The Supreme Court on Thursday said it was taking up the issue of food labelling “very seriously”, particularly in view of its impact on the health of children, while hearing a plea concerning regulations on salt, sodium and other nutritional information on packaged food.

During the hearing, the petitioner pointed out that a 2021 meeting between consumer groups and the industry had discussed issues including the manner in which salt and sodium should be declared. Counsel submitted that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had subsequently taken a position on the issue but had allegedly taken a “complete U-turn” in its August 3 compliance and the latest compliance filed before the Court.

Counsel also submitted that the applicable regulations contemplated two mandatory conditions for nutritional labelling, whereas the ICMR guideline being followed addressed only one of them. Giving the example of pickle, counsel said it was impractical to assess its nutritional content merely on a 100-gram serving basis since consumers would not ordinarily consume 100 grams at one time.

The counsel also placed suggestions concerning ultra-processed foods, arguing that products such as Kurkure should not be placed on the same footing as nutritional foods such as eggs and salted cashews merely because all are packaged products. Counsel suggested that ultra-processed foods should carry a higher warning and also raised concerns over the use of red colour in front-of-pack labelling, saying it could create confusion with the conventional red/green colour coding associated with non-vegetarian and vegetarian products.

Also Read: SC Pulls Up FSSAI Over Reluctance to Mandate Warning Labels on High Sugar, High Salt & High Fat Foods

The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran , however, said the issue would be considered by the Court and made clear that its concern was primarily the health of the public, particularly children.

The Bench asked the parties to study the Court’s order and the material before them, indicating that an order would be passed that day or uploaded the following day. The Court directed the parties to return with their responses and subsequently fixed the matter for September 28, at the top of the board.