New Delhi/Pune: Since her ten-year-old daughter was diagnosed with one of the most severe forms of diabetes in 2018, Supriya Shonu, a 40-year-old entrepreneur from Pune, always carries a glucometer, a chocolate bar, fast-acting insulin and an ice-pack.Her daughter’s illness has brought her back to her high-school curriculum. “It’s math! Today a parent [like me] has to do a lot of math and still fail,” she tells us at a diabetes community meeting in one of Pune’s parks.She recounts how she has to carefully calculate the amount of salt, sugar or fat of every food item she purchases, using the Nutrition Information Panel on the back that provides details of calories, fat, sugar, sodium, protein, and carbohydrates per 100 grams or per serving.“It’s not an easy read,” says Supriya, who has a simple request to the authorities.“Make our lives easier. It should not take us 20 minutes to decide what is good for us. Why don’t you put ‘not fit for high BP’, ‘not good for diabetic’? At least provide access to better information about that product, and then we can decide.”Supriya’s situation is far from unique. In India nearly one in three women and more than one in four men are overweight or obese, according to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-6, 2023-24). Furthermore, nearly one in five women and more than one in five men were found to have high blood sugar levels.To respond to challenges like those faced by Supriya, the World Health Organisation identified front-of-pack labelling (FOPL) as one of the most cost-effective public health interventions to manage and prevent non-communicable diseases, enabling people to easily pick healthier products.A front-of-pack label – FOPL in short – is similar to the nutrition information panel on the back of many packaged products sold in India, but it is located at the front, making it clearly visible. It also makes the nutritional quality of products more immediately legible. There are various approaches to this, including bold warnings where the products exceed recommended intakes in sugar or fat, a star rating with more stars when the products are healthier, or “traffic lights” where red means the product is unhealthy.@media(max-width:768px){#embedFrame{height:2700px!important}}.firstcharacter {color:#a92e28;float: left;font-size: 90px;line-height: 60px;padding-right: 8px;padding-left: 3px;} -webkit-overflow-scrolling:touch;The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has been deliberating an FOPL regulation since 2014, setting up multiple expert panels and public consultations. The FSSAI attributed the slow progress to a lack of consensus among stakeholders, with civil society and the food companies at each end of the debate. The regulation does not appear to be any closer to being implemented, despite the Supreme Court directing the FSSAI to expedite the process after a non-profit organisation’s 2024 plea for urgent implementation.The Wire, in collaboration with Lighthouse Reports and an international coalition of media partners, traces this long journey as part of a global investigation into how food companies resist public health regulation around the world.We discovered a total of 239 lawsuits filed between 2010 and 2025 against health policies in six countries: Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, United States, United Kingdom, and India. Of the cases brought by private companies where the plaintiff was identifiable, more than one in three came from just nine parent groups, led by Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Mondelez.Nearly 68% of the total lawsuits are related to FOPL mandates. In addition to labelling, the food industry has also been challenging taxes on unhealthy foods and advertising restrictions.Illustration: Lighthouse Reports/Revisual LabsFSSAI’s U-turn on the 2022 FOPL draft regulationThe FSSAI was created in 2011 to regulate the food industry and to develop and enforce science-based standards for food. In 2014, the authority set up its first Committee on FOPL, aiming to curb overall consumption of ultra-processed foods and address rising incidences of diabetes and obesity.The food regulator first published a draft FOPL framework in 2018, and opened it up for consultations. With every new draft, the FSSAI drew criticism from non-profit public interest groups, such as the Centre for Science & Environment, for making modifications that made the framework less effective, while the food industry claimed the policies were too restrictive.In 2022, the FSSAI introduced the Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) system to rate the overall nutritional profile of packaged foods, ranging from a half star (least healthy) to 5 stars (healthiest). More stars would indicate a healthier product and they would be calculated on the basis of prescribed amount of energy, saturated fat, total sugar, sodium or salt, and also positive ingredients such as fruits and vegetables, nuts, legumes and millets, fibre and protein.The system was based on a study conducted by the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Ahmedabad and Dexter Consultancy with over 20,000 participants. A 2021 agreement between IIMA and the FSSAI, under the leadership of then FSSAI CEO Arun Singhal, shows that the FSSAI had provided financial support