Front-of-pack labels: Understanding key points on which FSSAI, NGO differ | Hyderabad News
Hyderabad: Ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on the front-of-pack nutrition warning labelling (FoPL) scheduled on Monday, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the NGO ‘3S and Our Health Society’ have differed on several key features of the proposed system for packaged foods.The differences emerged after the FSSAI filed an affidavit before the court last week and the NGO submitted a rejoinder through its advocate appearing through Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi. They pertain to the size and design of red warning labels, their use on beverages, the nutrient thresholds that trigger a warning, the treatment of ultra-processed foods and the timeline for implementation.During the previous hearing on Sept 10, the SC expressed concern over the health impact of unhealthy packaged foods, especially on children, and sought detailed responses from FSSAI on the proposed labelling system. The FSSAI has structured the FOPL threshold limits based directly on the dietary guidelines for Indians, formed by the Hyderabad- based National Institute of Nutrition (NIN). FOPNLs are symbols or labels placed on the front of food packages to quickly inform consumers when a product is high in nutrients such as fat, sugar, or salt (HFSS foods). They have been implemented in countries such as Chile, Peru, Mexico, Israel, Australia, France, Belgium and others.TOI examines the key points on which FSSAI and the NGO differ.Size and design: The FSSAI has proposed a red hexagonal warning label and said its size would majorly follow the Canada’s FOPNL model. The warning would be at least one point larger than the nutrition information table usually at the back of packaged food. However, the NGO and NIN experts, have argued that this may still result in a very small warning because nutrition tables themselves are often printed in small fonts. They want the warning size to be set as a fixed percentage of the main display panel (front of the package), similar to the approach followed in countries such as Chile and Mexico.One hexagon or several: The FSSAI has also proposed putting two or three nutrient warnings in a single red hexagon label when a product crosses the prescribed limits for multiple nutrients. However, the NGO and health experts want a separate hexagon for each nutrient of concern. They argued that the number of hexagons could itself help consumers understand the level of nutritional concern, including those who may not be able to read the text. Moreover, the petitioners have also sought pictorial representations along with the nutrient names, instead of only the nutrient names proposed by FSSAI.Beverage warnings: FSSAI has proposed that beverages within the prescribed nutrient limits could also carry a red hexagon showing the beverage category. For example, a carbonated drink that does not cross the sugar threshold could still carry a red hexagon identifying it as a carbonated beverage. However, the health experts have opposed this, saying the red hexagon should be reserved for products that actually cross a nutrient limit. They argued that using the same symbol on products that are not high in any nutrient could dilute its meaning as a warning.Implementation timeline: The FSSAI has dropped its earlier two-phase FOPL implementation proposal and now suggested a single-phase system covering packaged foods high in any one nutrient of concern. It has sought four months to finalise the draft regulations, followed by a 365-day voluntary compliance period for food businesses, citing the need to avoid hardship over already printed packaging material. However, the health experts and the NGO have termed the proposed timeline “dilatory”, arguing that it would further delay warnings on unhealthy packaged foods as companies were unlikely to voluntarily display warnings. They have now sought a one-month compliance window after the final notification for companies to redesign packaging. For already printed packs, they suggested mandatory warning stickers in the prescribed size, format and position, saying this would allow existing packaging to be used without delaying the rollout.Added vs total sugar and fat: The FSSAI also proposed using added sugar and added fat to decide whether a product needs a warning. For example, if a packaged drink contains sugar added during manufacturing, that added sugar would be considered for the threshold. Health experts and the NGO, however, wanted total sugar to be considered. They argued that a product could use ingredients such as fruit concentrate, fruit pulp or jaggery and still have a high overall sugar content, while not being treated as having the same level of “added sugar”. Experts also wants total fat and saturated fat to be considered. They highlighted that the total sugar and fat can be measured in the finished product, while the amount added during manufacturing may not be independently verifiable.Ultra-processed foods (UPFs): The FSSAI’s proposed system focuses on the nutrients in a product, rather than how much it has been processed. But, the NGO and experts wanted the UPFs to be separately identified. For example, two packaged foods could have similar sugar and fat levels but differ significantly in the number and type of processing steps and additives used. Experts argued that such differences should also be reflected in the FOPL. They emphasised that the FSSAI separately define UPFs and develop a warning or indication for them, while implementing the nutrient warnings immediately so that work on UPF labelling does not delay the main FoPL system.Other issues: The FSSAI had also proposed moving the declaration on non-caloric sweeteners (sugar substitutes that add little or no calories) to the front of the pack. They include aspartame, sucralose, saccharin and stevia. On trans fat, FSSAI has relied on the existing rules, which already set a limit and require the amount to be declared on the pack. The NGO, however, has sought a separate front-of-pack warning for industrial trans fat, as it is commonly used in some processed and fried foods. On nutrition literacy, FSSAI has pointed to its existing Eat Right School programme and proposed collaboration with the education sector, while the NGO has sought stronger measures to help children understand FOPL warnings on HFSS foods.
Source link
