India’s proposed front-of-pack food warning labels are facing criticism from both sides of the debate, with health experts arguing that the rules are too weak to protect consumers while food manufacturers say the proposed thresholds are so strict that they could place warning labels on a large share of packaged foods.
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) last week proposed a red-coloured hexagonal warning label for packaged products that exceed limits for at least two of three nutrients: added sugar, salt or saturated fat. The proposal is intended to give consumers a more visible indication of potentially unhealthy products, but the design has immediately raised concerns about whether India’s food labelling rules will actually reduce consumption of foods high in individual nutrients.
Health experts have focused particularly on the requirement that a product must exceed thresholds for two nutrients before receiving a warning. They argue that this could allow products containing excessive levels of one potentially harmful nutrient to escape the system entirely. Barry Popkin, a professor at the University of North Carolina’s Gillings School of Global Public Health, told Reuters that the approach would be ineffective because countries with front-of-pack warning systems generally provide separate warnings for individual nutrients.
The concern is significant because India is experiencing growing levels of obesity and increasing consumption of processed and ultra-processed foods. The Indian government has itself highlighted the scale of the problem. Retail sales of ultra-processed food increased roughly 40 times between 2006 and 2019, reaching about $38 billion, while a Lancet study estimated that around 180 million Indian adults were overweight or obese in 2021. That number is projected to rise substantially by 2050 if current trends continue.
Other countries have used front-of-pack warning labels to influence consumer behaviour. Chile, for example, introduced black octagonal warnings in 2016, with separate labels identifying excessive levels of nutrients such as sugar, salt and saturated fat. Research cited by Reuters found that purchases of sugary drinks fell by 23.7% during the first 18 months after the Chilean system was introduced. Health advocates in India therefore argue that a system requiring multiple nutrient thresholds could weaken the effectiveness of warnings before they are even introduced.
Indian activists are also challenging exemptions contained in the proposed rules. The health group 3S And Our Health, which has taken the government to court over food labelling, has prepared a submission questioning exemptions for products such as honey and jaggery, which naturally contain high levels of sugar. The group also objects to the two-nutrient requirement, arguing that both provisions could create loopholes that allow certain products to avoid warnings.
The debate is now moving into India's Supreme Court. The FSSAI has presented its labelling proposal to the court, and a hearing is scheduled for September 10, according to a government source cited by Reuters. The legal challenge adds another layer to an already intense dispute between public health advocates, regulators and India's powerful packaged food industry.
One example illustrates the concern among health advocates. Kellogg's Multigrain Chocos sold in India contains 27% added sugar by weight, according to the product's label. Because its fat and salt levels fall within the proposed limits, however, the product could potentially avoid a warning under the two-nutrient system. Kellogg's owner Mars said it supports clear, science-based nutrition information and would comply with Indian laws if the rules change.
Food manufacturers, meanwhile, argue that the proposed regulations could go too far in the opposite direction. Seven executives from Indian and multinational food companies told Reuters they were concerned about the proposed thresholds and the use of a 100-gram reference quantity rather than the amount normally consumed in a single serving.
The industry argues that consumers do not typically eat 100 grams of products such as ketchup or pickles at once. Companies therefore want regulators to consider a per-serving approach, which they argue would provide a more realistic representation of what consumers actually consume.
The proposed nutrient thresholds are another major source of concern. India is considering a warning for solid products containing more than 3% added sugar by weight and more than 4.2% fat, levels that food industry executives say are stricter than requirements in many other markets. One Indian food company CEO warned that the result could be that almost everything on supermarket shelves ends up carrying a red warning label.
Traditional Indian foods have become an important part of that argument. Sweets and savoury snacks, commonly known as namkeen, are deeply embedded in India's food culture and often contain significant amounts of sugar, salt or fat. The Federation of Sweets and Namkeen Manufacturers, which represents about 5,000 members, has warned that a substantial proportion of packaged traditional sweets and namkeen could receive warning labels under the proposed system. The federation says this could affect how consumers perceive the products and potentially reduce demand.
The controversy follows months of pressure surrounding India's proposed food labelling system. Reuters reported in August that major international food companies had opposed earlier plans for mandatory front-of-pack warnings in India. The report highlighted differences between some products sold in India and comparable products in Western markets, intensifying scrutiny of how multinational food companies approach nutrition standards across different countries.
India's food warning label debate therefore represents a difficult regulatory balancing act. Health authorities want a system strong enough to help consumers identify products containing excessive sugar, salt and fat, while manufacturers want rules that account for serving sizes, traditional foods and differences in local diets.
The Supreme Court's September 10 hearing could become an important moment in determining how India approaches front-of-pack nutrition warnings. Whatever decision emerges, the dispute has already exposed a wider question facing India's food industry: whether nutrition regulation should prioritize simplicity and strong warnings for individual nutrients, or adopt a more complex system designed to accommodate manufacturers, traditional foods and local consumption patterns.
For India's consumers, the effectiveness of the final food labelling rules may ultimately depend on whether the warnings are clear enough to influence purchasing decisions without becoming so broad that shoppers begin to ignore them.