of more than Rs 2.4 crore to conduct the study. The study presented participants with different labeling schemes, including the Health Star Rating, warning labels, traffic lights (red, orange and green), and monochrome Guideline Daily Amount. The IIM found that the Health Star Rating, which Australia and New Zealand use, was the most suitable model for India.This proposal received over 14,000 comments from consumer groups, public health experts, lawyers and industry associations. The FSSAI did not make the comments public and denied access when we submitted Right to Information requests, citing exemptions of “commercial confidence, trade secrets” and harm to third-party interests.At the time, scientists wrote an open letter to the FSSAI criticising the IIM study, stating that its conclusions were “completely wrong from a scientific perspective”. Still, the FSSAI continued discussions and constituted an Expert Committee in February 2023 to review public comments over the proposed INR system. Then in 2024, a non-profit health advocacy group ‘3S And Our Health Society’ petitioned the Supreme Court of India to urge the FSSAI to implement warning labels as FOPL regulation. In April 2025, the Supreme Court responded, directing the FSSAI to submit recommendations of its Expert Committee within three months.When the FSSAI finally submitted the report, in November 2025, it also included an affidavit stating its plan to withdraw the proposed INR regulation altogether. The FSSAI cited non-consensus among stakeholders and said a revised draft would be prepared based on further consultation. It seemed that India’s food labels would not change anytime soon@media(max-width:768px){#embedFrame3{height:1800px!important}}Nearly eight months on, the FSSAI has yet to put forward a revised draft. In a packed courtroom on February 10 this year, the Supreme Court asked for an update. The judges stressed that the FSSAI “should not be concerned about the multinational companies” but rather prioritise “right to health” of the citizens of the country. FSSAI reiterated its intention to withdraw. The hearing concluded with the court stating that “on the wrapper/packet of any pre-packaged food product, there must be a warning in the form of front-of-package labelling” – a major win for the petitioners.It also ordered the FSSAI to consult authorities regarding the feasibility of implementing warning labels within four weeks. As of July 22, the FSSAI has failed to do so. In March, the petitioners wrote to the court saying that the agency is undermining “public health considerations” under “industry pressure”. They are requesting a definite deadline so the matter does not remain pending indefinitely.Why is India’s proposed FOPL regulation weaker?There are multiple ways to present nutritional information and health impacts. In Mexico, for example, there are black and white warning labels, similar to those on cigarette packaging, that aim to dissuade the consumer from purchasing food that is too high in salt, sugar or fat. In parts of Europe, the Nutri-score system provides a colourful scale from red for unhealthy products to green for nutritious alternatives. The same displays in different countries use their own formula to calculate the score of a product based on its nutritional content.To better understand why India’s star rating system was so controversial, Lighthouse Reports commissioned a study. The Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNi) analysed 1,663 labels of food and beverages sold in India, and calculated their ratings under three FOPL formulas – India’s INR system, the Health Star Rating and Nutri-score – and compared their scores. The study shows that India’s proposed rating system is consistently more lenient towards unhealthy food items.For confectionery products such as Kinder Joy, Tic Tac candies and Ferrero Rocher chocolates, the INR system consistently awards higher scores than the other systems. Researchers suggest that INR is slightly more permissible when it comes to sugar and saturated fat than other systems.@media(max-width:768px){#embedFrame2{height:3150px!important}}While regular carbonates get a low score in all three systems, more zero-sugar carbonate variants (such as Diet Coke) get a 5.0 star rating under INR. They score between 3.5 or 5.0 under Nutriscore and Health star. More products receive 2.5 to 4 stars under Indian standards than under the Australian and European ones. For breakfast cereals too, the Indian rating is more generous than the Nutri-score, but aligns with the Australian rating.Even before the study, FSSAI’s submission in the court and FOPL meetings in May and June 2021, and February 2022, show that consumer groups raised issues about various aspects of the INR system but struggled to get their concerns heard. This is partly because of the total participants, an overwhelming majority were industry members such as Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Hindustan Unilever, Dabur, Kellogg’s, Mondelez, Haldiram’s and Bikaner. In contrast, only four to six participants were from consumer groups such as Consumer Voice, CUTS International, Consumer Education and Research Centre, and the Centre for Science and Environment.One of the FSSAI’s most vocal critics is George Cheriyan, the Honorary