|
|
|
You can get e-magazine links on WhatsApp. Click here
|
|
|
|
|
|
Front-of-pack labelling: Can consumers understand it?
|
|
Monday, 24 August, 2026, 08 : 00 AM [IST]
|
|
Ashwin Bhadri
|
India's debate over front-of-pack labelling has moved beyond a question of packaging regulations. It is now a larger question of how effectively food regulation can translate nutritional information into something an ordinary consumer can understand.
The Supreme Court's recent scrutiny of the Centre and FSSAI over front-of-pack warning labels has brought the issue back into sharp focus. The Court has questioned the delay in implementing clear warnings for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat, while FSSAI has proposed a nutrition table displaying nutrient content alongside recommended daily intake levels.
Both approaches are ultimately trying to solve the same problem: helping consumers make informed choices. But there is an important distinction between providing information and making information usable.
Most consumers do not stand in a supermarket aisle calculating how many grams of sugar, salt or saturated fat a product contains relative to their recommended daily intake. They look at a pack, compare a few products and make a decision in seconds. That is where the effectiveness of front-of-pack labelling will be tested. A technically accurate nutrition table may provide more information, but it also places the responsibility of interpretation on the consumer. A warning system, on the other hand, attempts to make the key nutritional concern immediately visible. Neither approach should be judged only by how easy it is for the industry to implement.
The more important question is: what does the consumer understand from it? Food businesses are accustomed to working with detailed labelling requirements. They understand that packaging has to meet prescribed declarations, formats and nutritional information requirements. But front-of-pack labelling is different because its purpose extends beyond regulatory compliance. Its success depends on communication.
If a consumer sees a label but does not understand what it means, the regulatory objective is only partially achieved. This is why the discussion needs to move beyond whether a particular symbol, colour, number or table should appear on the pack. The focus should be on whether the final format is: Simple enough to understand quickly; Consistent across products; Scientifically defensible; Difficult to misinterpret; Practical for businesses to implement; Useful to consumers at the point of purchase.
For food manufacturers, any significant change in front-of-pack requirements will have implications beyond artwork. Product formulation, nutritional testing, packaging inventory, label approvals, regulatory reviews and product launches can all be affected.
This is why clarity and predictability will be important if a new framework is introduced. Companies need enough certainty to build the requirement into their product development and packaging processes rather than treating it as a last-minute compliance correction. The transition also needs to be practical enough to avoid unnecessary wastage of packaging material while ensuring that consumer protection remains the priority.
Front-of-pack labelling should ultimately be judged by one simple question:
Can a consumer look at the front of a pack for a few seconds and understand what they need to know? If the answer is yes, the regulation is doing its job. If the consumer still has to turn the pack around, read multiple numbers and calculate what they mean, we may have created better disclosure without necessarily creating better understanding.
The Supreme Court's intervention has therefore opened an important policy conversation. The objective should not be to create another compliance box for food companies to tick. It should be to make nutritional information meaningful at the exact moment a consumer is deciding what to buy. As the debate moves forward, India's FOPL framework should keep that consumer at the centre because the strongest food-safety regulation is not the one that looks most comprehensive on paper. It is the one that works in the real world.
(The author is founder & CEO at Equinox Labs)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|