FSSAI seeks more time for front-of-pack labelling rules
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
New Delhi: The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has sought another three months' time from the Supreme Court to comply with its order on framing a stringent law on front-of-pack-labelling (FOPL).The food regulator had time until July to frame the law.The FOPL is a part of proposed reform measures where the food regulator had suggested mandatory pictorial representation-such as traffic light signal or star rating-to inform consumers about how healthy a food item is. However, after years of discussion and stiff resistance from food companies, the proposal was put on the back burner.In April, the Supreme Court had directed an expert committee to submit its recommendations within three months on the proposed move to introduce mandatory warning labels on the front of packaged food items by amending the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020."An additional time of three months will be required by the expert committee to finalise its report," the food authority said in the writ petition. It has also listed the long and time-consuming procedure required to bring out the regulation.The FOPL aims to provide consumers with easily understandable information-in pictorial form--about the nutritional content of packaged foods and warn about potentially harmful ingredients such as fats, salt and sugar, which are mostly responsible for cardiovascular problems, diabetes and other ailments.So far, packaged foods companies in India are mandated to print nutrient information on the back-of-packs only. However, globally, it's the front-pack labelling which has proven to reduce consumption of unhealthy foods.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
More than symbolic: on curbing unhealthy food intake
In a welcome move, the Health Ministry has directed all government departments to display oil, sugar and trans-fat content in everyday Indian snacks such as samosas, jalebis, vada pavs and laddoos in a bid to highlight the health risks of their consumption on a regular basis. The campaign will be piloted in AIIMS Nagpur and then rolled out to other cities. The move comes two months after the CBSE directed all affiliated schools to establish 'sugar boards' to monitor and reduce the sugar intake of children. These will list information on the recommended daily sugar intake, the sugar content in commonly consumed foods, health risks associated with high sugar consumption, and healthier dietary alternatives. The initiatives have been driven by studies that provide evidence of increasing obesity trends in India. As in the NFHS data, obesity had increased from nearly 15% to 24% in men and from 12% to nearly 23% in women between 2005-06 and 2019-21. Since the amount of oil and sugar in Indian snacks is not apparent — and, hence, often overlooked — these initiatives will serve to fill the gap and act as 'visual behavioural nudges', much like the pictorial warnings on tobacco products. However, building awareness alone cannot bring about behavioural changes, especially in the absence of essential legislative measures. Surprisingly, while the Health Ministry has targeted Indian snacks, nothing has been done over the years to introduce clear front-of-package labels to caution people about unhealthy packaged food items, and regulate the advertising, marketing and promotion of unhealthy food to children. Also, levying additional tax on food products with high levels of fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS) can further reduce consumption, as seen in some countries. As in the national multisectoral action plan for prevention and control of common non-communicable disease (2017-22), the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) Regulation was required to be amended for inclusion of front-of-pack labelling and detailed nutrient labelling. The FSSAI (Packaging and Labelling) Regulation was amended in 2020; on July 15, the Supreme Court of India again directed the agency to execute this label on packaged food. For front-of-pack labels on HFSS food and beverage products to become a reality, the FSSAI has to first define the upper limits for sugar, salt and total fat, which have not been finalised and approved so far. A 2022 study found that warning labels outperformed all other forms of front-of-pack labelling in identify unhealthy products. A study by the ICMR-NIN found that warning labels and nutri-star ratings helped deter the consumption of even moderately unhealthy foods. Measures to build awareness without essential legislative measures to curb unhealthy food intake will not be much more than symbolic.