Working President of the Consumers Protection Association (CPA). Between 2014 and 2019, he was also a member of the FSSAI’s top governing body, the central advisory committee which includes representatives of the food industry, consumers, agriculture, research organisations and food labs. In 2022, he wrote an article, ‘FSSAI sides with industry, puts consumers at risk’, highlighting how heavy industry presence silenced opposition to the star rating system. He argued that the FSSAI’s delays “raised doubts about the capability of the regulator to deliver its mandate with the industry influencing many of its decisions”.The FSSAI has said that non-consensus among industry members and consumer groups is delaying the FOPL policy. Three key issues that the parties disagreed on during these meetings were the format of the FOPL, considering positive nutrients in the rating algorithm, and keeping FOPL voluntary for four years.We reached out to the FSSAI via email and multiple phone calls with questions about the status of the FOPL policy, and allegations about industry influence, but have not received a response yet.1. Colour-coded labels vs detailed labelsBefore it proposed the star-rating INR system, the FSSAI suggested a red highlight on labels signifying that the product is high in salt, fat, sugar and energy in its 2018 labelling draft. In its report, the FSSAI Expert Committee noted an interpretive label with red, green and orange colour codes “will reduce the cognitive load for consumers and empower them with clear and accessible information enabling them to make informed choices about the food they consume”.Industry stakeholders strongly opposed this and argued for non-interpretive labels with more nutrition information and bold black font for harmful nutrients. These labels do not suggest whether a product is good or bad, or provide warnings, leaving the onus on the consumer.The INR FOPL system has been modelled on the Health Star Rating system in place in Australia and New Zealand since 2014. In Australia too, industry members opposed suggestions to develop a colour-coded traffic light system proposed by public health groups. According to Alexandra Jones, Program Lead for Food Governance at The George Institute for Global Health and an expert in Australia’s system, industry members “forced the hand of the then-government” to create committees to develop the Health Star Rating system rather than adopt traffic lights.2. Why count positive nutrients in assigning a star rating?Another point of contention was the inclusion of positive nutrients in the INR calculations, which could result in fewer products deemed unhealthy, according to Dr Arun Gupta, a nutrition advocate and Convener of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest, a think tank working on nutrition policy.The FSSAI noted this criticism in its own meeting minutes: “Some members (from consumer groups) strongly opined that the positive nutrients will mask the negative impacts of high sugar, salt and fat and food products will be marketed in a way so as to mislead the consumers.” Public health experts and consumer advocates also feared companies would improve their product ratings by adding only a few positive nutrients instead of reducing nutrients of concern.Despite at least four consumer representatives opposing the measure, the FSSAI decided to keep it. Industry representatives were pleased – they had argued this would provide consumers with a holistic nutritional picture.3. Will voluntary labelling meet the public health challenge?India’s proposed FOPL regulation gives up to four years from the date of notification to implement the INR voluntarily, but consumer representatives say this is too long and that the industry does not need more than a year to make changes to their labels.In addition, a large segment of the industry pushed for a voluntary scheme, while most consumers demanded a mandatory framework. FSSAI’s affidavit highlights this divide: of the 14,452 comments, nearly 3,000 food business operators preferred the voluntary route, whereas more than 3,500 citizens, including consumers and public health groups, called for mandatory enforcement.In Australia too, public health experts criticised the scheme’s voluntary nature. A review of HSR implementation in more than 20,000 products shows that a decade after the scheme was introduced, only 37% displayed the rating. This has prompted the Australian government to make HSR mandatory.“We think that the biggest public health win would be mandating it, because we know there are thousands of half-star, one-star products without labels that remain unknown to the customers,” said Jones at The George Institute for Global Health. “So if India is proposing a voluntary version of the INR then that’s definitely not worth doing.”Troubles within the FSSAIIn August 2025, at FSSAI’s national in-person consultation on new food safety standards for labelling, marketing and advertising, consumer groups called for even stricter FOPL standards. Meanwhile, food business operators said warning labels will impact their sales and that current standards are sufficient.When Dr Gupta said businesses should be honest about the amount of salt, fat and sugar in their products, the debate turned heated. An industry member suggested Dr Gupta