The Supreme Court has pushed for stronger front-of-pack warnings on packaged foods high in sugar, salt or fat, questioning the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) two-phase labelling proposal.On Thursday, Justice J.B. Pardiwala questioned the need for a two-phase approach.“It has to be sugar and salt. Only then will you ask them to put a label?” Pardiwala said, stressing the word “and”.FSSAI’s lawyer, Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, said the regulator could now roll out the phases “in one go”, Reuters reported.This could mean foods high in even one of the three nutrients — added sugar, salt or fat — would carry a red hexagonal warning.The proposed labels would read “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” or “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE”, making it easier for consumers to identify products high in these nutrients.What Was FSSAI’s Earlier Proposal?Also read:FSSAI Proposes Red Front-Of-Pack Warning Labels On Junk Food: How Will This Benefit Consumers’ Health?Under the earlier proposal, red hexagonal warnings would apply to products exceeding limits in at least two of three categories — added sugar, salt or saturated fat. Stricter rules would follow in the second phase.Health experts criticized the proposal, arguing that the two-nutrient requirement could allow several products to escape warnings. Reuters reported that the approach had been described as an “industry-friendly loophole”.Experts also raised concerns over the use of added sugar instead of total sugar and the size of the warning label.India had already defined high-fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) foods in its 2022 draft regulations and invited public feedback.Dr. Sivaranjini Santosh, a paediatrician and social activist, said in a post on X that the FSSAI proposal had “too many loopholes”.How Could Red Warning Labels Help?Packaged foods generally carry nutritional information on the back or side, requiring consumers to turn the packet around to compare products.A prominent red warning on the front could make high levels of sugar, salt or fat easier to spot, particularly when comparing similar products or choosing food for children.The aim is not necessarily to tell consumers to never eat a product, but to provide information before purchase and help them decide how often to consume it.However, a warning label cannot compensate for an overall unhealthy diet.Read More: Synthetic Paneer Whitened With Chuna Busted In Delhi: How Dangerous Is It For Your Health?91% Consumers Support Front-Of-Pack WarningsA recent LocalCircles survey of more than 83,000 consumers across 314 districts found strong support for front-of-pack warnings.Around 80% wanted FSSAI to mandate warnings, while another 11% wanted them specifically on ultra-processed foods. Overall, 91% supported front-of-pack warnings in some form.Around 44% preferred a red warning symbol for products high in sugar, salt or saturated fat, while 27% chose traffic-light color coding. Only 2% preferred the conventional black-and-white nutrition panel.About 450 million Indians could be obese or overweight by 2050, according to a recent study published in The Lancet.Ultra-processed foods have also been linked to a range of health concerns, including diabetes, high blood pressure, cancers, and fatty liver adding to calls for clearer information on packaged foods.“We are concerned with the health of people, more particularly growing children. We have taken it up very seriously. We expect one and all to extend their cooperation to a cause which is in national interest,” the Supreme Court said.