The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has proposed red hexagonal warning labels on packaged foods high in sugar, salt, and saturated fat, but critical gaps in the framework could leave several unhealthy products without a warning, nutrition advocate Arun Gupta said.
While the proposal marks a step forward after sustained intervention by the Supreme Court, its “two or more” nutrients threshold is a major loophole, Dr.
Gupta, convenor of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPI), told The Hindu.
FSSAI proposes front-of-pack red pictorial warnings for foods high in fat, sugar, salt The Supreme Court recently pushed the Centre and FSSAI to act swiftly on front-of-pack warning labels for unhealthy packaged foods.
The FSSAI has now proposed red, hexagonal labels flagging products high in sugar, salt or fat to help consumers make informed choices.
Meanwhile, under the proposal, a warning would be triggered only when a product is high in two or more nutrients of concern — added saturated fat, added sugar, and added salt.
“A product could be high in sugar but carry no warning if it is low in fat and salt.
That defeats the purpose of a warning label,” Dr.
Gupta said.
The rule, he said, should be simple: “High in sugar — warning; high in salt — warning; high in saturated fat — warning.” He also called for time-bound implementation, and said the framework should be aligned with the Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN) Dietary Guidelines, 2024, which provide thresholds for total sugar and total fat per 100 gm.
From Bournvita to ‘100% Pure’: Why is FSSAI tightening the rules on food claims? | Explained Dr.
Gupta also questioned the proposed use of “added” nutrients and called for following a clear, scientifically robust definition of high fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) foods.
“India already has an HFSS definition reflected in the 2022 draft notification and parliamentary discussions.
We should not keep reinventing the definition in a way that weakens the regulation,” he said.
He also criticised the proposed size of the warning, which would be one point larger than the back-of-pack nutrition information.
“If the nutrition table is printed in tiny type, making the warning one point larger does not make it prominent,” he said, calling for the size of the warning to be linked to the principal display area of the package.
The warnings should also be available in Hindi and English, he said, arguing that language and visibility were essential if the labels were to reach consumers across the country.
India wanted red flags on chip packets and soda.
Big Food fought back.
“The court should examine whether the proposed framework will actually deliver what a warning label is meant to do — give consumers a simple, visible, and scientifically sound indication of risk,” Dr.
Gupta said, listing the nutrient threshold, timeline of the second phase, definition of HFSS, the use of “added” nutrients, the size of the warning label, and exemptions as areas requiring scrutiny.
The issue has been under discussion for years.
India has mandatory nutrition information on packaged foods but has never had a mandatory, interpretive front-of-pack warning specifically flagging products high in sugar, salt or saturated fat.
FSSAI began examining front-of-pack labelling in 2018 and proposed HFSS and front-of-pack nutrition regulations in 2022, but the process has remained stalled.
The Supreme Court’s intervention in 2026 has now pushed the issue forward.
Previously, the apex court directed the FSSAI to implement interpretive warning labels on packaged foods high in sugar, salt, and saturated fat.
After subsequent hearings on the regulator’s progress, the FSSAI submitted a compliance affidavit on August 28, 2026, proposing the red hexagonal warning label.
The matter is scheduled to come up for hearing again on September 10, 2026.
