India's food regulator, FSSAI, is introducing front-of-pack warning labels for unhealthy foods following Supreme Court pressure, though initial proposals and a phased rollout have drawn criticism from consumers and health advocates concerned about loopholes and the need for immediate, comprehensive consumer information to address the country's growing lifestyle disease rates.

India's food regulator, FSSAI, is introducing front-of-pack warning labels for unhealthy foods following Supreme Court pressure, though initial proposals and a phased rollout have drawn criticism from consumers and health advocates concerned about loopholes and the need for immediate, comprehensive consumer information to address the country's growing lifestyle disease rates.

India's food regulator, FSSAI, is introducing front-of-pack warning labels for unhealthy foods following Supreme Court pressure, though initial proposals and a phased rollout have drawn criticism from consumers and health advocates concerned about loopholes and the need for immediate, comprehensive consumer information to address the country's growing lifestyle disease rates.

Everything, everywhere, all at once. That is the succinct message from Indians over the FSSAI move to brand junk foods as per a recent Supreme Court case.

India’s food regulatory authorities have been in hyper activity in recent weeks, right from Maharashtra FDA’s Tukaram Mundhe’s raids on restaurants and the like, to the central FSSAI, which has been taking on big food companies over their misdemeanours.

Yet, what has been glaring has been the central FSSAI dragging its feet on the much-delayed FOPL, or front-of-the-pack-labelling for food products high in sugar, salt, fat, etc. Despite the matter being heard in the Supreme Court for years now, FSSAI had been suggesting alternatives like nutritional content per 100 grams and such complex solutions, instead of the red FOPL warning as was being sought after by activists and consumers. Finally, after facing the ire of the apex court, FSSAI had, in the last fortnight, caved in, but with caveats.

Consumers across the country who were asked about these labels through a social media poll by LocalCircles returned a clear message: over 8 out of 10 consumers surveyed said warning labels must be mandated even if the concerned food product has a high quotient of even one of the three culprits — sugar, salt or saturated fat.

The reaction also probably stems from the proposed labelling style by FSSAI. FSSAI has proposed a two-phase rollout: In the first phase, the red warning would apply only to products high in two or more of added sugar, salt and added saturated fat, along with certain sweetened beverages.

Which means products high in only one of these nutrients would carry no warning until a later phase, for which no date has been fixed. For example, a product high in sugar alone could go without any statutory warning.

FSSAI has said the phasing is meant to aid consumer acceptability and give industry time to reformulate.

According to LocalCircles, under this design, a biscuit or a soft drink loaded with sugar alone could stay warning-free indefinitely.

There is more. The warning text is also proposed to be printed just one point larger than the nutrition information table on the back of the pack, which is typically set in six to eight point type. “Single-ingredient foods and products naturally rich in these nutrients, such as ghee, edible oil, salt, sugar, jaggery and honey, are proposed to be exempt,” according to a statement by LocalCircles.

Nutrition advocacy group NAPi has called the two-nutrient trigger a "massive loophole" and has called for the second phase to be implemented within a year.

The LocalCircles survey found 9 in 10 consumers wanting the warning to reflect the total amount of sugar, salt and saturated fat in a product rather than only the added amount. An equal number also wanted food and beverage companies to implement front-of-pack warning labels within 6 months, with the same warning also shown on online shopping platforms (including quick commerce).

The survey received 1.08 lakh responses from household consumers across 328 districts in the country.

India is estimated to have some of the highest rates of diabetes as well as lifestyle issues in the country. The country is one of the largest markets for ultra-processed foods. From the government side, there has been a steady attempt at education and public awareness, with PM Modi publicly urging for a cut in oil and sugar consumption and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution asking FSSAI to notify front-of-pack rules without further delay, calling existing labels hard to read and asking for interpretive tools such as warning labels and colour codes.

This has been a direct contrast to the ‘go-slow’ attitude of FSSAI regarding implementing the FOPL warnings, despite the case in the Supreme Court dragging on for years — when the judges asked the regulator to finalise recommendations in three months more than a year ago, it pivoted to suggesting printing of daily consumption limits, etc. Last month, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran gave FSSAI two weeks to place the final decision on record, with Justice Pardiwala remarking, "If you can't do it, we will."

The matter is scheduled to come up for hearing again on Thursday.