FSSAI backs daily limits over warning labels on packaged food

FSSAI has told the Supreme Court it wants packaged food labels to show daily limits alongside nutrient values and serving sizes. Public health experts say the approach weakens at-a-glance warnings and leaves more interpretation to shoppers. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has proposed displaying the government’s recommended daily limits for added sugar, saturated fat and salt alongside a product’s nutrient content per 100 g and its serving size, rather than using warning symbols to flag foods high in these nutrients.The proposal, contained in a compliance affidavit filed before the Supreme Court last week, marks the latest turn in a long-running debate over how packaged food should communicate nutrition risks to consumers.Instead of a simple front-of-pack warning telling shoppers that a product is high in sugar, salt or saturated fat, FSSAI’s latest approach would provide more information and leave consumers to interpret it.That is precisely what nutrition experts and public-health campaigners object to. Their argument is that a front-of-pack system should work at a glance, rather than require shoppers to compare nutrient values, serving sizes and recommended limits while standing in a supermarket aisle. “This (the latest proposal) is not compliance- but defiance,” said Dr Arun Gupta, convenor, Nutrition Advocacy for Public Interest (NAPi), and former member, PM’s Council on India’s Nutrition Challenges.The latest proposal also follows an earlier, very different model: the Indian Nutrition Rating (INR), a half-star-to-five-star system intended to give packaged foods an overall nutritional score. The SC has been considering a petition seeking mandatory FOPL warnings for foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat amid alarming rise of consumption of ultra-processed food (UPF), often low in nutrient value, high in salt, sugar and fat and also containing several additives not used in the kitchen commonly, in India.The Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN) estimates that nearly 57 % of India’s disease burden, which includes non-communicable and metabolic disorders such as cardiovascular conditions, diabetes, obesity and cancers, are linked with poor dietary choices.Apart from adults, India is also seeing a worrying rise of these diseases in adolescents and children, pushing demands to discourage growing consumption of UPF in the country.WHAT FSSAI PROPOSESUnder the latest position placed before the SC, labels would show nutrient content per 100 g, serving size and recommended daily limits for added sugar, saturated fat and salt.That differs from a warning-label system, in which a prominent symbol or text on the front of a packet would explicitly flag a product as high in a particular nutrient.The distinction is important. A nutrition declaration answers: “How much does this product contain?” A warning label answers: “Is that amount high enough to be a concern?”For public-health advocates, the second question is more useful at the point of purchase.WHY STAR RATINGS CAME FIRST?The current debate goes back to 2022, when FSSAI proposed the Indian Nutrition Rating as its front-of-pack nutrition-labelling model.The INR was designed as a simplified, interpretive label. Packaged foods would receive a rating from 0.5 stars to five stars, with half a star representing the least healthy end and five stars the healthiest.The score would consider energy, total sugar, saturated fat and sodium, while awarding positive points for components such as protein, fibre, fruits and vegetables, and nuts, legumes and millets.The idea was simple: instead of asking consumers to study a detailed nutrition panel, give them a visual indicator that would allow quick comparisons.But the proposal proved contentious.FSSAI told the SC that its September 2022 draft received more than 14,000 comments from food businesses, consumer groups, public-health organisations and other stakeholders. It subsequently constituted an expert committee in February 2023 to examine the feedback and make recommendations.Critics also argued that an overall rating could make a product high in a nutrient of concern appear relatively acceptable if it gained positive points from other ingredients or nutrients.That highlights a key difference between a rating and a warning. A rating summarises or ranks a product’s overall nutritional profile. A warning singles out a specific risk.FROM STARS TO NUMBERSBy 2025, FSSAI was moving towards making existing nutrition information more prominent rather than immediately introducing a warning symbol.Its draft approach proposed highlighting the percentage contribution to the recommended dietary allowance for added sugar, saturated fat and sodium, including through larger and bolder type.That was less interpretive than a star rating but still required consumers to understand what the figures meant.In its February 10 order in the FOPL, the SC said it was not satisfied with FSSAI’s compliance affidavit and specifically asked the regulator to consider warnings on wrappers or packets of pre-packaged foods. The latest August affidavit represents another shift. Rather than committing to prominent warning symbols, FSSAI has proposed placing recommended daily limits alongside nutrient values and serving information.WHY EXPERTS OBJECT NOW?Nutrition advocates argue that making information more visible does not necessarily make it easier to understand.A shopper may encounter several figures on a packet: grams of sugar, saturated fat and sodium; serving size; number of servings; and the percentage of recommended daily intake. Interpreting them requires a degree of nutrition literacy.A warning label is designed to remove that calculation.If a product crosses a scientifically determined threshold for added sugar, sodium or saturated fat, a warning can say so directly. Consumers do not have to work out whether a particular quantity represents a high amount or whether the declared serving reflects how much they are likely to eat.Serving size is especially relevant. Per-serving figures can appear modest when the declared serving is smaller than the amount a consumer actually eats. That is why per-100-g information also matters.The regulatory question, therefore, is not simply whether nutrition information should appear on the front of a packet. It is how much interpretation should be left to the consumer.WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS?The case for simple visual warnings has also gained some India-specific evidence.A study published in World Nutrition in June 2026 tested four front-of-pack formats among 120 adolescents aged 13 to 18 in Mumbai: warning labels, Health Star Rating, Nutri-Score and a control group with only back-of-pack nutrition information.In the controlled experiment, 80% of adolescents shown warning labels chose the healthier option, compared with 66.7% for Health Star Rating, 56.7% for Nutri-Score and 33.3% in the control group. Warning labels also produced faster decisions and higher comprehension scores.The researchers cautioned that the study was small and controlled, and that larger, multi-city and real-world studies are needed before definitive policy conclusions can be drawn.Still, the findings underline an important point: label design matters. A system understood instantly may influence behaviour differently from one that requires consumers to interpret a scale or calculate percentages.“The issue in the country is that a large number of people are not aware of the harms attached with UPFs and anything less than direct warning labels on food packets will not suffice,” underlined Dr Sujeet Ranjan, a public nutrition specialist.- EndsPublished On: Aug 10, 2026 13:55 IST