The Battle Over the Label
For years, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has been working on a new Front-of-Pack Labelling (FoPL) system. The goal is simple: to help consumers quickly understand the nutritional value of packaged foods and make healthier choices.
With non-communicable diseases like diabetes and heart conditions on the rise, linked in part to diets high in salt, sugar, and fat (HFSS), the need for clear information has become a public health priority. The initial debate centered on what form this label should take. Health advocates and global evidence strongly supported clear, interpretive warning labels—like a red or black stop sign—on products high in unhealthy ingredients. This approach, used effectively in countries like Chile, is designed to be an unambiguous signal to consumers at a glance.
The Shift to Star Ratings
Despite the push for warning labels, FSSAI pivoted towards a different model: a 'Health Star Rating' (HSR) system, now officially called the Indian Nutrition Rating (INR). This model, similar to one used in Australia and New Zealand, rates a product's overall healthiness on a scale from half a star to five stars. More stars supposedly mean a healthier product. The decision was based on a study commissioned by FSSAI itself, which suggested consumers preferred the star system. However, this move immediately drew fire from public health experts, doctors, and nutritionists, who argued that it was a watered-down, less effective alternative to direct warnings.
Why Experts Are Worried
Critics argue the star rating system is confusing and can be easily manipulated. A key flaw, they point out, is that the algorithm allows manufacturers to offset high levels of sugar or fat by adding small amounts of 'positive' nutrients like fibre, protein, or nuts. This could result in a junk food item receiving a deceptively high rating, creating a 'health halo' around an unhealthy product. For example, a sugary breakfast cereal could get more stars simply by adding a small amount of fruit puree, misleading consumers into thinking it's a healthy choice. Health advocates argue that a simple, direct warning about high sugar is far more effective and less prone to misinterpretation.
The Role of Industry Pressure
Recent reports suggest that intense lobbying from major food and beverage companies played a significant role in FSSAI's shift. Facing the prospect of prominent red warning labels on a large percentage of their products—some industry estimates suggest up to 80% of items could be classified as high in fat, sugar, and salt—companies argued against the warning system. In meetings with the regulator, industry executives claimed warning labels were confusing and that a focus on portion control was more effective. This pressure has been described by some experts as having 'almost paralyzed' the regulators, leading to a decade of delays and a move away from the strongest public health options.
What Happens Now?
The controversy has now reached the Supreme Court of India, which has repeatedly expressed its dissatisfaction with the delays and the watering down of the proposals. In recent hearings in 2026, the court has sharply questioned FSSAI, pushing it to finalise and implement clear, mandatory warning labels and stressing that public health should not be compromised by corporate interests. FSSAI's most recent proposal has shifted yet again, suggesting a black-and-white table of nutritional information rather than stars or warnings, a move critics say still fails to provide the at-a-glance clarity consumers need. A parliamentary panel has also urged FSSAI to finalize the regulations in a time-bound manner, noting the long delay.
