Food giants seek rethink of red warning labels as SC hears FSSAI plan

India’s proposed front-of-pack warning labels (FOPL) for packaged foods face another challenge from the food industry as the Supreme Court takes up the issue on Monday, with companies asking the court to reconsider the use of the colour red and questioning the thresholds proposed by the food regulator.

The All India Food Processors Association (AIFPA), which represents several Indian and global food companies, has told the SC that the colour and symbol chosen for the warnings need to be reconsidered in the Indian context.

In a September 24 filing reviewed by Reuters, the industry body said consumers could confuse the proposed red warning symbol with the existing marking used to identify non-vegetarian food.

The submission comes against the backdrop of a larger legal battle over how prominently packaged foods should disclose high levels of nutrients such as sugar, salt and fat.

The SC has been hearing a petition filed by 3S and Our Health Society seeking mandatory front-of-pack nutrition warnings on packaged foods. The court has repeatedly questioned the government's earlier approach to regulating foods high in nutrients linked to obesity and other diet-related health problems.

On September 10, the court sought answers from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on several aspects of its proposed labelling regime, including the design and colour of the warning, the nutrient thresholds, the implementation timeline and its decision to introduce the system in phases.

The court also specifically raised the possibility of confusion between the proposed red warning and the colour used for non-vegetarian food identification.

The food regulator subsequently revised its proposal.

Its original August plan was for a red hexagonal warning on products high in at least two of three nutrients -added sugar, added fat and salt - based on thresholds drawn from the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, issued by ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition. It had proposed a phased rollout, with products high in any one nutrient covered later.

But in its latest submission to the court, FSSAI moved towards a single-phase system. Products crossing the prescribed threshold for even one nutrient would carry the relevant warning, such as “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” or “HIGH FAT”.

The label is proposed to be a red hexagon on a white square background, placed prominently on the upper-left portion of the front of the pack.

The FSSAI has also proposed using added sugar and added fat, rather than total sugar and saturated fat, for the relevant calculations. The proposed thresholds are linked to the 2024 dietary guidelines.INDUSTRY OBJECTS TO THRESHOLDS

While the latest industry intervention does not amount to an outright rejection of front-of-pack warnings. AIFPA has objected to what it calls the indiscriminate application of the proposed limits.

The industry has also raised concerns over applying uniform thresholds across different food categories and consumption patterns. Reuters reported that the proposed threshold for added sugar is 3% by weight in solid products, while the proposed fat threshold is 4.2%, which the industry says is stricter than those in several foreign markets.

The colour issue has now added another layer to an already contentious debate. AIFPA has argued that red is strongly associated with the mandatory non-vegetarian identification mark in India and that another prominent red symbol could confuse consumers.

Existing FSSAI rules, however, use a brown symbol for non-vegetarian foods, while vegetarian products carry a green symbol.- Ends