Clear Warning Labels on Packaged Food

Nutrition information is printed on the back of the packet in small type. The decision to buy is made from the front, in a few seconds.

Packaged snacks are a large and growing part of the Indian diet, and a significant share of them carry high sugar, salt or fat. The health consequences — obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, particularly in children — are well established and no longer in serious dispute.

In 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India & Anr., the Supreme Court is examining the framework proposed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India for front-of-pack nutrition labelling. On 10 September 2026 the Court took up the FSSAI’s proposal, and it had earlier recorded that urgent headway was needed.

The FSSAI had proposed red hexagon warning labels. The Court found several difficulties with the proposal and put a series of questions to the authority.

• Why should Phase I be limited to products high in two or more nutrients, with single-nutrient products deferred to Phase II? The petitioner’s contention that a two-nutrient trigger is not backed by science, and narrows the products covered, was put to the authority for response.
• Why use red, a colour already associated with non-vegetarian food marking?
• Will the labels be large enough to be read and understood by children and ordinary consumers?
• Will the labels use images, or words alone?
• When will compliance become mandatory for all manufacturers?

The Court linked the question to the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution and the State’s duty under Article 47 to improve public health. Framed that way, the label is not a marketing regulation but a means of enabling an informed choice — closer to the traffic light than to the advertisement.

• The information that matters should be on the front of the pack, not only in the small print on the back.
• Thresholds determine the scheme’s value: a label that never triggers protects no one.
• Children are the intended beneficiaries, which makes legibility and design central rather than cosmetic.
• For manufacturers, the practical question is the date from which the format becomes mandatory.

The Court gave the FSSAI ten days to answer on affidavit and two weeks to place its final decision on record. On 28 September 2026 it reserved its order, asking why a full year of voluntary compliance was needed. Until a final framework is notified, back-of-pack declarations remain the compulsory disclosure.