Food industry in India calls for review of warning label thresholds

Indian food manufacturers have lodged a legal challenge to compel the government to reconsider its proposed health warning labels on packaging, fearing that the mandatory labels may damage the image of Indian food on the global stage. The filing was made on Wednesday in the Supreme Court, marking the first legal objection from the over $100 billion packaged-food industry to the government's labeling plan, announced on August 28.

The filing, obtained by Reuters, is confidential. India is currently undergoing a major food safety overhaul, including nationwide inspections of restaurants, due to growing concerns about hygiene and standards. The government's plan for red warning labels on the front of packaging emerged after intense public discourse on the absence of such measures.

The Supreme Court, which is deliberating on pleas from health advocates, will assess the plan on Thursday. India's crackdown on food safety also extends to a case involving Nepal's "Noodle King." The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India recently suggested a red hexagonal label for products that exceed thresholds in at least two of three categories - added sugar, salt, or saturated fat.

Industry representatives expressed concern that the proposed label would be more stringent than those in many foreign markets. The thresholds require "additional scientific scrutiny to ensure the framework is anchored on the most robust and internationally consistent foundation," according to the All India Food Processors' Association (AIFPA) in its court submission on Wednesday.

AIFPA argued that the thresholds should consider the Indian dietary context and consumption patterns, noting that nearly 80% of packaged food items might fall into the high fat, sugar, or salt category under the proposed approach. AIFPA's members include major players such as Nestle, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Hindustan Unilever, among other international and Indian companies.

None of the companies commented on Reuters' requests for comment. The labeling debate follows public anger and discussion sparked by a Reuters report alleging that the Indian government had acquiesced to lobbying from Coca-Cola and groups supporting Nestle and PepsiCo in March, which opposed front-of-pack warnings on food and beverage packaging.

The AIFPA also stated in its submission that it had previously informed the Indian regulator about the modest share of packaged food in overall food consumption in India and the sector's significant employment generation. Dr. Arun Gupta, convenor of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest, criticized AIFPA's court submissions, calling them a "desperate attempt to postpone warning labels."

India's red flags were set to be on chip packets and soda. Big Food resisted. Last week, seven executives from Indian and foreign firms told Reuters that a key issue with the Indian proposal was a 100-gram (3.5 ounces) benchmark to determine if a product requires a warning label, rather than a single serve. "No one consumes 100 grams of a pickle or ketchup," one executive said.

AIFPA cited the example of a U.S. proposal to use a per-serve calculation, advocating for a similar approach in India.