Supreme Court Directs FSSAI to Mandate Front-of-Pack Food Labelling; Sets Timeline for Implementation

Supreme Court Directs FSSAI to Mandate Front-of-Pack Food Labelling with Fixed Timeline

The Supreme Court of India on September 10, 2026, questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India over repeated delays in making front-of-pack labelling mandatory for packaged products high in salt, sugar and fat. The bench directed FSSAI and the Union government to specify reasonable timelines for implementing Phase I and Phase II of the labelling regime and to incorporate nutritional literacy guidance in school curricula, with the matter to be heard again on September 28, 2026.

The hearing centred on health risks that children face from developing unhealthy eating behaviours due to lack of clear food labelling. The court sought concrete answers on why FSSAI had proposed a phased approach rather than making the regime mandatory from the outset, and what specific period the authority considered reasonable before compliance became compulsory.

Justifying the Phased Approach

During the proceedings, the Supreme Court of India pressed FSSAI to justify its proposal to include food products high in two or more nutrients of concern, along with specified sweetened beverages, in Phase I, while relegating products high in any single nutrient of concern to Phase II. The bench asked for the scientific or regulatory basis for this distinction and demanded a fixed, reasonable timeline for each phase rather than vague or indefinite implementation dates.

The court also sought specifics on how FSSAI proposes to identify which sweetened beverages would fall under Phase I. This detail matters because beverages constitute a distinct category in the food supply chain and often carry concentrated amounts of added sugars. The bench asked for the threshold levels for nutrients of concern in such beverages, signalling that the court would not accept generalised or subjective criteria.

These questions reflect judicial concern that regulatory bodies may delay mandatory implementation indefinitely by treating compliance as voluntary or phased without fixed endpoints. The court's insistence on timelines suggests it views the current approach as insufficiently protective of public health, particularly for children who lack the nutritional literacy to interpret food labels independently.

Government to Embed Nutritional Literacy in Schools

Recognising that labelling alone cannot change eating behaviour without public understanding, the Supreme Court directed the Union government to provide a detailed response on how it proposes to incorporate guidance on interpreting packaged food information into school curricula, initiatives and workshops. The court sought information on how children and young people would be taught to read and understand nutritional information and front-of-pack labelling schemes.

This direction moves beyond the narrow scope of food labelling into the broader domain of nutritional education. The court appears to view the problem not simply as a labelling issue but as a gap in public knowledge. Even if labels are clear and mandatory, consumers must understand what the information means and why it matters for their health. By directing the government to embed this teaching in schools, the court is attempting to build a generation of informed consumers who can make better dietary choices.

The bench also asked for details on other aspects of nutritional literacy at the school level, leaving open the possibility that the government's response could encompass not only how to read labels but also the fundamentals of nutrition, the health consequences of high salt, sugar and fat consumption, and practical skills for meal planning and food selection.

Years of Regulatory Delay

Front-of-pack labelling has been a contentious issue in India's food regulation for several years. Unlike back-of-pack nutrition information panels, which are mandatory and detailed but often overlooked by consumers, front-of-pack labels use simplified formats—such as colour-coded symbols or warning labels—to alert shoppers immediately to products high in unhealthy nutrients. Countries including Chile, Mexico and Thailand have implemented such schemes with evidence suggesting they influence purchasing behaviour, particularly among lower-income consumers who may not read detailed nutrition panels.

FSSAI has been working on a voluntary front-of-pack labelling framework, but critics argue that voluntary schemes fail to achieve widespread adoption and do not level the playing field for manufacturers. Companies with healthier products may adopt labels to gain competitive advantage, while those selling high-salt, high-sugar or high-fat products may avoid them, undermining the scheme's effectiveness. This is why public health advocates and consumer groups have urged the court to mandate the labelling rather than leave it voluntary.

The phased approach that FSSAI proposed attempts to ease the transition for industry by starting with the most problematic products—those high in multiple nutrients of concern—before expanding to products high in any single nutrient. However, this approach carries the risk of indefinite delays if Phase I implementation is slow or if Phase II is perpetually deferred.

Child Health at the Centre

The bench's repeated references to the risk children face of developing unhealthy eating behaviours suggest that child health protection is the driving concern. Childhood obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases have risen sharply in India over the past two decades, correlating with increased consumption of ultra-processed packaged foods. Children are particularly vulnerable because they have less developed decision-making capacity and are often targeted by food marketing.

By directing both FSSAI and the government to act, the court signalled that this is not a matter that can be left to voluntary compliance or indefinite study. The court's questions were pointed and specific, suggesting that the bench had reviewed FSSAI's proposals and found them lacking in rigour or urgency.