it expected the authority to comply with each direction in the larger interest of the nation. “We expect the authority to comply with each and everything in the larger interest of the nation,” the court said.
The court also told the authority to study the judgement carefully and abide by its directions.
