Delhi | ENewsxpress Desk :
A Tale of Two Cans
A can of Fanta sold in London has 63 calories. Buy the brand in India and it contains three times as much sugar. It also includes a dye whose presence in food products requires a prominent health warning in Europe. But in India the colorant is noted only in small print on the back of the can.
That difference is at the heart of a Reuters investigation. This investigation is based on recordings hundreds of pages of government and corporate documents and interviews with 11 industry executives and health experts. It shows how Indias push for front-of-pack nutritional warnings failed after resistance from some of the worlds biggest food companies.
What Indias Regulator Decided
Indias food-safety regulator, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) said in August 2026 that it had stopped its push for front-of-pack warnings on packaged food. The regulator argued that such labels do not account for how Indian cuisine has intense flavours than Western food. Instead the regulator proposed that companies display a black-and-white table listing sugar, fat and salt content. A far less noticeable format than the colour-coded warnings originally planned.
The decision is now under scrutiny by Indias Supreme Court following a petition from health activists. The Court had directed regulators in February to consider warning labels. The Court even suggested the agency look at Israels system of red-and-green front-of-pack messaging. After the FSSAI told the Court in August that it was “difficult” to match labelling standards judges scolded the regulator. The judges said “the world should know that India is much concerned about the overall health of its citizens.”
The March Meeting That Changed the Course
According to recordings reviewed by Reuters. Reported here for the time. The retreat by the FSSAI followed a tense meeting with industry executives on March 19 2026. At that meeting a senior Coca-Cola India executive, Mili Bhattacharya argued it was “very simplistic” to believe that a consumer who does not already read ingredient lists would be better informed by seeing a warning symbol on a label. She further argued that warning labels were not needed saying Indian doctors had already done a job teaching patients what foods to avoid.
It is important to note that Coca-Cola and its bottling partners have added traffic-light-style labels to their drinks in about two dozen European markets. An affiliate stated on its website that such labels provide ” transparent” information. Nestle, which is a member of industry lobbies that fought the regulators proposals has also used voluntary interpretive labels in Britain since 2013. Both Coca-Cola and Nestle declined to comment for the Reuters report.
Deepak Jolly of the Ind Food & Beverage Association (IFBA). Whose members include PepsiCo. Told regulators at the March meeting that 80% of products made by Indias packaged food and beverage market, valued at over $100 billion could be called high in fat, sugar or salt. He argued that using colour-coded labels would leave packaging “awash in red.” In response to questions from Reuters IFBA said it wants regulatory clarity. The IFBA argued that current proposals could lead to ” sugar” warnings even on coconut water packs that only contain natural sugars.
The Regulatory History
Indian regulators have suggested front-of-pack labelling proposals since 2017 including colour-coded warnings and nutritional star ratings. None of these have been used. Now producers are only required to list ingredients and basic nutritional information on the back of packaging. Health experts note that 20 nations have already used interpretive front-of-pack labels. Some of these countries use red to highlight sugar and green to show low fat to help guide consumers toward healthier choices.
Simone Pettigrew, head of food policy at Australias George Institute for Global Health has researched front-of-pack labelling in than two dozen countries. She said the threat warning labels pose to profits makes the industry want “to hold out for long as possible not informing the Indian public about the healthiness of the foods that they’re selling.” She added that lobbying by interest groups has ” paralyzed” regulators from making tougher standards. The FSSAI declined to comment for the report because of court proceedings.
The Stakes for Public Health
This debate carries a lot of weight for health. A recent study in The Lancet estimates that many as 450 million Indians could be obese or overweight by 2050. At the time Indias growing middle class is becoming more health-conscious. Monthly sales of appetite-reducing weight-loss drugs have grown 400% since 2025 according to market-research firm Pharmarack.
Activists and Influencers Push Back
pressure has also come from social media. Revant Himatsingka, a McKinsey consultant known online as “Food Pharmer ” has built an audience of more than 5 million across YouTube and Instagram. He campaigns against processed and packaged food. His videos comparing international versions of the same products. Including Fanta and Nestles KitKat. Have shown differences. For example Indian KitKats contain 4.5% cocoa solids compared to at least 22% in the Australian version. Also Maggi noodles sold in India use palm oil while many UK-sold packets (some made in India) use expensive sunflower oil and carry red front-of-pack salt warnings.
His activism has not been without trouble. PepsiCo successfully got a take-down order from a Delhi court against a 2023 video that criticised the sugar and artificial sweetener content of its Sting energy drink. PepsiCo argued the claims were false. Meant to start a campaign against the product. Separately Indian regulators ordered PepsiCo and other companies in July to stop using the “energy drink” label on drinks within 90 days.
Some Signs of Change
with the pushback on labelling there are signs that changing consumer expectations are pushing companies to change their recipes. Nestle announced in 2024 that it would start selling sugar- Cerelac baby food in India. This happened after activists. Including Himatsingka. Pointed out that only the sugar-added version had been sold in the country for 50 years even though sugar-free versions were available elsewhere for a long time.
What This Means Going
With the matter now before the Supreme Court, Indias front-of-pack labelling policy remains undecided more, than eight years after regulators first proposed it. The outcome could decide if India moves toward the kind of colour-coded warning systems used by roughly 20 other countries or if it stays with a system that critics say is easier for food companies to use. But harder for consumers to use.
Note : This article is based on a Reuters investigation and other available reporting.
