28-05-2025
Not stars, warning labels on food products have real-world impact
It's not the Michelin guide, dear If a pre-packaged food product is high in sugar, salt or fat, should its front label display a 'star rating'? Or should it have clear labelling to enable the consumer to quickly know the product's nutrient contents?On April 9, while hearing a PIL, the Supreme Court instructed GoI to make a final judgement on revising the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations 2020 'within three months'. The PIL had sought directions to make front-of-pack warning labels (FoPWL) mandatory for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat - substances linked to lifestyle diseases like diabetes and heart problems.
In response, GoI had stated that Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had started the amendment process, receiving 'over 14,000 public comments' on the proposed labelling norms. This, after FSSAI had approved draft rules in June 2024 requiring FMCG companies to display key nutritional information - total sugar, salt, saturated fat, percentage of recommended dietary allowance (RDA), etc - prominently on the front of packets. On FoPWL/front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FoPNL), scientific consensus is crystal clear: interpretive warning labels - which go beyond simple textual warnings and provide consumers with a more in-depth explanation of risks associated with a product - outperform all other formats. Yet, a prevalent 'star-rating' system threatens to derail public health major studies - one by Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)-National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), another by International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai - found that warning labels consistently outperform 'health stars' and other formats in helping consumers identify unhealthy food products. University of North Carolina's Global Food Research Program confirms that only warning labels have real-world impact in curbing consumption of HFSS (high fat, salt, sugar) products.
According to ICMR-NIN dietary guidelines, 54% of all deaths are related to unhealthy diets. Despite rising obesity rates in India driven by HFSS food consumption, FoPNL regulation has languished for more than a decade. GoI had set targets to halt obesity by 2025, a goal that seems increasingly out of reach. Reducing consumption of unhealthy diets is critical. FoPNL is one such intervention to reduce HFSS consumption. Yet, despite the PMO's directive to FSSAI in 2021 to expedite FoPNL, the 2022 draft notification proposed 'star ratings' - not warnings - ignoring a unique public health consensus.
Under the 'star system', food packets may earn between half a star (least healthy) to 5 stars (healthiest). But, crucially, there is no provision to explicitly label any food as 'unhealthy'. The health star rating system (HSRS) was introduced by the Australian and New Zealand governments in 2014 to assign health ratings to packaged foods and beverages. Originally developed by individuals working closely with the food industry, possible conflict of interest was obvious from the start. A decade of use in Australia and New Zealand shows it hasn't significantly improved public health outcomes there. Stars rate hotels and air conditioners, not the nutritional quality of food we ingest. Take a baby cereal high in sugar. It could earn 3 stars. A pack of biscuits, high in sugar, salt and fat, could earn 2.5 or 3 stars. A soft drink loaded with sugar may still show 2 stars. Consumers must turn to the fine print on the packaging to know the truth. FoPNL in stars is have the right to have access to information needed to understand whether a food product is high in sugar, salt or fat - three nutrients linked to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) like obesity and diabetes. Stars don't reveal these. Without clear warnings upfront, choices are triggered by aggressive marketing, mislabelling and misuse of fruit and vegetables are sometimes falsely portrayed on packages, misleading consumers into thinking industrially processed food products to be healthy. Recognising this manipulation, Economic Survey 2024-25 recommended mandatory warning labels. But industry has resisted such intervention, ironically highlighting the efficacy of such intervention. Which is why GoI should: Finalise a clear definition of HFSS products - which is already included in the 2022 draft.
Require warning labels on any food exceeding HFSS thresholds.
Align labelling reforms with advertising codes, and Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Launch a national communication campaign to educate consumers on identifying HFSS foods from front of packs and risks of overconsumption of such products. FoPNL must not be allowed to become a marketing gimmick. It's a public health intervention. When implemented properly, it will save lives. The matter is now in GoI's 'food court' - and for the people of India to demand what is good for them. One hopes the July decision brings good cheer.
(The writer is former member, PM's Council on India's Nutrition Challenges) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Nestlé India's outgoing CEO Narayanan weathered the Maggi storm; Tiwary must tackle slowing growth
Will revised economic capital framework lead to higher RBI dividend to govt?
He termed IndiGo a 'paan ki dukaan'. Still made INR30k crore by selling its shares
ONGC squandered its future once. Can it be different this time?
Uncle Sam vs. Microsoft: Which is a safer bet to park money?
Mid-cap companies have posted robust results. But experts don't want you to invest in them.
Stock Radar: ABB India stock showing signs of bottoming out after falling over 30% from highs; check target & stop loss
These 8 banking stocks can give more than 23% returns in 1 year, according to analysts
5 mid-cap stocks from different sectors with upside potential of over 33% return
F&O Radar | Deploy Bull Call Spread in ITC to gain from bullish setup
