Differences pertain to the size and design of red warning labels, their use on beverages, the nutrient thresholds that trigger a warning, the treatment of ultra-processed foods and the timeline for implementation
Because nutrition tables themselves are often printed in small fonts, however, the NGO and NIN experts, have argued that this may still result in a very small warning.
Size and design : The FSSAI has proposed a red hexagonal warning label and said its size would majorly follow the Canada’s FOPNL model. The warning would be at least one point larger than the nutrition information table usually at the back of packaged food. They want the warning size to be set as a fixed percentage of the main display panel (front of the package), similar to the approach followed in countries such as Chile and Mexico. Beverage warnings: FSSAI has proposed that beverages within the prescribed nutrient limits could also carry a red hexagon showing the beverage category. For example, a carbonated drink that does not cross the sugar threshold could still carry a red hexagon identifying it as a carbonated beverage. However, the health experts have opposed this, saying the red hexagon should be reserved for products that actually cross a nutrient limit. They argued that using the same symbol on products that are not high in any nutrient could dilute its meaning as a warning.
Hyderabad: Ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on the front-of-pack nutrition warning labelling (FoPL) scheduled on Monday, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India ( FSSAI ) and the NGO ‘3S and Our Health Society’ have differed on several key features of the proposed system for packaged foods.
It has sought four months to finalise the draft regulations, followed by a 365-day voluntary compliance period for food businesses, citing the need to avoid hardship over already printed packaging material. They emphasised that the FSSAI separately define UPFs and develop a warning or indication for them, while implementing the nutrient warnings immediately so that work on UPF labelling does not delay the main FoPL system.
However, the health experts and the NGO have termed the proposed timeline “dilatory”, arguing that it would further delay warnings on unhealthy packaged foods as companies were unlikely to voluntarily display warnings. They argued that a product could use ingredients such as fruit concentrate, fruit pulp or jaggery and still have a high overall sugar content, while not being treated as having the same level of “added sugar”. They pertain to the size and design of red warning labels, their use on beverages, the nutrient thresholds that trigger a warning, the treatment of ultra-processed foods and the timeline for implementation. They have now sought a one-month compliance window after the final notification for companies to redesign packaging. For already printed packs, they suggested mandatory warning stickers in the prescribed size, format and position, saying this would allow existing packaging to be used without delaying the rollout. Added vs total sugar and fat : The FSSAI also proposed using added sugar and added fat to decide whether a product needs a warning. For example, if a packaged drink contains sugar added during manufacturing, that added sugar would be considered for the threshold. Health experts and the NGO, however, wanted total sugar to be considered. Experts also wants total fat and saturated fat to be considered. They highlighted that the total sugar and fat can be measured in the finished product, while the amount added during manufacturing may not be independently verifiable. Ultra-processed foods (UPFs): The FSSAI’s proposed system focuses on the nutrients in a product, rather than how much it has been processed. But, the NGO and experts wanted the UPFs to be separately identified. For example, two packaged foods could have similar sugar and fat levels but differ significantly in the number and type of processing steps and additives used. Experts argued that such differences should also be reflected in the FOPL.
The differences emerged after the FSSAI filed an affidavit before the court last week and the NGO submitted a rejoinder through its advocate appearing through Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi. Implementation timeline: The FSSAI has dropped its earlier two-phase FOPL implementation proposal and now suggested a single-phase system covering packaged foods high in any one nutrient of concern.