
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the FSSAI whether corporate pressure was preventing mandatory warning labels on packaged foods high in salt, sugar or saturated fat. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala…
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the FSSAI whether corporate pressure was preventing mandatory warning labels on packaged foods high in salt, sugar or saturated fat. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran gave the Centre two weeks to decide if the court must intervene.

The judges rejected arguments that Indian foods differ from international standards and that labels would hurt MSMEs. They stressed consumer awareness, especially for children. The FSSAI had proposed a nutrition table instead of interpretive front-of-pack labels, which the court saw as a dilution of its earlier order.
The court's sharp questions expose a familiar pattern: industry lobbying delaying public health measures. FSSAI's claim that traditional foods like namkeen would carry red labels misses the point, consumers deserve to know what they eat, not be shielded from facts. The 'MSMEs will suffer' argument is tired; small businesses can adapt. The real test is whether the government will act within two weeks or force the court to mandate labels. Will New Delhi prioritise health over corporate comfort?
Source: retail.economictimes.indiatimes.com
This story was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.