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
Activists accuse food regulator of stalling on-pack labelling regulation
Representative image Public health advocates have accused the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India ( FSSAI ) of delaying tactics as it has sought three more months for its expert committee to finalise its report on front of pack nutritional labelling (FOPNL) regulation. The Supreme Court had in April directed that the exercise be completed in three months. This was after FSSAI failed to finalise the amendments two and a half years after the draft regulation was made public in September 2022 and comments were sought from all stakeholders and the public. Front of Pack labelling was proposed in 2014 by an expert committee constituted by FSSAI on the order of the Delhi High court. The order came on a public interest petition seeking labelling and a ban on sale of junk food in schools. Eleven years later, it is still hanging fire. Last week (July 7) FSSAI filed an application seeking extension of time to comply with the SC order passed on April 9. The application revealed that the FSSAI had organised stakeholder consultations with food business operators and other concerned stakeholders across four regions –Delhi Goa, Hyderabad and Kolkata— in May 2025. 'During the consultation sessions, stakeholders shared their views and comments on the draft regulations related to Front-Of-Pack Nutrition Labelling (FOPNL)' stated the application, adding that such meetings were 'essential feedback to the draft regulation' and needed to be placed before the expert committee. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Các chỉ số toàn cầu đang biến động — Đã đến lúc giao dịch! IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi), a think tank on nutrition, has issued a statement questioning the meetings being organized by FSSAI with the industry when all stakeholders were given an equal opportunity to give their feedback when the draft was made public on September 13, 2022 and comments were invited. According to the FSSAI it received 14,000 comments and constituted an expert committee on February 17, 2023 to analyse the public feedback on the draft amendment notification. 'Why should the FSSAI begin a new process? Why these new invitees for comments could not give their comments when these were invited in September 2022?' asked NAPi in its statement adding that FSSAI had already ensured freedom from any regulation on FOPNL for almost three years for the food industry by delaying the finalising of the amendments. In response to RTI queries, the FSSAI has refused to make public the 14,000 comments it received from stakeholders and the public citing 'commercial confidence', indicating that the industry had already given its feedback. Its application seeking an extension stated that the draft report of the expert committee's recommendations was ready. NAPi questioned why the report was not being made public when it was ready even before the Supreme Court had ordered for the exercise to be completed in three months. FOPL, acknowledged globally as an effective policy measure to help consumers make healthier choices and reduce consumption of ultra-processed food, has been fought hard by the food industry worried about falling sales. However, with research repeatedly establishing that processed foods with high sugar, salt and fat and low fibre content are linked to rising incidence of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, heart ailments, and certain cancers, many countries have adopted FOPL. The FSSAI's extension application also indicates that even after the expert committee's report is submitted, it could take months before any regulation is finalized with several stages to be gone through.
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
'Denial of preferred food to prisoners not rights violation,' says SC; flags disability gaps in jails
Representative Image NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that not providing "preferred or costly food items" to prisoners, including those with disabilities, does not constitute a violation of fundamental rights. Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan clarified that while Article 21 of the Constitution extends the right to life to all prisoners, it does not grant them the right to demand personalised or luxurious food choices, PTI reported. The bench emphasised, "Mere non-supply of preferred or costly food items cannot ipso facto be treated as a violation of fundamental State's obligation is to ensure that every inmate, including those with disabilities, receives adequate, nutritious, and medically appropriate food, subject to medical certification." The court stated that prisons are correctional facilities rather than extensions of civil society's comforts. Unless resulting in provable harm to health or dignity, the court noted that withholding non-essential or indulgent items does not violate constitutional or human rights. "Prisons are often regarded as the 'tail-end' of the criminal justice system – historically designed for rigid discipline, harsh conditions, and minimal liberties. While modern penological principles advocate rehabilitation over retribution, the current prison infrastructure and operational systems in India remain grossly inadequate – especially when it comes to meeting the needs of prisoners with disabilities," the verdict stated. These observations arose from an appeal by advocate L Muruganantham, who suffers from Becker muscular dystrophy, challenging a Madras High Court order that awarded him Rs 5 lakh compensation. His imprisonment stemmed from a land dispute between his family and another individual. During his incarceration, he alleged inadequate medical care and insufficient protein-rich food, including eggs, chicken and nuts, on a daily basis. The court acknowledged that while the respondent authorities may not be directly responsible for prison facility deficiencies, these issues highlight the urgent need for prison reforms, particularly regarding disability-sensitive infrastructure and protocols. The court recognised the systematic neglect in prison infrastructure, especially concerning disabled prisoners' needs. "Persons with disabilities must be provided healthcare equivalent to that available in the general community. This includes access to physiotherapy, speech therapy, psychiatric care, and assistive devices, such as wheelchairs, hearing aids, or crutches. Prison authorities are under a duty to coordinate with public healthcare systems to ensure uninterrupted care. Logistical or financial limitations cannot be cited to justify a withdrawal of this obligation," it said. The court found most state prison manuals "outdated" and "uninformed" regarding developments in disability law and rights-based discourse. "They frequently conflate sensory or physical disabilities with mental illness or cognitive decline, thereby eroding the distinct legal right to reasonable accommodation. This conflation promotes harmful stereotypes and obstructs disabled inmates from claiming their lawful entitlements," it noted. The court concluded that the state bears both constitutional and moral obligations to protect disabled prisoners' rights, ensuring non-discriminatory treatment and facilitating their rehabilitation and societal reintegration.
