![[Explained] Know The Loopholes In FSSAI Proposal On Warning Labels For Packaged Food](https://assets.odishabytes.com/wp-content/uploads/odishabytes-logo-25.svg){kind=logo}
New Delhi: After Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) reportedly proposed front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food and drinks in the country, experts have cautioned that the critical gaps in such move may leave several unhealthy food products without a warning.
The food regulator has proposed a red-coloured hexagonal shape for food products, which are high in any two or more nutrients – saturated fat, sugar or salt, Reuters report exclusively. The news agency’s report claims that FSSAI has proposed the same in a Supreme Court filing on Friday.
But food advocate, Arun Gupta, told The Hindu that the clause of ‘two or more nutrients’ on could be a major threshold loophole.
Experts, as cited in various media reports, have indicated at several loopholes. Some of those have been listed below:
The “Two-Nutrient” Threshold: Under Phase 1, a product loaded with dangerous levels of sugar can completely escape a red warning label as long as it does not simultaneously cross the threshold for salt or saturated fat. Nutrition experts argue the trigger should be independent for any single bad nutrient.
Vague Phase 2 Timeline: While FSSAI plans a later phase to penalize products high in just one concerning nutrient, the draft contains no binding timeline or hard deadline for when this transition will happen.
Ambiguity Over “Added” Ingredients: The rules target “added” sugars and fats rather than total content. Experts note that calculating and verifying the exact amount of “added” versus natural ingredients creates a massive regulatory grey area.
Omission of Calorie/Energy Metrics: Unlike robust international warning systems (such as those in Chile or Mexico), the Indian framework does not count total energy or calorie density as an independent trigger for a warning.
Broad Exemptions: Basic single-ingredient items and foods inherently rich in these components (like ghee, honey, or jaggery) are completely exempt, which leaves processed variations open to interpretation
What have food industry players told FSSAI?
This could be a major setback for food companies in India’s over $100 billion market. Companies like Coca-Cola and industry groups representing Nestle and PepsiCo have been opposing such labels since long. They have claimed that such labels can led to confusion. However, activists and the Supreme Court have repeatedly called for those, citing problems like obesity.
According to a Reuters report, at a meeting in March, food industry executives had told FSSAI officials that interpretive food labels were confusing and unsuited to Indian palates. The report also gave the examples of a formulation gap between the same brands sold in India and abroad. For instance, a can of Fanta sold in London, has 63 calories, while the Indian version carries roughly three times as much sugar and an artificial dye that would have triggered a mandatory health warning in Europe.
The Modi government has been attempting to implement some form of warning labels since long. But a proposal was dropped this year after companies privately opposed the measures, the report claims.
“The warning label shall indicate the applicable declaration, such as ‘HIGH FAT’, ‘HIGH SUGAR’, ‘HIGH SALT’ and/or ‘HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE’ … to enable consumers to readily identify products high in the specified nutrients,” FSSAI mentioned in the SC filing on Friday, as quoted in the report.
The mechanism will “facilitate informed food choices, particularly in relation to children and other vulnerable groups of the population,” it added.
If implemented, what it can mean for manufacturers?
For manufacturers, the implications could extend beyond packaging, according to industry experts. The industry may need time for reformulation for several products.
