“We are concerned with the health of people, more particularly growing children. We have taken it up very seriously. We expect one and all to extend their cooperation to a cause which is in national interest,” the Supreme Court said on Thursday.
NEW DELHI: India’s food regulator told the nation’s Supreme Court on Thursday it is open to stricter food labelling measures than proposed earlier, following criticism that it was delaying implementing the warning labels by proposing a two-phased approach.
After years of delays, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) last month proposed initial red-coloured hexagonal warning labels for products that exceed limits in at least two of three categories — added sugar, salt or saturated fat — with plans to make the labels stricter in a second phase, it said.
The announcement came as India’s federal and state food regulators pursued an aggressive enforcement drive, with surprise raids on eateries uncovering poor hygiene and leading to many forced closures, stoking anger among consumers.
Health experts criticised the FSSAI proposal, however, saying the two-nutrient approach was an “industry-friendly loophole” that disregarded public health, as many products would escape scrutiny.
Supreme Court Justice J.B. Pardiwala questioned why the FSSAI was taking a two-phased approach, as he questioned a government lawyer during Thursday’s hearing.
“It has to be sugar and salt. Only then will you ask them to put a label?” Pardiwala said, stressing the word “and”.
The FSSAI’s lawyer, additional solicitor general of India Brijender Chahar, responded that after hearing the court, it was now suggesting it could roll out the phases “in one go.”
That would effectively mean foods high even in one of the three nutrients — added sugar, salt or fat — would have a red hexagon.
The Supreme Court has been hearing a plea by health group “3S And Our Health” demanding stricter labelling, drawing the FSSAI and the industry to court.
The nationwide debate on food safety has intensified since Reuters reported last month that India’s government opted for a weaker labelling regime after lobbying by Coca-Cola, and groups backing Nestle and PepsiCo which argued warning labels were ineffective. Many companies, however, have implemented such measures voluntarily in European markets.
FOOD INDUSTRY RAISES CONCERNS
India’s food and drinks market is key for foreign players including Nestle, Unilever. Mondelez and Mars, whose food products compete in a thriving industry that also includes big Indian firms such as ITC and Dabur.
On top of that, thousands of smaller businesses sell snacks and sweets, which remain hugely popular among millions of Indians.
All India Food Processors’ Association, which represents dozens of Indian and foreign food giants, has called for a review of the planned health labels on packaging, saying many staples risk being covered in warnings that will tarnish the image of Indian food globally.
During Thursday’s hearing, the group’s lawyer held a food packet to explain its position, saying “nobody can eat 100 grams of pickle”, and so the warning labels should be decided on a per-serve basis, not by analysing salt and sugar in 100 grams of a product as the authorities have proposed.
The United States, for example, has proposed per-serve front-of-pack labelling, which Indian industry favours, though many other countries use the 100-gram benchmark.
Rising obesity rates and the consumption of fatty foods are a growing concern among health experts and the Indian government. Some 450 million Indians could be obese or overweight by 2050, according to a recent study published in the Lancet medical journal.
“We are concerned with the health of people, more particularly growing children. We have taken it up very seriously. We expect one and all to extend their cooperation to a cause which is in national interest,” the Supreme Court said on Thursday.
The judges said they will issue a written order before Friday.
Food producers in India have filed a court submission seeking to force New Delhi to review planned health labels on packaging, saying many staples risk being covered in warnings that will tarnish the image of Indian food globally.
The filing made on Wednesday in the Supreme Court is the first legal objection from the more than $100 billion packaged-food industry to the government’s labelling plan, announced on August 28. The filing, seen and first reported by Reuters, is not public.
India is in the midst of an unprecedented food safety crackdown, including nationwide raids against eateries, amid concern over poor hygiene and standards. The government’s plan for front-of-pack red warning labels came after heated public debate on the lack of such measures. The Supreme Court, which is hearing pleas from health activists, will review the plan on Thursday.
Reuters has reported that industry executives are concerned the proposal for a prominent label if added sugar is in excess of 3% of solid products by weight, and fat in excess of 4.2%, is stricter than many foreign markets.
The thresholds require “further scientific examination … so that the framework is placed on the most robust and internationally consistent footing available,” the All India Food Processors’ Association said in its court filing on Wednesday.
They should take “account of the Indian dietary context and consumer-consumption patterns,” AIFPA said, referring to its previous submissions to the regulator that nearly 80% of packaged-food products may fall into the high fat, sugar or salt category under India’s approach.
AIFPA’s members include Nestle , Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Hindustan Unilever and dozens of other foreign and Indian companies. None of the companies responded to Reuters requests for comment.
The labelling proposal follows widespread public anger and debate following a Reuters report that India’s government had yielded to lobbying in March from Coca-Cola and groups backing Nestle and PepsiCo, which opposed having warnings on the front of food and drinks packaging.
Reuters