Supreme Court Criticizes FSSAI on Food Labeling
The Supreme Court of India criticized the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for not implementing mandatory front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods high in sugar, salt, and saturated fat. The court stressed the urgency of the matter by stating, "If you can't do it, we will."
Court's Concerns
- The court questioned whether FSSAI was under pressure from the food industry, as it proposed labelling displaying recommended daily consumption limits rather than clear warnings.
- FSSAI's proposal included recommended daily intake of 25g sugar, 10g saturated fat, and 5g salt based on the 2024 ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines for Indians.
- The court rejected international standards' non-applicability argument, emphasizing India's need to prioritize citizens' health, particularly children's.
Arguments and Reactions
- The petitioner, a non-profit organization, argued that the proposed system would complicate consumer understanding and undermine quick, informed decision-making.
- Justice Pardiwala criticized FSSAI for seemingly yielding to industry pressure, stating that the issue concerns public health, not any specific product or manufacturer.
- The Union government expressed concerns about traditional Indian foods carrying warning symbols and potential impacts on micro, small, and medium enterprises.
- The court was unimpressed with these concerns, questioning whether the government wanted the populace, especially children, to remain unhealthy.
Previous Court Orders
- The court had previously asked FSSAI to consider warning labels like "High Sodium Level" and "High Sugar Level."
- The plea highlighted increasing diabetes, obesity, and other non-communicable diseases, advocating for prominent warnings to promote informed dietary choices.
Future Steps
- The court gave the government a final opportunity to reconsider before it might issue directions itself.
- It noted differences in affordability and consumption patterns between different foods, emphasizing public interest.
The issue remains unresolved, but the court's stance indicates a focus on consumer rights and public health over industry interests.
