Indian diets are a problem — that has long been the lament of obesity watchers and the health and fitness community. Now, makers of packaged snacks and food products are saying much the same thing — but in a very different context.Their concern is over a proposed rule requiring manufacturers to place labels on the front of food packets declaring whether the contents are high in fat, salt or sugar. They argue that this is not a good fit for India, at least not in the format proposed, because Indian food habits differ sharply from those in countries where such labelling is already mandatory. The Supreme Court is seized of the matter, but little headway has been made on implementing the guidelines.At the heart of the debate — which has, quite literally, opened a new front in the fight against obesity — is a simple question: would the average consumer, who may not glance at the nutrition details printed on the back of jars of jam, packets of chips, biscuits or sweets, think differently if the front label flagged such items as high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS)? The food processing industry appears to think so, and has pushed back against the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)’s attempts to introduce front-of-package nutrition labelling (FOPNL) in India.Scientists and nutrition experts, meanwhile, argue that FOPNL is not about scaring consumers away from products, but about empowering them with quick, clear information at a time when obesity and diabetes have reached epidemic levels in the country, triggering a range of health problems. They say the labels simply flag processed and ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) that are high in “nutrients of concern”. But the industry sees it differently.
Not Made For India, Industry ClaimsIndustry members argue that the labelling system proposed by FSSAI — inspired by models used in France, Belgium, Australia, Chile, Israel, Mexico and Peru — does not reflect India’s diverse dietary patterns, food habits, portion sizes and eating styles.They say that while Western diets often feature larger portions of processed and ready-to-eat foods such as breads, burgers and sugary breakfast cereals, Indian diets are typically a mix of processed items like jams and sauces, alongside freshly prepared meals featuring dal, roti, dosa, rice, curries, etc.Their main contention is that the proposed FOPNL model — recommended by scientists at the Hyderabad-based National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) — is flawed because it assesses nutrients per 100g or 100ml, without accounting for the quantities typically consumed in Indian households. They also claim the labels are not based on NIN’s National Dietary Study, which captures regional diet and nutrient intake patterns.Raghav Jadli, president of the All India Food Processing Association (AIFPA), said many processed food items that might receive poor ratings are actually consumed in very small portions — often just 10-20g at a time. “Ready-to-eat pickles, jams, butter, namkeen, laddoos, jalebis and sauces are typically eaten in small portions rather than large quantities. Applying a Western-style per-100g warning risks overstating the health impact in the Indian context,” he said.
Industry members cite pickles as an example. Indians usually consume only about 20-30g at a time — an amount that, they argue, may not constitute a critical HFSS load. However, because FOPNL ratings are calculated per 100g, the product could still appear very high in salt or fat.“It’s a similar case with jam, typically eaten as a thin 10-20g spread. While the actual serving may be modest, the per-100g calculation can make the product look excessively high in sugar,” Jadli argued.Industry representatives also point out that packaged foods account for less than 12% of total calorie intake in India, with nearly 88% coming from homecooked or outside food.
They further question whether India has enough local evidence to justify the proposed warning thresholds. Focusing heavily on packaged foods high in fat, sugar and salt, they argue, risks overlooking other drivers of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including physical inactivity, rising pollution, sleep disruption, stress and genetic predisposition.“There is no comprehensive national dietary study by FSSAI linking packaged foods directly to obesity, diabetes and other NCDs in India. The World Wide Fund for Nature’s Living Planet Report 2024 rates India’s diet as the most sustainable among G20 countries,” claimed PL Kaul, a food processing industry expert.
Industry members also warn that FOPNL labels could push consumers towards unpackaged and unhealthy street food, which falls outside labelling regulations, undermining the goal of informed choice. Kaul added that such labels could also discourage consumers from reading the more detailed nutrition information on the back of the pack. On the economic front, the industry has cautioned about the ripple effects of FOPNL labels on micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs).“If the front label comes, many MSMEs, which depend on traditional recipes to make processed foods, may hit technical and financial limitations in changing them quickly,” Jadli said. While the industry fears that FOPNL labels could “unfairly stigmatise” traditional Indian packaged foods, the Supreme Court has asked FSSAI to file a status report on the rollout of FOPNL labels for HFSS foods. Experts, for their part, say the industry’s concerns are largely misplaced.Effective Safeguard, Say ExpertsPublic health experts and nutrition scientists say FOPNL warnings would help consumers — many of whom skip back-of-pack nutrition details — make quicker, more informed choices about HFSS foods, regardless of cultural eating patterns. They add that resistance to such policies is common globally and largely reflects commercial concerns.“Excess sugar is harmful. If consumers know a product is high in added sugar, they may reduce intake — from one spoon to half a spoon or even stop it. That awareness itself is the goal,” said Dr Subba Rao M, senior scientist at NIN.He added that the proposed FOPNL thresholds were in line with NIN’s dietary guidelines, which recommend that daily consumption of added sugar be kept below 25g and salt below 5g. He also said it was “unclear why similar measures should face opposition in India when some of these companies comply with such regulations in other countries”.Senior gastroenterologist Dr D Nageshwar Reddy said that while the food industry may disagree, FOPNL is essential for public health. “With ultra-processed food consumption on the rise, awareness should be spread about HFSS content. Just like warning labels on cigarette packs changed behaviour, clear front labels can help educate consumers and improve choices,” said Reddy.Reddy also pointed to the need for Indian-specific metrics on obesity, saying the problem is often underestimated because of reliance on standard methods.“Nearly 40% of Indians have truncal (abdominal) obesity and many are ‘lean obese’ — they may not look overweight but carry harmful belly fat. We must start defining obesity using Indian-specific standards,” he said. A 2025 Lancet report said rising UPF consumption is associated with a higher risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease, while an ICMR-NIN 2024 study attributed over 55% of India’s disease burden to unhealthy diets.In Aug 2025, several nutrition think tanks and health organisations called on FSSAI to immediately introduce effective warning labels. These included Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi), the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), and 28 other public health organisations. Dr Arun Gupta, public health expert and convenor of NAPi, said FOPNL was a simple and cost-effective public health tool. “The studies are already more than clear about the dangers of UPFs. India already has one of the largest numbers of people living with diabetes. Recent surveys also show a rise in junk food purchases. It is not an exaggeration; it is a public health reality,” he said. K Srinath Reddy, founder-president of PHFI and former head of cardiology at AIIMS, agreed that clear front-of-pack warnings are among the most effective labelling formats globally for reducing unhealthy food consumption.Responding to industry concerns over jobs and smaller businesses, experts said the experience of other countries suggests FOPNL is unlikely to significantly harm MSMEs. “Warning labels cost very little, and countries like Chile and Mexico show no clear impact on jobs or the economy. Those who avoid labelled products usually switch to other options, so overall demand remains stable,” Gupta said.FSSAI has told SC that wider stakeholder consultations and more research is under way on FOPNL, including on consumer behaviour and global labelling systems. The court, however, expressed dissatisfaction with the slow pace, noting that the regulator’s efforts had not produced any “positive or good result”.FSSAI now finds itself at the intersection of science, business and consumer rights. While industry wants a more detailed India-specific study, experts warn that any further delay in introducing FOPNL could worsen India’s already heavy burden of diet-related disease.
