80% consumers want warning if food is high in even one of sugar, salt or fat: Survey

A LocalCircles survey found most consumers want front-of-pack warnings from the outset for packaged foods high in sugar, salt or saturated fat. The findings add pressure on FSSAI ahead of the Supreme Court hearing, with respondents also seeking larger labels, total nutrient counts and faster rollout.

In Short

• 80% consumers want warning if food is high in one of sugar, salt or fat
• 90% prefer label showing total sugar, salt and fat, not just added amounts
• 88% want companies to implement warnings within six months

A large majority of consumers surveyed want packaged food and beverages to carry a front-of-pack warning even when a product is high in just one of sugar, salt or saturated fat, rather than waiting for it to cross the threshold for two or more nutrients.

According to a LocalCircles survey of more than 108,000 household consumers across 328 districts, 80% said FSSAI should mandate a warning from the beginning if a product is high in even one of the three nutrients.

Another 88% want the warning to be large, clearly visible and immediately noticeable, while 90% want the label to reflect the total amount of sugar, salt and saturated fat in a product rather than only the added amount.

The findings come as the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) faces growing scrutiny over its proposed front-of-pack warning system.

The regulator told the Supreme Court on August 28 that it proposes a red hexagonal warning on packaged foods and beverages carrying declarations such as "High Sugar", "High Salt", "High Fat" or "Highly Sweetened Beverage".

The matter is listed before the Supreme Court on September 10.

CONSUMERS WANT THE WARNING FROM DAY ONE

FSSAI's proposed first phase would require a red warning only when a packaged food or beverage is high in two or more of added sugar, salt and added saturated fat, along with certain sweetened beverages.

Products high in only one nutrient could remain without a warning until a later phase, for which no date has been fixed.

LocalCircles asked consumers what should happen under this proposed system. Of the 23,516 responses received for the question, 80% said the warning should apply from the beginning if a product is high in even one of sugar, salt or saturated fat.

Only 12% supported FSSAI's proposed two-phase approach, while 6% said warnings should apply only when a product is high in two or more nutrients. Another 2% could not say.

The survey report noted that products commonly bought by consumers, including sweetened beverages, biscuits and breakfast cereals, can often be high in one nutrient rather than two.

88% WANT A WARNING THEY CANNOT MISS

Consumers also appear to be rejecting a small-print approach to front-of-pack warnings.

As many as 88% of respondents said the warning should be large, clearly visible and immediately noticeable when looking at the front of a pack. The question received 23,491 responses.

Only 10% said the size proposed by FSSAI was sufficient, while 1% said the warning could be smaller as long as it was present. Another 1% could not say.

Under the proposal described in the survey, the warning would be printed just one point larger than the nutrition information table on the back of the pack. The report notes that back-of-pack nutrition tables are typically printed in six- to eight-point type.

The survey therefore indicates a strong preference among consumers for a warning designed to be noticed immediately at the point of purchase, rather than one that requires them to look closely at the pack.

9 IN 10 WANT TOTAL SUGAR, SALT AND FAT TO COUNT

The third major point of disagreement concerns what exactly the warning should measure.

FSSAI has proposed basing the warnings on added sugar, salt and added saturated fat. LocalCircles asked consumers whether the warning should instead reflect the total amount of these nutrients present in a product.

Of the 20,525 responses, 53% said the warning should be based on the total amount of sugar, salt and saturated fat present in the product.

Another 37% said both added and total amounts should be displayed prominently so consumers can make an informed choice.

Only 6% backed using added amounts alone, while 4% could not say.

That means 90% of consumers surveyed want the total amount reflected in some form on the label.

The issue is significant because under an added-only approach, a product with high total sugar or fat could potentially avoid a warning if much of that nutrient is considered naturally present.

CONSUMERS WANT COMPANIES TO MOVE WITHIN SIX MONTHS

Consumers are also showing little appetite for another prolonged implementation process.

Asked how quickly companies should be required to implement front-of-pack warning labels once the rules are finalised, 88% said within six months.

The question received 20,068 responses. Another 6% supported a 12-month window, 2% opted for 18-24 months and another 2% said implementation could take longer than 24 months. A further 2% could not say.

The first draft of India's front-of-pack labelling rules was notified in September 2022. The survey report points out that four years have since passed without such a warning appearing on a single pack.

91% WANT THE WARNING ONLINE TOO

The survey also highlights a new problem for food labelling: consumers are increasingly buying packaged food through e-commerce and quick-commerce platforms.

Asked whether the same warning should be displayed prominently on online platforms before a product is added to the cart, 89% said yes, on both the product listing and product page.

Another 2% wanted it displayed on the detailed product page, taking total support for online display to 91%.

Only 7% said displaying the warning on the physical pack was sufficient, while 2% could not say.

This is particularly relevant for quick-commerce purchases, where consumers may make a purchase from a small product image before ever seeing the physical package.

FSSAI'S PROPOSAL FACES PUSHBACK

The consumer survey comes against a wider debate over how India's front-of-pack warning system should work.

The proposed thresholds are based on the ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024. However, the survey report highlights a distinction between the guidelines, which are framed around total sugar and total fat per 100 grams, and FSSAI's proposed warnings, which would use added sugar and added saturated fat.

The proposed two-phase system has also drawn criticism from nutrition advocacy group NAPi, which has called the two-nutrient trigger a loophole and sought a binding commitment to the second phase within 12 months.

The packaged food industry, meanwhile, has pushed back on the proposal, with companies telling Reuters they want warnings to be based on a single serving rather than per 100 grams and want the thresholds relaxed, according to the LocalCircles report.

The issue has also attracted parliamentary attention. A Parliamentary Standing Committee on Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution on July 24 asked FSSAI to notify front-of-pack rules without further delay, saying existing labels can be difficult to read and calling for interpretive tools such as warning labels and colour codes. It also sought closer monitoring of packaged foods sold online.

The push for clearer warnings comes as India sees rising consumption of ultra-processed foods alongside concerns around obesity, diabetes and hypertension, according to the survey report.

The government has also been pushing consumers to reduce oil and sugar consumption, while FSSAI has begun promoting oil and sugar boards in public institutions.

Yet consumers buying packaged food still have to navigate detailed nutrition tables rather than a simple front-of-pack signal.

The LocalCircles survey suggests consumers want that signal to be broader, more visible and implemented faster than the current proposal.

The survey found that on all four major design choices — when the warning should apply, how prominent it should be, what nutrient measure it should use and how quickly companies should implement it — consumers largely favoured the stricter option.

The findings are based on more than 108,000 responses from household consumers across 328 districts. Of the respondents, 62% were men and 38% women; 45% were from Tier 1 districts, 31% from Tier 2 and 24% from Tier 3, 4 and 5 districts. LocalCircles said its polls had a margin of error below 4% and a confidence level above 96%.

With the Supreme Court set to hear the matter on September 10, the survey adds a clear consumer demand to the debate: if a packaged food is high in even one of sugar, salt or saturated fat, consumers want to know it — and they want that warning to be impossible to miss.

- Ends