"If You Can't, We Will": Top Court Ultimatum To Centre On Food Item Labelling

"If you can't do it, we will." The Supreme Court on Thursday issued an ultimatum to the Centre on the implementation of front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fat.

The Supreme Court expressed strong displeasure with the stance taken by the Central Government and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), asking if the authorities were under pressure from corporates.

"The matter concerns the health of citizens - particularly growing children - and decisions regarding it should not be influenced by corporate pressure," the court told the Centre and the FSSAI.

Hearing a Public Interest Litigation, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran pulled up the FSSAI after the petitioner pointed out the food body's contention that the industry was opposed to the idea of labelling.

The petitioner's counsel cited the minutes of the FSSAI meeting held on March 7, stating that the decisions taken therein were in direct contradiction to the court's earlier directives.

Read | Is Your Restaurant Serving Fake Paneer? Chefs And Restaurants Reveal Signs To Spot

Citing the industry's opposition to warning labels on food packets, the FSSAI has suggested a tabular declaration of the recommended daily requirement of added sugar, saturated fats and salt.

It was pointed out that the FSSAI's affidavit only mentioned the food industry's opposition but ignored evidence in favour of warning labels to help discourage consumption of foods high in added saturated fats, sugar and salt, submitted by civil society representatives.

In response, the Bench posed pointed questions to Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Brijender Chahar, who was representing the Centre. The court asked whether the government was unwilling to take the necessary action and reiterated that the court's order was clear.

The Bench also remarked that the government was facing immense pressure from large corporate entities and was "yielding to that pressure".

The court stated that it was taking this action in "public interest".

Read | How A Health Scare Made This Delhi Couple Build A 15-Acre Organic Farming Business

The Bench questioned why the court's order was not being complied with and what steps the government had taken so far.

"Will the government do it itself, or will we have to issue an order?" an angry court asked.

ASG Brijender Chahar requested the court to allow him to explain the government's intended course of action, but the court clearly stated that the government must do exactly what the court had directed.

"If you cannot do it, we will pass an order," the bench reiterated.

The Centre cited examples of traditional Indian foods and argued that the proposed labelling could result in 'red warning marks' on many items such as namkeen (savory snacks).

The ASG argued that since food items in developed countries typically contain lower levels of salt, sugar, and fat, it would be inappropriate to apply the same standards directly to traditional Indian foods.

"Should India remain an underdeveloped country?" the court asked, rejecting the Centre's argument that it was difficult for India to adhere to the international packaging standards followed by developed nations.

The court then questioned if the government did not wish to ensure the health of the country's people, particularly children.

"Manufacturers might not like it, but the consumer ought to know," the court observed.

Read | Delhi High Court Junks 2015 Maggi Noodles Cases Over Alleged Excess Lead Content

The Bench stated that the purpose of a warning label is not to halt the sale of a product, but to inform the consumer about what they are consuming.

"While manufacturers might dislike this system as it could impact their business, the final decision - despite the warning - would rest with the consumer regarding whether or not to purchase the product."

Rejecting the Centre's line of argument, the Court stated: "Manufacturers do not play a decisive role in this matter."

The court granted the Centre two weeks to comply with the labelling proposal and warned that "a verdict will be pronounced next time."