New Delhi, The Delhi High Court has sought the stand of the Centre and the FSSAI on a petition raising concerns over long-term health implications associated with non-sugar and artificial sweeteners.
On July 23, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice to the central government and Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on the petition by Indian Sugar & Bio-energy Manufacturers Association, seeking their replies within two weeks.
Indian Sugar & Bio-energy Manufacturers Association (ISMA) said its petition is based on scientific evaluations and risk assessments published by internationally recognized public health and food safety bodies, which point to potential long-term health implications associated with the consumption of certain artificial sweeteners, including concerns relating to possible carcinogenicity, metabolic disorders, neurological effects, cardiovascular disease, and alterations to the gut microbiome.
The petitioner was represented by senior advocates Rajshekhar Rao and Ankur Chhibber, instructed by AKS Partners.
The petition has sought a direction to the FSSAI to undertake a comprehensive, independent and India-specific scientific evaluation concerning the long-term health implications associated with non-sugar sweeteners and artificial sweeteners, including their impact on metabolic health, cardiovascular disease, carcinogenicity, neurological health and long-term consumption patterns across different demographic groups.
It has also sought a direction to authorities to issue appropriate public advisories, awareness measures and consumer guidance concerning the potential health implications associated with prolonged consumption of artificial sweetener, particularly for children, adolescents, pregnant women, diabetic individuals and other vulnerable groups.
A direction is further sought to ensure that the packaging, labelling and marketing of products containing NSS and artificial sweeteners are not false, misleading or deceptive in any manner, including by preventing such products from being portrayed as inherently “healthy”, “safe”, “diet” or beneficial substitutes for sugar without adequate and equally prominent disclosure regarding the artificial sweeteners.
The matter would be heard next on September 29.
