Food industry seeks review before SC warning-label decision

A network of around 600 food makers has asked the Supreme Court to allow a fresh scientific review of proposed front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods. The intervention has sharpened, again, a long-running clash between industry demands for revised thresholds and public health calls for quicker rules.With the Supreme Court expected to take a final call on front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and fat on September 10, the food processing industry has made a fresh intervention seeking a further scientific review of the proposed framework.In an affidavit filed on September 9, the All India Food Processors Association (AIFPA), which says it represents more than 600 corporate members across multinational and national brands, small and medium foodmakers, startups and academic bodies, has argued that the proposed thresholds for identifying high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt foods need to be re-examined before they are finalised.The network also has Nestle India, ITC, Haldiram and several other food makers as its members.The intervention comes at a crucial stage in the long-running case, with the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) already telling the apex court that it supports the introduction of a front-of-pack nutrition labelling framework, which, however, has received flak for several loopholes. Public health and nutrition experts, now, see AIFPA's latest affidavit as another attempt by the industry to delay or dilute a regulation that could require prominent warnings on packaged foods considered high in nutrients linked to obesity and other non-communicable diseases.Dr Arun Gupta, a paediatrician and convenor, Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi) who has been closely following the case, said the industry's arguments were aimed at reopening questions that had already gone through years of regulatory deliberations. “The due process is complete. What AIFPA is demanding is simply a delaying tactic,” Dr Gupta said, arguing that the SC has already witnessed repeated delays in finalising an effective warning-label system for unhealthy packaged foods.REVIEW POINTSAt the centre of AIFPA's objection is FSSAI's proposed use of thresholds derived from the Indian Council of Medical Research – National Institute of Nutrition's (ICMR-NIN) Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024.Under the proposed criteria, solid foods would be considered high in added fat if they contain more than 4.2 grams per 100 grams, high in added sugar if they contain more than 3 grams per 100 grams, high in salt if they contain more than 0.625 grams per 100 grams, and high in calories if they exceed 250 kcal per 100 grams. Separate thresholds have been proposed for liquids.AIFPA has argued that these fixed thresholds should be examined against the guidelines' daily dietary recommendations and international approaches such as those used under the Codex Alimentarius framework.The association wants greater consideration of a per-serving or percentage-of-daily-intake approach, rather than relying primarily on a fixed amount per 100 grams or 100 ml.But nutrition experts underlined that the WHO and ICMR-DGI guidelines are to be seen in the context of overall diet – which does not mean that packaged food items containing excessive salt, sugar, fat should be allowed to be sold without any warning as long as they are within the daily recommended allowances.The AIFPA, meanwhile, also pointed to countries such as the US, Canada and the UK, which use serving sizes, reference amounts or daily value calculations in different forms for nutrition information.The lobby group has also argued that the proposed Indian framework should account for actual consumption patterns, product categories and dietary diversity before the thresholds are notified.PER SERVE DEBATEFor public health advocates, however, the industry's renewed push for serving-based calculations is particularly significant.Dr Gupta said the per-100-gram or per-100-ml approach had already emerged from an extensive regulatory process and was more objective for consumers.Serving sizes, he argued, can be manipulated and vary widely across products, potentially making comparisons difficult. A packet may appear relatively low in sugar or salt when assessed against a small manufacturer-defined serving, even though the product contains high levels of these nutrients when measured on a standardised basis.The per-100-gram system, by contrast, provides a common benchmark across similar products.AIFPA has maintained that its proposal is not meant to weaken consumer protection. The association says it supports a scientifically sound front-of-pack labelling system and shares FSSAI's objective of providing consumers with clear and meaningful nutrition information.But Gupta questioned that claim, pointing to the industry's commercial interest in the outcome.“Food processors whose members sell these products cannot claim to share the regulator's public-health objective while opposing measures designed to make unhealthy products easier for consumers to identify,” he said.CALLS FOR CONSULTATIONS, AGAINThe affidavit also asks that the final framework take into account further scientific materials, international standards, Indian food-consumption data and submissions from consumer groups, public health experts, scientists, and industry stakeholders.AIFPA has highlighted the regulatory procedure outlined by FSSAI itself, which can involve review by scientific panels and committees, approval by the Food Authority and the health ministry, and, where substantial changes are made to draft regulations, another round of public comments.The association says such a process is necessary to ensure that the eventual framework is scientifically robust and workable across India's diverse food sector.Public health campaigners counter that the warning-label debate has already been under discussion for years. The process has included stakeholder consultations, expert committees and thousands of public comments.- EndsPublished On: Sep 9, 2026 18:12 IST