Supreme Court rejects per-serve labelling, demands FSSAI clarify front-of-pack label rollout timeline

The Supreme Court of India, in an order dated 12 September 2026, rejected the All India Food Processors' Association's affidavit arguing that front-of-pack warning labels should be calculated on a per-serve basis rather than the standard 100-gram benchmark, calling the proposal a "red herring" in the ongoing public interest litigation over food warning labels.

The case was brought by non-profit organisations 3S and Our Health, which filed a PIL seeking mandatory front-of-pack labels (FOPL) on packaged foods to flag high levels of salt, sugar, and saturated fat. The court is hearing the matter against the backdrop of FSSAI's decade-long deliberation on a warning label framework, which the bench openly criticised. The regulator has proposed mandatory red hexagonal warning labels for packaged foods and beverages that exceed threshold levels for sugar, salt, or saturated fat, to be rolled out in two phases. The court gave FSSAI 10 days from the order date to submit a concrete timeline separating those two phases.

What changed

The court's order does several things at once, and each point has direct consequences for how food is labelled in India.

First, the per-serve argument is dead, at least for now. The food industry had argued that a biscuit consumed in a 30-gram serving should not be judged against a 100-gram yardstick, because no one eats 100 grams of biscuits in one sitting. The court disagreed, and the 100-gram benchmark stands as the working standard.

Second, the court flagged a structural problem with FSSAI's two-phase plan. Phase I, as proposed, would require warning labels only on products that breach thresholds for two or more nutrients of concern. Phase II would tighten that to a single nutrient trigger. The bench said the absence of a fixed date separating the two phases "raises some concerns" and warned that Phase II "might take a backseat or be indefinitely postponed." That is a direct rebuke of the regulator's track record.

Third, the court raised a concern that clean-label advocates have been making for years: if manufacturers reformulate to reduce sugar, fat, or salt to dodge a warning label, they may simply increase artificial preservatives, emulsifiers, and other additives instead. The bench asked FSSAI to account for additive load in the warning framework, which, if acted on, would be a significant expansion of what FOPL is designed to communicate.

Fourth, the court asked FSSAI to clarify whether thresholds will be based on total sugar and saturated fat (as agreed at a 2021 stakeholder consultation) or on different metrics such as added sugar or total fat. This distinction matters enormously in practice. A product sweetened with fruit concentrate can have high total sugar but zero added sugar; the choice of metric determines whether it gets a warning label.

Fifth, the bench questioned the red hexagonal shape itself. Indian consumers widely associate the colour red on food packaging with non-vegetarian content, a convention enforced by FSSAI's own dot-coding system (red dot for non-veg, green for veg). The court asked the regulator to reconsider whether a red warning hexagon might confuse shoppers, particularly in a country with a large vegetarian population.

Finally, the court asked FSSAI to examine whether ultra-processed foods should face stricter thresholds than minimally processed packaged foods. The bench noted that "bunching ultra-processed foods with other packaged foods which are minimally processed would ignore that nutritional benefits provided by minimally processed foods far outweigh those offered by ultra-processed foods." This is a meaningful distinction: a packet of roasted chana and a packet of cheese-flavoured extruded snacks are both packaged foods, but they sit at opposite ends of the processing spectrum.

What buyers and cooks should do right now

FSSAI has not released the full FOPL schedule, and the 10-day deadline for a timeline submission does not mean labels will appear on shelves within 10 days. Regulatory timelines in India routinely stretch well beyond court-ordered deadlines. Treat any brand claiming "FOPL compliant" status as unverifiable until the regulator publishes the final notification.

For shoppers reading ingredient lists today, the 100-gram benchmark the court upheld is already the basis for the existing FSSAI nutrition declaration rules under Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020. You can use it yourself: check the per-100g column on the nutrition table and compare sugar (above 10g is high by most international standards), sodium (above 600mg is high), and saturated fat (above 5g is high). These are rough guides, not FSSAI thresholds, because FSSAI has not yet published final FOPL cut-offs.

The additive substitution risk the court identified is worth watching. If a brand reformulates a snack to reduce sodium but adds more flavour enhancers (INS 621, 627, 631) or emulsifiers (INS 471, 472) to compensate, the nutrition panel may look cleaner while the ingredient list grows longer. Reading both panels together is the only way to catch this.

For home cooks and recipe developers, the court's distinction between ultra-processed and minimally processed foods is a useful frame. Whole dals, unrefined oils, and fresh vegetables carry no labelling ambiguity. The FOPL debate is entirely about packaged, processed products, and the court's order suggests that even within that category, processing degree may eventually determine label severity.

The Economic Times Healthworld report on the 12 September 2026 order is the primary source for the court's specific language. FSSAI's response to the 10-day deadline will be the next document to watch.