should ask people to exercise for better health. When Gupta reiterated the need for a policy change instead of blaming the consumers, the member accused Dr Gupta’s organisation of being funded by foreign actors, an accusation often levelled at those exercising their democratic right to dissent in today’s India. A team member of Dr Gupta responded: “Do we come to these consultations to get threatened?”Such encounters at FSSAI meetings were not new, according to Dr Gupta, and he remains firm in his beliefs. “The industry should not decide the regulation. Consumer groups are not against talking to the industry, but the authority must decide what would benefit public health the most,” he says.Public health advocates have long raised concerns over conflict of interest in the FSSAI’s decisions, ranging from weakening the draft regulation to FSSAI’s commissioning of the IIM Ahmedabad, a business institute, to lead a study concerning public health.Cheriyan says the study should have been done by the government’s medical research institute, and he alleges that the FSSAI has “totally yielded” to industry pressure by approving the star rating FOPL plan in an “undemocratic” and non-transparent manner.As early as 2011, the Supreme Court criticised the FSSAI for inducting members with corporate connections, and it directed the authority to reconstitute its scientific panels with independent experts.Yet the problem seems to have persisted. In an open letter to the FSSAI in 2019, Amit Srivastava, then Coordinator at the organisation India Resource Center (which supports community organisations) alleged that a member of the expert committee tasked with reviewing a draft of the labelling regulations was closely affiliated with an American organisation founded by former Coca-Cola executive and funded by big food companies. The organisation is reported to have lobbied for industry interests in food regulation around the world.Since then, the FSSAI has constituted two more expert committees for reviewing the INR system, in 2023, and then in 2025 with nine members including ICMR scientists, professors and members from the Department of Consumer Affairs and Information and Broadcasting Ministry. The latest iteration retained most members from the 2023 panel, except nutritionist Dr Seema Puri, who was a member for nearly a year, but now operates as a food industry consultant. In April 2026, she identified herself as an advisor to the Indian Food & Beverage Association (IFBA) adding to a corporate portfolio that includes past research, strategy and product consulting for GSK Healthcare, Danone and PepsiCo India. We asked Dr Seema Puri via email about her association with the industry, observations about the INR proposal, and her exit from the expert panel. She told us she resigned from the FSSAI panels and the Expert Committee in 2024 prior to associating with the industry. The tenure of the first panel ended in April 2024. When asked about the month of her resignation, Dr Puri refused to comment on any of our questions.The FSSAI Transaction of Business Rules 2016 requires members of the Scientific Committee, Scientific Panels, Working Groups and external experts to submit an Annual Declaration of Interests under Schedule IV of the regulations.In October 2025, we filed an RTI application to obtain copies of ‘Declaration of Interests’ by members of committees working on food regulations at the FSSAI. The FSSAI rejected it, citing confidentiality rules. When we appealed, the authority said the information was already provided despite that not being the case. An appeal to the Central Information Commissioner remains pending.Big food vs Indian digital creatorsWhile the FSSAI delays its regulation, influencers have taken it upon themselves to inform the public, highlighting the contents of unhealthy products. In response, food companies like Mondelēz India and Dabur have sued them.In February 2023, YouTuber Dhruv Rathee posted a video in which he shows parts of advertisements of packaged fruit juices and how companies market them as healthy, particularly for children. He goes on to review the ingredient list, and cites scientific studies to show that these products contain excess sugar, like carbonated drinks, and can increase the risk of diabetes if consumed regularly.Dabur sued Rathee, alleging that he had used parts of their “Real Fruit Juice” ads and negatively targeted the brand by associating its consumption with diabetes. After a year-long trial, the parties reached a settlement as Rathee agreed to blur the Real fruit juice visuals from the video in question, and refrained from making any statement associating Dabur’s products and Type II diabetes.In April 2023, popular health educator Revant Himantsingka, aka FoodPharmer, made a video on Mondelez India’s Bournvita, stating that the malt drink contains excessive amounts of sugar and other potentially hazardous ingredients. This contradicts the company’s advertised claims that it benefits child growth and development, he said. Mondelez India filed a lawsuit against Himantsingka for the viral Bournvita video, accusing him of “targeting and undervaluing” their product.A year later, the Delhi high court ordered Revant to stop making “disparaging videos” about Mondelez India’s products. While Himantsingka was