Red hexagon on your snack pack: What FSSAI’s new proposed warning label means | Explained

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The story so far: India’s food regulator has proposed a red, hexagonal warning label on the front of packaged foods high in added sugar, saturated fat or salt, in a move aimed at giving consumers a simple, at-a-glance signal about unhealthy products.

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), in an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on August 28, has proposed that the warning initially apply to products high in two or more of the three “nutrients of concern” — added sugar, added saturated fat and salt — as well as specified highly sweetened beverages.

The proposal comes after years of debate over front-of-pack labelling and intervention by the Supreme Court. The Court is scheduled to consider the affidavit on September 10.

Also Read | FSSAI’s proposed warning labels could let unhealthy foods escape scrutiny, says expert

FSSAI has proposed a two-phase rollout. In the first phase, products high in at least two of the three nutrients would carry the red hexagon, along with specified highly sweetened beverages.

In the second phase, the warning would extend to products high in any one of the three nutrients. However, FSSAI has not specified a firm timeline for moving to the second phase.

The thresholds are proposed to be based on the Indian Council of Medical Research–National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN) Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024. However, the FSSAI proposal refers to added sugar and added saturated fat, rather than total sugar and total fat.

Single-ingredient foods and products inherently rich in these nutrients, including ghee, edible oil, jaggery and honey, are also proposed to be exempt.

Also Read | Supreme Court slams FSSAI for not introducing front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food products

Nutrition advocates say the biggest concern is the decision to initially require a product to be high in two nutrients before it attracts a warning. A product that is high in sugar but low in salt and fat, for instance, could escape a warning altogether.

“This defeats the purpose of a warning label,” Arun Gupta, convenor of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPI), told The Hindu . He has argued for a simpler principle: if a product is high in sugar, salt or saturated fat, it should carry a warning.

The distinction could matter particularly for products such as sugary beverages, which may be high in added sugar but contain little or no fat or salt and could therefore fall outside the warning requirement in Phase I.

Dr. Gupta has also raised concerns over the use of “added” rather than total sugar and fat, the size of the proposed warning and the absence of a firm deadline for Phase II. He has called for the warnings to be available in Hindi and English, arguing that language and visibility are essential if the labels are to reach consumers across the country.