Published Sep 28, 2026 | 7:00 AM ⚊ Updated Sep 28, 2026 | 7:00 AM
The FSSAI has proposed warnings such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” and “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE”.
Synopsis: FSSAI has dropped its two-phase plan for front-of-pack warnings, proposing a red hexagon when even one nutrient crosses the threshold. While the regulator says the label will improve consumer awareness, NAPi questions the combined warning, added sugar criteria and proposed 365-day transition period.
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has dropped its earlier two-phase plan for front-of-pack nutrition warnings and proposed a single-phase system in which a red warning would be triggered when even one nutrient of concern crosses the prescribed threshold.
In its latest compliance affidavit before the Supreme Court, FSSAI defended the proposed system as a standardised way of helping consumers understand what is inside packaged foods, while also proposing a 365-day transition period for food businesses.
The affidavit, filed by Dr Kavitha Ramasamy, Joint Director, Food Safety, FSSAI, also laid out the regulator’s reasoning on the design of the warning, consumer literacy, added sugar, multiple nutrients and the proposed implementation timeline.
Also Read: Dirtier the air, the faster kidney function slipped, reveals study conducted in Chennai and Delhi
FSSAI said the proposed label is designed to make the nutrient of concern immediately visible to consumers, without requiring them to decode the detailed nutrition information printed on the back of a packet.
“The proposed standardised hexagonal format, with the relevant nutrient name clearly indicated, is intended to provide a uniform and readily recognisable means of communicating nutritional information to consumers across different levels of literacy and comprehension. It is pertinent to further state that symbols alone cannot replace nutritional literacy,” Ramasamy said in the affidavit.
The regulator proposed a red hexagon on a white square background. Where one nutrient crosses the threshold, the corresponding nutrient would be named inside the hexagon. Where two or three nutrients cross their thresholds, FSSAI proposed putting all the applicable nutrients inside a single hexagon.
FSSAI said this format would provide “clear and specific information to consumers” and argued that separate pictorial symbols for individual nutrients could instead create confusion when multiple nutrients are involved.
But public health advocates have questioned that approach.
Also Read: Goitre down, thyroid autoimmunity up: What four decades of iodised salt show in Indian children
Dr Arun Gupta, Convenor of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi), said the regulator should not combine multiple nutrients in one warning.
“There is NO reason to put two or more Nutrients of concern together in one hexagon. Each Nutrient deserves a separate hexagon,” Gupta said.
NAPi has also questioned FSSAI’s proposed font size, which would be only one point larger than the nutrition information table on the back of the pack.
“The font size should be BOLD and BIGGER and the hexagon size needed to be adjusted accordingly,” Gupta said.
The affidavit marks a change from FSSAI’s earlier two-phase proposal. The regulator now says it will adopt a single-phase approach, covering products high in any one nutrient of concern.
The change follows the Supreme Court’s September 10 order, which had specifically asked FSSAI to explain why products high in two or more nutrients were proposed for Phase I while products high in any one nutrient were pushed to Phase II.
FSSAI proposes approximately four months to issue and finalise the draft regulations, followed by a mandatory 60-day consultation before final notification.
The proposed consultation is not the first time FSSAI has sought public and stakeholder input on front-of-pack warning labels. In September 2022, FSSAI had issued a draft amendment to the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling & Display) Regulations specifically covering FOPNL and HFSS foods, inviting objections and suggestions for 60 days.
Now, under its latest affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, FSSAI said it will again publish a fresh draft amendment for 60 days to invite comments from stakeholders, after which the comments will be examined before the final notification is sent to the Ministry for publication in the Gazette.
NAPi has questioned whether another round of consultation could further delay a process that has been underway since 2022.
“This is not a fresh effort towards the notification; it is part of the ongoing process that began in September 2022. By opening it up to public comments and stakeholder consultation at this stage, what guarantee is there of a “consensus?” Gupta said.
“In fact, the very process that had nearly stalled this policy is being proposed here. Therefore, NAPi believes that the process should remain internal to the FSSAI and the Ministry of Health, rather than being subjected to a dilatory public consultation,” he said.
Also Read: India has no new anaemia figures. The ICMR survey meant to provide them is still being analysed
Ramasamy’s affidavit also placed considerable emphasis on nutritional literacy, particularly among children.
FSSAI said it is already running initiatives such as Eat Right School, #StopObesity and #FightObesity, while also proposing collaboration with the education system to incorporate food safety, nutrition literacy and healthy dietary practices into school curricula.
“FSSAI will also undertake appropriate awareness and consumer education programmes regarding the proposed Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling (FoPL), with the objective of enabling consumers to understand the information provided on food products and make informed and healthier choices at the time of purchase,” said the affidavit.
FSSAI’s affidavit also explained why it has chosen added sugar rather than total sugar as one of the key parameters.
The regulator said naturally occurring sugars in fruits and milk come with fibre, vitamins, minerals and other nutrients, while added sugars increase energy density without providing significant additional nutritional value.
NAPi, however, argued that this distinction could allow manufacturers to reformulate products without reducing their overall calorie or glycaemic burden.
“Using added sugar instead of total sugar on front-of-pack labelling carries specific public health, regulatory, and consumer risks. A pre-packaged food product with zero added sugar, using alternatives, might get a clean chit from FOPL badge, falsely appearing healthier,” Gupta said.
“Food companies can easily reformulate products to hide or substitute added sugars while keeping total glycaemic and caloric loads high, bypassing warning labels,” he said.
Also Read: FSSAI moves to ban ‘analogue paneer’, orders products to drop ‘paneer’ label from analogue item
FSSAI proposed a 365-day voluntary implementation period for food businesses.
The regulatory body said the transition is necessary because manufacturers may already have large stocks of pre-printed packaging and cites its January 2026 policy decision and NITI Aayog recommendations on labelling compliance timelines.
NAPi has objected to the delay.
“Proposal to stretch up to July 2028 is unreasonable to public health goals. It should be effected as on 1st July 2027 or even earlier, inordinate delay has already been caused,” Gupta said.
(Edited by Fayisa CA)
