Hyderabad: Despite Supreme Court refusing to accept FSSAI ’s proposed timeline for implementing front-of-pack nutrition warning labels (FoPNL), the regulator, in its fresh submission on Oct 1, maintained that the system should roll out fromJuly 1, after a minimum 365-day transition period from the date of notification, citing recommendations of a high-level NITI Aayog committee.
Highlighting that the process had been under way since Sept 2022, the NGO said that FSSAI had received over 14,000 public comments and obtained an expert committee report in 2023, but later cited lack of consensus and sought further research. In the last hearing on Sept 28, SC reportedly told FSSAI to implement its order in the national interest and in its true spirit, questioning the long timeline despite stakeholder consultations having begun in 2022. the SC bench emphasised that the issue was important and should not face any further delay While FSSAI said the 2022 process concerned a different star-rating system.
You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Hyderabad | Silver Rate in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad | Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Petrol Price in Hyderabad | Diesel Price in Hyderabad | CNG Price in Hyderabad | LPG Price in Hyderabad Stay updated with the latest Hyderabad news.
However, the petitioner NGO ‘3S and Our Health Society’ filed a submission through its advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, opposing the timeline, arguing that it reflected a “sustained delay” in bringing in the FoPNL warning-label system. FSSAI, however, has said its present proposal is focused on warning labels on physical packages and on completing the regulatory process for FoPNL. For packaged foods sold through e-commerce platforms, the NGO has sought a direction that warnings be displayed prominently at the top right of the main product image and on product listings, before a consumer buys them. SC has now reserved its judgment on the implementation framework and timeline for the FoPNL. Download the TOI App.
However, this, according to the petitioner, would push effective implementation of mandatory warnings on packaged foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) to July 1, 2028. On this, SC had questioned FSSAI over the proposed 365-day compliance window and the time sought to complete the regulatory process. The NGO argued that the need for implementation of warning labels was particularly urgent for children, citing a rise in childhood obesity among children aged 5–19 from 2% to 10% and evidence linking greater consumption of ultra-processed and HFSS foods with health risks.
It has suggested that mandatory warnings could be introduced within a month by allowing firms to use stickers on existing packaging. Furthermore, the NGO contended that the delays were driven largely by commercial concerns, including companies’ existing packaging stocks. However, FSSAI stated that its proposal primarily focuses on HFSS nutrients and front-of-pack warnings.
The regulator had earlier proposed four months to frame and notify the FoPNL regulations, followed by a one-year voluntary compliance period for food businesses. Moreover, the petitioner also urged FSSAI to go a step further and define ultra-processed foods (UPF) in the regulatory framework and place a separate proposal on front-of-pack warnings for such foods before the court.