still fighting the Bournvita case, in April 2024, Triguni Private Food Limited, a Chennai-based company making ready-to-eat meals, filed a lawsuit against him for one of his videos about their products.In this case too, the Madras high court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Himantsingka from publishing content that would harm the brand ‘eZeEats Triguni’. In both cases, the courts said there was no injunction against stating facts, and that Himantsingka could continue making factual statements as a part of his videos or posts.Himantsingka shares that most of these legal notices or lawsuits are around 300 pages, the shortest one being 13 to 14 pages. Often, he has been asked to respond in 24 hours, with “intentional pressure tactic” stating if he fails to act within 24 hours, they will do “XYZ things”.“It’s all about defamation or disparagement, full of legalese. They pick apart every single word to find problems. A factual statement can sometimes be non-defamatory, but potentially disparaging if the company feels their product is being shown in a bad light,” he says.At least two other digital creators have come under scrutiny, both from food companies and the authorities. “There are many other influencers who are raising their voice about food safety. Instead of trying to silence such people, the focus should be on solving the issues,” says YouTuber Nalini Unagar, who came under Delhi’s police scanner for her post on X about FSSAI’s inaction over rampant adulteration of milk, paneer and oils.With multiple threats, demands for content removal and court orders in favour of food companies, creators like Rathee, Himantsingka and Unagar now regularly seek a lawyer’s advice to avoid making unattributed statements that could lead to years-long lawsuits. The creators believe such legal actions are often a pressurising tactic that ultimately affects their freedom of speech. We reached out to Mondelez and Dabur India with questions, but did not receive a response yet.When asked whether taking down a video means admitting that they were at fault, Himantsingka disagrees, stating that they sometimes do it to avoid an exhausting legal “drama” that could run for a prolonged period.“Earlier when I used to get a bit scared, I used to take down videos very easily. Now I try my best to not take it down immediately like as much as possible. Sometimes by and large I try to drag it as much as possible,” he states.FSSAI delays, at the cost of public healthAs the FSSAI mulls over a suitable FOPL regulation for India, further delay will only add to public health harms and encourage greater sale of harmful food products. The recent Economic survey shows that India is among the world’s fastest-growing markets for ultra-processed food (UPF) sales. Sales of these products increased by more than 150% between 2009 and 2023. The survey shows that retail sales of UPFs in India increased from approximately $0.9 billion in 2006 to nearly $38 billion in 2019, a nearly 40-fold increase. It should be noted that obesity cases also increased significantly during this period.“We need[ed] almost a decade to formulate the policies – it’s a very sorry state of affairs. … The common man is not able to make an informed decision when they are buying any food products in terms of … which are healthy or which are not healthy,” says Mumbai-based diabetologist Dr Shivane.The Economic Survey recommends implementing front-of-pack warning labels to clearly inform consumers about harmful ingredients, strictly monitoring advertisements of unhealthy foods targeting children, and considering measures such as imposing the highest GST slab and additional cess on products with sugar, salt and fat exceeding prescribed limits.Public health experts also argue that FOPL is not a solution in itself, but rather a first step towards comprehensive food regulation. Additionally, research conducted in various countries indicates that an effective FOPL also prompts food companies to reformulate their products to reduce levels of sugar, salt and fat.Alexandra Jones and Dr Arun Gupta highlight that FOPL could pave the way for other public health measures – including curbing misleading advertising, marketing restrictions and taxing unhealthy products – that have a combined impact on people’s dietary habits.Professor Simone Pettigrew, Head of Food Policy at The George Institute of Global Health and an expert in FOPL policies, points out that India is in a food transition phase – where people are consuming packaged foods at a rapid rate.“Delaying things allows products with poor nutritional value to come into the market and become popular (with consumers). The industry will further delay the time to start taking out some of the unhealthy and cheaper ingredients from these products. It’s not in the community’s interest for this (front-of-pack labelling) to be delayed, probably by years,” she notes.Sarasvati Thuppadolla is a reporter at Lighthouse Reports.Ankit Raj is a special correspondent at The Wire.This investigation was produced in collaboration with Lighthouse Reports, Agência Pública (Brazil), Cuestión Pública (Colombia), Follow the Money (the Netherlands), Il Fatto Alimentare (Italy), L’Espresso (Italy), O Joio e O Trigo (Brazil), Quinto Elemento Lab (Mexico) and Santa Cruz Local (US).