What Are the Proposed Changes?
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has proposed a significant overhaul of how nutritional information is displayed on packaged foods. The new system, known as Front-of-Pack Labelling (FoPL), would place simple, interpretive warnings
directly on the front of packages. In a proposal submitted to the Supreme Court in late August 2026, the FSSAI detailed a plan for a red, hexagonal warning symbol. This symbol would carry clear text like “High Sugar,” “High Salt,” or “High Fat” for foods that exceed specified thresholds for these nutrients of concern. This move is a departure from the current system, where detailed nutritional information is typically found in a complex table on the back of the pack, which many consumers find difficult to decipher in the few seconds they take to make a purchase decision.
The Public Health Imperative
This regulatory push, which has been under discussion since at least 2018, is driven by a growing public health crisis. India is facing a surge in non-communicable diseases (NCDs) like obesity, diabetes, and heart conditions, which are closely linked to diets high in fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS). Health advocates and government bodies, including the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), have argued that clear front-of-pack warnings are essential to empower consumers to make healthier choices. The goal is to provide an immediate visual cue about a product's health profile, helping to steer purchasing habits towards healthier options and encouraging manufacturers to reformulate their products to be healthier. The Supreme Court has also intervened, pushing the FSSAI to finalize and implement a system that prioritizes consumer health.
A Contentious Debate: Warnings vs. Stars
The journey to this point has been fraught with debate over the best format for these labels. For years, two main options were considered: simple warning labels and a Health Star Rating (HSR) system. The HSR model, similar to energy ratings on appliances, would assign products a rating from a half star (least healthy) to five stars (healthiest). While some early research suggested consumers found this system appealing, public health experts strongly opposed it. They argued that star ratings could create a misleading “health halo,” allowing a product high in sugar to still get a decent rating because of added fiber or protein, ultimately confusing consumers. In contrast, warning labels, as used in countries like Chile and Mexico, have proven effective at shifting consumer behaviour and are seen as a more direct and unambiguous way to flag unhealthy products.
The Devil in the Details
Even with the decision to move forward with warning labels, several points of contention remain. The FSSAI's initial proposal suggested a phased rollout. In Phase I, a warning label would only be required if a product is high in two or more nutrients of concern (fat, salt, or sugar). This has drawn sharp criticism from a global coalition of over 60 public health scholars and Indian health bodies. They argue this creates a major loophole, as a product with an extremely high level of sugar could escape a warning as long as its fat and salt content were low. These experts, along with the Supreme Court, are pushing for warnings to apply if even one nutrient threshold is breached. The court has also questioned the design and timeline, seeking a more robust and scientifically justified plan for implementation.
Industry Concerns and the Road Ahead
The food industry has expressed reservations about mandatory warning labels, fearing it could negatively impact sales and brand image. Some industry associations have historically favoured per-serving information or the less-direct Health Star Rating system. They have also raised concerns about the costs and complexities of reformulating products and redesigning packaging across countless product lines. However, FSSAI's leadership has signaled a firm stance, indicating that the industry will have to adapt to rising consumer awareness and regulatory demands for transparency. The matter is set for further hearing in the Supreme Court, which is expected to play a decisive role in shaping the final regulations, from the label's design to the timeline for its mandatory implementation.
