The Initial Goal: Clear, Simple Warnings
For years, public health advocates and medical experts in India pushed for a simple system to help consumers identify unhealthy food at a glance. The initial idea was to introduce mandatory front-of-pack labels (FoPL) that would act as clear warnings.
This model, successful in countries like Chile and Mexico, proposed using unambiguous symbols, such as red octagons or triangles, to flag products high in sugar, salt, or fat. The logic was straightforward: a shopper, often making decisions in mere seconds, could immediately see a warning and understand the health implications without needing to decipher a complex nutrition table on the back of the package. This approach was seen as a powerful public health intervention to combat rising rates of obesity and lifestyle diseases like diabetes and hypertension.
The Big Shift to Star Ratings
Instead of bold warning symbols, India’s food regulator, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), proposed a different path. In its 2022 draft regulations, the FSSAI introduced the 'Indian Nutrition Rating' (INR). This system is modelled on Australia’s Health Star Rating, which grades packaged foods on a scale from a half-star (least healthy) to five stars (most healthy). The rating is calculated using an algorithm that considers not only negative nutrients like sugar, salt, and fat but also 'positive' nutrients such as protein, fibre, and fruit and vegetable content. The idea presented was that more stars would indicate a nutritionally better product, guiding consumers toward healthier choices. This marked a fundamental shift from a warning system to a summary rating system.
A Tale of Two Philosophies
The change from warnings to stars reveals a deep disagreement over how to best inform consumers. Health experts argue that the two systems serve very different purposes. Warning labels are designed to be a public health tool to discourage consumption of unhealthy products. They are simple, direct, and work well across different literacy levels and languages, which is crucial in a diverse country like India. Star ratings, on the other hand, are seen as more of a marketing-friendly tool. The food and beverage industry has largely favoured this approach, having resisted stark warning labels in India and globally. They argue that a summary rating provides a more holistic view of a product’s nutritional profile rather than just focusing on the negatives.
Why Experts Say Stars Can Be Misleading
The primary criticism against the star rating system is that it can create a misleading 'health halo'. Public health advocates warn that companies can manipulate their scores by adding small amounts of 'positive' ingredients to products that are fundamentally unhealthy. For example, a sugary breakfast cereal could earn extra stars for added fibre, or a salty snack could get a better rating for containing some protein. This might lead a consumer to believe a product is healthier than it actually is, defeating the purpose of the label. Experts point out that a person with diabetes or high blood pressure needs to know about high sugar or salt content directly, something a simple warning label achieves far more effectively than a summary star rating.
The Final Compromise and Its Impact
By opting for the Indian Nutrition Rating, the FSSAI effectively chose a middle path that reflects a significant compromise. The final regulations became less of a direct warning and more of a nuanced score. This move was seen by many consumer and health groups as a dilution of the original goal, making the health information less visible and impactful. The decision was a win for large food corporations that had lobbied against the more restrictive warning labels. While having some form of front-of-pack labelling is a step forward, the system India is adopting is fundamentally less direct than what was first proposed, placing a greater burden on the consumer to interpret what the stars actually mean for their health.
