Is the health food label trustworthy? How the warning labels vs star rating war is compromising food safety

Importantly, the food industry has been pushing for a label that would contain information on the content of ingredients such as sugar, salts, and fat — along with the percentage of the recommended daily allowance that the product contains. While the industry called it simpler and more practical and less prone to bias, an expert committee set up by the food regulator said it should not be implemented because there was no evidence from India or globally to show that this type of label works. The committee added that such numerical values are already present at the back of the pack and just bringing it to the front does not communicate the health risks.

What’s stalling a consensus?

The lack of consensus — and consequent indecision and delays — has meant that these labels have not made it to the food packets yet. This is despite the fact that the government’s own Economic Survey has been pushing for front-of-pack warning labels consecutively for two years. “Studies have shown that warning labels are the most effective option for discouraging ultra-processed food consumption, compared with ranking-style labelling schemes such as Nutri-Score and Health Star Ratings,” this year’s Economic Survey said. The previous year it said: “The MoHFW should urgently … adopt warning front-of-pack labels (FOPL)…”

Draft rules, expert committees

The idea of such front-of-pack labels was first raised in 2020 when a multi-stakeholder consultative group was formed. It recommended a survey-based study be conducted by an independent institute to find out what type of label worked the best. The study by the Indian Institute of Management- Ahmedabad recommended health star rating. The first draft on how this star-based Indian Nutritional Rating would work was released in 2022. Over 14,000 comments were received on the draft notification, including the highest 8,212 representations from food business operators, followed by 6,159 from consumers, 22 by industry associations, and 20 by consumer organisations among others.

Packaging label

The government then formed an expert committee in 2023 to go through these comments and finalise the regulation. The committee stuck with the Indian Nutritional Ratings system but suggested it replace the term positive factor with positive ingredients/ nutrients (the systems provides additional marks for healthy ingredients added to a product), remove the terms least healthy and healthiest with the star rating, instead suggesting that consumers ‘go for more stars.’

The committee also added that detailed notes on the marking system be released with the final regulation, which would also explain how nutritional rating is different from other health star ratings as it caps the points that a product can gain by adding healthy nutrients.

This capping dealt with one of the loopholes pointed out by experts — the positive points gained by adding healthy nutrients. A reconstituted committee, which also did public consultations in addition to going through the comments previously received, in its 2025 report again said: “there was no consensus among stakeholders…” It added that the facts-upfront labelling supported by the industry should not be implemented as, “This approach was not among the preferred formats in any of the consumer studies conducted in India or internationally, and there is limited evidence supporting its effectiveness… Global evidence consistently finds that warning labels…outperform non-interpretive systems like bold text in enabling quick and accurate understanding.” The committee did not say whether a warning label or rating should be used. They suggested conducting studies after implementation to check the acceptability and effectiveness of the labels.

The committee went on to recommend other policy measures such as taxing unhealthy foods, curbing marketing of unhealthy choices to school children, and public awareness campaigns alongside the front-of-pack labels.

What’s the evidence on front-of-pack labels?

Front-of-pack labels have emerged globally as a way to steer consumers towards healthier packaged foods, which are low in salt, sugar and fats. Such packaging policies have been introduced in 44 countries, with at least 16 countries adopting it as a mandatory measure with others making it voluntary, according to the committee report.

There are generally two types of front-of-pack labels used. An interpretive label that uses all the nutritional information to give a score or star that can be understood at a glance such as warning labels, health star rating or nutri-score. A non-interpretive label, on the other hand, displays only certain information without giving a judgement.

Countries such as Australia and New Zealand use a health star rating; others such as Netherlands, Czech Republic, and Singapore use symbols on products that are the healthier choice, UK uses a traffic light method where the amount of salt, sugar, and fats are mentioned along with the colour coding of red, yellow, or green; and countries like Chile use a black stop signal to prevent people from buying unhealthy products.

The expert committee noted that at least 10 countries, including Chile, Peru, Israel, Mexico, Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela and Canada, use warning labels that health activists in the country have been pushing for.

A position paper by organisations such as Public Health Foundation of India, Centre for Science and Environment, and Indian Academy of Paediatrics states that there was a change in consumption pattern in several Latin American countries that implemented such warning labels, with Chile witnessing a 24% drop in sugary drink consumption. It said that a meta-analysis of 100 studies published last year indicated that nutrient warning labels are more effective than traffic lights and nutri-score labels. This paper has been quoted by the expert committee as well as the Economic Survey in drawing its inference.

What happens if FSSAI doesn’t agree to warning labels

“While the court has granted time to FSSAI to consider the proposal of warning label submitted by the civil society organisation, if it doesn’t accept, they will withdraw the 2022 notification. And, the process would start all over again, delaying a measure that can help consumers make healthier choices,” says Dr Arun Gupta, Convener, Nutrition Advocacy for Public Interest (NAPi).