\n<\/p>\n
India\u2019s government on Thursday told the Supreme Court \u200bit was open to tougher red warnings on food packaging after health activists said its earlier proposal was too easy on \u200ccompanies, in a potential blow to the $100 billion food industry.<\/strong><\/p>\n After years of delays, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) last month suggested a two-phased labelling programme, starting with red-coloured hexagonal warning labels on products that exceeded limits in at least two of three categories \u2014 added sugar, salt or saturated fat. Stricter rules would be introduced in a second phase, \u200bit said.<\/p>\n The announcement came as India\u2019s federal and state food regulators pursued an aggressive enforcement drive, with surprise raids on eateries uncovering poor hygiene and leading \u200bto many forced closures, stoking anger among consumers.<\/p>\n Health experts criticised the FSSAI proposal, however, saying the two-nutrient approach was an \u201cindustry-friendly \u2060loophole\u201d that disregarded public health, as many products would escape scrutiny.<\/p>\n Supreme Court Justice J.B. Pardiwala questioned why the FSSAI was taking a two-phased approach, as he \u200bquestioned a government lawyer during Thursday\u2019s hearing.<\/p>\n \u201cIt has to be sugar and salt. Only then will you ask them to put a label?\u201d Pardiwala said, stressing \u200bthe word \u201cand\u201d.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The FSSAI\u2019s lawyer, Additional Solicitor General of India Brijender Chahar, responded that after hearing the court, it was now suggesting it could roll out the phases \u201cin one go.\u201d<\/p>\n That would effectively mean foods high even in one of the three nutrients \u2014 added sugar, salt or fat \u2014 would have a red hexagon.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court has been hearing a plea by health \u200bgroup \u201c3S And Our Health\u201d demanding stricter labelling, drawing the FSSAI and the industry to court.<\/p>\n The nationwide debate on food safety has intensified since Reuters \u200breported last month that India\u2019s government opted for a weaker labelling regime after lobbying by groups which argued warning labels were ineffective. Many companies, \u200chowever, have \u2060implemented such measures voluntarily in European markets.<\/p>\n India\u2019s food and drinks market is key for foreign players whose food products compete in a thriving industry that also includes big Indian firms.<\/p>\n On top of that, thousands of smaller businesses sell snacks and sweets, which remain hugely popular among millions of Indians.<\/p>\n All India Food Processors\u2019 Association, which represents dozens of Indian and foreign food giants, has called for \u200ba review of the planned health \u200blabels on packaging, saying many staples \u2060risk being covered in warnings that will tarnish the image of Indian food globally.<\/p>\n During Thursday\u2019s hearing, the group\u2019s lawyer held a food packet to explain its position, saying \u201cnobody can eat 100 grams of pickle\u201d, and so the warning labels should \u200bbe decided on a per-serve basis, not by analysing salt and sugar in 100 grams of a product as \u200bthe authorities have \u2060proposed.<\/p>\n The United States, for example, has proposed per-serve front-of-pack labelling, which Indian industry favours, though many other countries use the 100-gram benchmark.<\/p>\n Rising obesity rates and the consumption of fatty foods are a growing concern among health experts and the Indian government. Some 450 million Indians could be obese or overweight by 2050, according \u2060to a recent \u200bstudy published in the Lancet medical journal.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are concerned with the health of people, more \u200bparticularly 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,\u201d the Supreme Court said on \u200bThursday.<\/p>\n The judges said they will issue a written order before Friday.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
FOOD INDUSTRY RAISES CONCERNS<\/strong><\/h3>\n