Food Label Warnings to Undergo Major Changes as New Rules Introduced

Synopsis

Currently, as the Supreme Court addresses a petition calling for mandatory warnings at the front of food packages high in fat, sugar and salt, global experts have called for a major change, stating that warning should be issued even when a food is high in any one of these nutrients. However, at the other end, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), has proposed for the warnings to be introduced in phases.

FSSAI Position

The FSSAI has suggested that the food warnings should be introduced in phasal manner, where the warning would initially be issued when a product is high in two of the three nutrients, with second phase involving the warning for individual nutrients.

What have the Experts Said

While welcoming the FSSAI’s proposal to introduce red, hexagonal warning labels on the front of packaged foods, global experts have showcased how warning labels at the front of the package are often the only warnings that influence consumer behavior, encouraging improvements in nutritional quality of food and promoting healthier purchasing and dietary choices.

However, the experts have suggested two points on how the system should be rolled out.

1. Separate warning for each nutrient – The experts have suggested that a warning should be issued for each nutrient separately, so that if a product is high in salt and fat, it should carry two labels stating “high in fat” and “high in sugar.” The experts also used evidence from Chile displaying how consumers are less likely to purchase items consisting more labels as compared to those containing fewer warnings. Their main argument centered around on how setting the threshold at two or more nutrients will allow food items which are extremely high in one nutrient to escape attention.

2. The warnings should be clearly identifiable- Secondly, the experts have recommended using black instead of red hexagonal boxes or place red warnings against a white background to ensure visibility. According to them, the labels must be clearly identified and easily noticeable at one glance to be effective for consumers.

The Indian Council of Medical Research and India’s National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) have also supported the experts’ position. The global experts are affiliated with various organizations including the International Food Policy Research Institute, Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins University, the National Institute of Public Health Mexico, the University of Chile and the University of Sydney.

NIN’s recommendations

The NIN Director, in a letter to FSSAI CEO, has suggested that the thresholds used to identify foods high in fat, sugar and salt must also take into account the total energy density of the food, and hence added-fat and added-sugar cutoffs should not be taken in isolation from the overall energy content of the food.

Reiterating the positions of experts, the NIN has recommended warnings to be triggered when a food is high in only one nutrient, otherwise products extremely high in a single nutrient could escape attention. This is in contrast to FSSAI’s proposed model, where individual warnings will be issued in the second phase.

Moreover, NIN has suggested that phased implementation should take place in a time-bound manner wherein, higher thresholds are used initially and lowered progressively to the recommended levels. This would prevent the indefinite postponement of the second phase while also giving manufacturers sufficient time to reformulate products.

Court’s Judgement

During a hearing last week, the Supreme Court considered FSSAI’s proposals for implementing the red-hexagon warnings labels in two phases while asking for a scientifically justified and clearly defined timeline for the second phase. The court has also ordered a clear picture on which categories of beverages would carry the warning in the first phase.

This issue is now no longer confined to the question of warnings but also to the timeline of its implementation, categories of foods that will carry the warning and if a single nutrient is eligible in itself to trigger a warning.