PIL in SC seeking Mandatory Front-of-Package Warning Labels on packaged foods indicating the presence of sugars, sodium, unhealthy fats, and other harmful substances

Recently, 3S and Our Health Society Public Charitable Trust, a non-profit organization, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court (SC) of India seeking judicial intervention to direct the Union of India, States, and Union Territories to mandate the implementation of FOPL (Front-of-Package Warning Labels) on packaged foods. Last week, a three-judge bench constituting Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra issued a notice in the PIL returnable in 4 weeks and listed the petition for hearing on August 27, 2024. The order reads, “Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. List the Petition on 27 August 2024.” The PIL highlighted the ‘alarming rise in the spread of diabetes and associated diseases’ in our country. The PIL illustrated, “Diabetes has emerged as a silent epidemic in India, affecting millions of individuals and posing a significant burden on our healthcare system. It is very prominent to mention here and draw attention of this Hon’ble Court that an alarming surge in non-communicable diseases (NCDs), affecting both children and adults.” As per the petition, “...India, it is estimated that nearly 58 lac people die from NCDs every year out of nearly 90 Lac overall deaths.” 

The PIL states “India is currently facing a huge public health crisis beginning from undernutrition of children to emerging obesity both in children and adults and is escalating the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Crores of people are suffering from obesity, diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases. The recent report of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5-2021) shows that undernutrition in children is almost stagnant as one in 3 children are suffering from undernutrition, and obesity is rising in children under the age of five. The percentage of obese women increased to 24 percent from 20.6 percent in 2015-16, while the percentage for men rose to 22.9 percent from 18.4 percent four years earlier.” The petitioner also mentioned the importance and benefit of using FPOL in its petition. It said, “That it is very prominent to consider that the Front of Package Labelling serves as a powerful tool in empowering consumers to make informed choices about their diet and reducing the adverse impact of commercial interests of big corporates. It enables citizens to easily identify and understand the nutritional content and harmful ingredients present in packaged food and beverages, thereby making healthier choices. While the FSSAI has already recognized the significance of FOPL, it is crucial to expedite regulations that mandate the usage of warning labels in prominent positions on packaging.” 

The petition added that the FOPL has been successfully adopted by various countries, and is effective for everyone. The PIL reads, “That these warning labels would effectively indicate the excessive presence of added sugars, sodium, unhealthy fats, and other harmful substances. By prominently displaying this vital information, it becomes easier for consumers to identify unhealthy food items and make healthier dietary decisions. Furthermore, warning labels act as a deterrent for excessive consumption and contribute towards raising public awareness about the adverse health consequences associated with consuming such products.” Moreover, the petition highlighted that the study showed “that maximum categories failed on thresholds for Energy, Total Sugar, Added Sugar, Total Fat, Saturated Fat, and Sodium. The highest number of categories failed on Added Sugar and Total Sugar, followed by Saturated Fat, Total Fat, and Sodium. The report also assessed the percentages of products eligible to be marketed to children. Only 57 i.e. 4.4 % products qualified because they did not fail on Energy, Total Sugar, Added Sugar, Total Fat, Saturated Fat, Trans Fat, and Sodium.” 

The PIL also refers to the aggressive marketing strategies or practices and their impact on the customers. While citing a 2022 WHO report, the PIL illustrates that “Food marketing is not only prevalent but persuasive. It mostly promotes foods that contribute to unhealthy diets. Most common foods that were advertised were sugar-sweetened beverages, chocolates and confectionery, fast food, breakfast cereals, sweet bakery items and snacks, salty snacks, dairy products, and desserts in order of frequency of marketing. Most of these are ultra-processed food products. The evidence presented is strong enough to restrict marketing of foods to which children are exposed.” The petition adds, “Recent study of 48 advertisements of packaged food products seen over a period of 3 months showed that the food products advertised were ultra-processed, and advertisements were misleading according to the definition of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Many of them used celebrity endorsements.” Considering all these aspects, the SC bench issued a notice in the PIL on July 29, returnable in 4 weeks, and listed the petition on August 27. It was observed that the petitioner had previously written to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to expedite action on this issue but has not yet received a response; as a result, the petitioner approached the top court.