Lack of consensus on front-of-pack labeling for packaged foods in India is hindering consumers from making healthier choices. Civil society advocates for warning labels, while the FSSAI favors a star-rating system. The Economic Survey has endorsed warning labels, yet delays persist.
India's Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSAI) has been working for nearly four years to mandate easily understandable labels on all packaged foods to help consumers select healthier options. However, no consensus has emerged on the type of label to implement. Civil society and activists advocate for science-backed warning labels—a symbol alerting to unhealthy foods, akin to red and green dot logos for non-veg and veg items—while the FSSAI promotes an 'Indian Nutritional Rating' that assigns 1/2 to 5 stars based on main ingredients and positive nutrients.
The food industry favors labels displaying ingredient contents like sugar, salt, and fat, along with percentages of recommended daily allowances, calling it simpler and less biased. But an expert committee rejected this, noting no evidence from India or globally supports its effectiveness. The committee stated that such numerical values are already on the back of packs, and merely moving them to the front does not convey health risks.
The government's Economic Survey 2025 stated, 'Studies have shown that warning labels are the most effective option for discouraging ultra-processed food consumption, compared with ranking-style labelling schemes such as Nutri-Score and Health Star Ratings.' In 2020, a multi-stakeholder group formed and recommended a survey by the Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad, which favored the health star rating. A 2022 draft drew over 14,000 comments, including 8,212 from food operators and 6,159 from consumers.
The 2023 expert committee retained the star system with modifications, such as replacing 'positive factor' with 'positive ingredients/nutrients' and advising consumers to 'go for more stars.' It also recommended explanatory notes on the system, including caps on points from added healthy nutrients. The 2025 reconstituted committee reported no stakeholder consensus and advised against industry-backed facts-upfront labeling, citing limited evidence and global preference for warning labels. It suggested post-implementation studies and additional measures like taxing unhealthy foods and awareness campaigns.
Globally, front-of-pack labels exist in 44 countries, mandatory in at least 16. Interpretive labels include warnings, stars, or Nutri-Score; non-interpretive show raw info. Australia and New Zealand use stars, Chile employs black warning signals, and at least 10 countries like Peru and Mexico adopt warnings. A position paper cited by the committee and survey noted a 24% drop in sugary drink purchases in Chile after implementation, with a meta-analysis of 100 studies showing warning labels outperform others.
Dr Arun Gupta, Convener of Nutrition Advocacy for Public Interest (NAPi), said, 'While the court has granted time to FSSAI to consider the proposal of warning label submitted by the civil society organisation, if it doesn’t accept, they will withdraw the 2022 notification. And, the process would start all over again, delaying a measure that can help consumers make healthier choices.'
