India’s Proposed Food Warning Labels Face Criticism from Both Public Health Experts and Food Giants

NEW DELHI – The Indian government finds itself in a precarious position as it attempts to overhaul food packaging regulations. A new proposal by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to mandate red-colored hexagonal warning labels for packaged goods has ignited a firestorm, drawing fierce opposition from both global health advocates and the nation’s $100 billion packaged food industry.

The proposed policy, which comes amid growing concerns over a national health crisis, would require a red warning label on products that exceed established limits for at least two out of three categories: added sugar, salt, or saturated fat.

A “Meaningless” Approach?

While the FSSAI initiative acknowledges the need for greater transparency, health experts argue that the “double-nutrient threshold” is fundamentally flawed. They warn that under this system, products that contain dangerously high levels of one nutrient—for example, extreme levels of added sugar—would avoid the warning label entirely as long as their salt and fat levels remain within the permitted range.

“It will be meaningless. No other country uses the double-nutrient approach,” said Barry Popkin, a professor in the Department of Nutrition at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. “Every country with warning labels has a separate label with large fonts for each key nutrient.”

The debate takes place against the backdrop of a staggering rise in health issues. According to The Lancet, the number of overweight or obese adults in India stood at 180 million in 2021 and is projected to skyrocket to 450 million by 2050. Researchers point to the success of international models like Chile’s 2016 law, which requires separate black octagonal warnings for each excess nutrient. Following that implementation, Chile saw a 23.7% decline in the purchase of sugary drinks within 18 months.

Industry Pushback: “Everything Will Be Red”

On the other side of the spectrum, major food companies are lobbying against the strictness of the thresholds. Executives argue that the current proposal—which uses a 100-gram benchmark rather than per-serving calculations—is unrealistic.

“Nobody consumes 100 grams of a pickle or ketchup,” one senior industry executive noted, suggesting that the government should pivot toward a per-serving model similar to the U.S. FDA guidelines.

The thresholds themselves have also drawn ire. With India proposing that red warnings trigger if added sugar exceeds 3% of a product’s weight, industry leaders worry that traditional Indian snacks and sweets—integral parts of the local diet—will be unfairly stigmatized. Firoz Naqvi, director general of the Federation of Sweets and Namkeen Manufacturers, warned that the policy could devastate the industry, stating, “A substantial majority of packaged traditional sweets and namkeen could attract warnings. It could negatively affect consumer perception and demand.”

A High-Stakes Legal Battle

The tension over food warning labels is set to culminate on September 10, when the Supreme Court of India is scheduled to hear arguments on the matter.

Health advocacy group 3S And Our Health has already drafted a submission for the court, highlighting significant loopholes in the FSSAI proposal, including exemptions for honey and jaggery. Meanwhile, multinational giants like Mars and Unilever have expressed their commitment to compliance but maintain that ingredient requirements vary significantly by regional taste and that all foods can theoretically be part of a balanced diet.

As the government seeks to curb the consumption of ultra-processed food—which saw a 40-fold increase in retail sales between 2006 and 2019—it remains unclear whether it can craft a policy that satisfies both the urgent requirements of public health advocates and the economic realities of India’s food sector.