Court Denies Review and Recall Applications, Emphasizing Consumer's Right to Informed Choice Amid Scientific Uncertainty
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has upheld its previous interim directive requiring that labels on packaged drinking water, sugar, and salt declare the potential presence of micro/nano plastics. This decision, passed on September 28, 2026, comes amid ongoing debates over the health implications of microplastics and emphasizes the consumer's right to make informed choices, even as scientific studies on the subject continue.
The bench comprising Justices N. Sathish Kumar and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy rejected review and recall applications from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and industry associations, including the Pet Packaging Association for Clean Environment (PACE) and the Federation of All India Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Associations (FIPMA). The court found that provisional labeling is justified given the admitted presence of microplastics in these consumer products, despite the industry's argument that conclusive evidence of harm is still pending.
In their judgment, the Justices pointed out that the presence of micro/nano plastics in packaged water and food items is not denied, and thus, consumers should be informed about it. The court highlighted the statutory duty under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which mandates risk communication and consumer protection. This includes informing the public about potential health risks associated with food products, even where scientific certainty is lacking.
The court addressed the industry's concerns regarding the premature and potentially alarming nature of such labeling, stating that the directions are neither premature nor disproportionate. The judgment underscored that the labeling requirement aligns with the core principle of truthful disclosure and is necessary for ensuring consumers' rights to make informed decisions about their health.
Furthermore, the court dismissed the argument that no other country mandates such labeling, noting that Indian conditions of consumption and public health concerns necessitate this measure. The ruling stressed that the practice of labeling should not be influenced by international standards when domestic laws prioritize health protection and informed choice.
The court also addressed the contention that microplastics might originate from the water source itself, asserting that regardless of the origin, the presence of microplastics in packaged products warrants disclosure. The absence of proof that filtration and treatment processes effectively eliminate these particles further weakened the manufacturers' objections.
The decision highlights the court's commitment to consumer safety and public interest, ensuring transparency in the food and beverage industry. The bench noted that while further scientific studies are encouraged to assess the full impact of microplastics on human health, interim measures like labeling are crucial for safeguarding consumer rights.
The court's ruling remains subject to further hearings and ongoing scientific inquiry, reflecting a balanced approach between regulatory oversight and the need for continued research into the health effects of microplastics.
Bottom Line :
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Presence of micro/nano plastics in packaged drinking water, sugar and salt - Interim direction requiring label disclosure that products may contain micro/nano plastics upheld - Court held that where hazard and potential health risk are admitted, consumer's right to informed choice and statutory duty of risk communication justify provisional labelling even amid scientific uncertainty - Review/recall refused.
Statutory provision(s): Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Sections 3(1)(u), 3(1)(zm), 3(1)(zo), 3(1)(zp), 3(1)(zq), 16, 18
