The possibility of mandatory front-of-pack (FoP) nutrition labelling has come into sharper focus after the Supreme Court questioned the Centre over the delay in introducing warning labels for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat, a move that could force food companies to rethink packaging, product claims, advertising and, eventually, formulations. However, the impact on consumer buying behaviour is expected to be gradual as taste, price, availability and brand familiarity continue to drive food choices.
The Supreme Court on August 13 questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over the delay in acting on FoP warning labels and gave the Centre two weeks to place its final decision on record. The court also warned that it could issue directions itself if there was no action. The issue comes amid wider regulatory scrutiny of how packaged foods are presented to consumers, with FSSAI also taking action against misleading or inadequately substantiated claims.
Navigating Mandatory Labels
The regulator has specifically advised food businesses against using “100%” on food labels, packaging and promotional material, saying the term is undefined under the current regulatory framework and could create a misleading impression for consumers. A mandatory FoP regime would add another layer of scrutiny by making nutritional information more prominent and potentially drawing attention to products high in sugar, salt or saturated fat.
For companies, the first impact is likely to be on packaging, brand positioning and advertising. Brands that currently use broad health, nutrition or superiority claims would have to ensure that those claims are supported by the actual nutritional and ingredient profile of their products.
“If the front of package labels get implemented, FMCG companies might have to change their strategies substantially,” Sachin Bobade, FMCG expert and head of research at Monarch Networth Capital, said. He added that the immediate impact would be on brand and product positioning and advertising expenditure, as companies would have to align their communication with what is actually contained in the product.
Packaging could also become an immediate cost for companies with existing inventory. Packs are generally designed and procured well ahead of production, raising the possibility of waste and write-offs if new labelling requirements are introduced before existing material is exhausted.
Manoj Verma, COO of Bikaji Foods International, said the impact would span packaging, formulation and branding, with packaging and brand communication likely to face the earliest pressure. A clear implementation window would therefore be important.
The bigger question is whether FoP warnings eventually change what companies put inside the packet. Products carrying warnings for high sugar, salt or saturated fat could encourage companies to gradually improve their nutritional profiles. Verma said companies would evaluate opportunities for reformulation, but changes would have to preserve taste, texture and familiarity, particularly in traditional and ethnic snacks. He favoured progressive reformulation through gradual reductions, better ingredients and improved processing technologies.
For now, however, companies are unlikely to expect an immediate or sharp change in volumes. Nutrition information may have a greater influence on frequently consumed products, particularly when parents choose food for children or consumers are actively looking for healthier options, but packaged-food purchases remain strongly influenced by taste, affordability, availability, occasion, habit and brand trust.
Bobade said consumer behaviour would change gradually, with the short-term impact more likely to be visible in costs, margins and marketing than in volumes. “A consumer won’t change their habits all of a sudden, just because this is coming now,” he said.