When Science Is Uncertain, Must Businesses Warn Consumers? India's Emerging Law Of Precautionary Labelling

"This water may contain Micro/Nano Plastics." Eight words, in bold red letters of at least font size 10, now stand between India's packaged drinking water industry and its consumers. The Madras High Court directed that bottled water in PET bottles, and sugar and salt sold in plastic packaging, carry this declaration, and on 28 September 2026 it refused to withdraw that direction, even though the science on the health effects of microplastics remains unsettled.

The short answer to the question in the title is that, after this decision, a business can no longer assume that it need not tell consumers about a potential risk merely because the science is incomplete. The Court treated disclosure of what a product contains as the core purpose of labelling, and relied on the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 which speak of potential risk and reasonable grounds for suspicion rather than proven harm. However, the Court was equally clear that a precautionary label is not a declaration that the product is unsafe. That distinction, between warning of a possibility and pronouncing a verdict, is likely to shape how food businesses, manufacturers and packaging companies approach disclosure for some time.

This article examines what the Madras High Court decided, how its approach fits with the Supreme Court's parallel scrutiny of front-of-package warning labels, and what businesses should do to manage disclosure risk when the science is still evolving. It is written for food business operators, consumer goods manufacturers, packaging suppliers and their legal and regulatory teams.

What the Madras High Court Decided

The direction arose in a long-running public interest writ petition filed by G. Subramania Koushik in 2019 (W.P. No. 15120 of 2019), which the High Court has kept open as a continuing mandamus. Testing commissioned by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India ("FSSAI") found microplastics in packaged drinking water from several States, and higher levels in sugar and salt sold in plastic packaging. By an interim order of 6 February 2026, the Court directed that these products carry a declaration that they "may contain Micro/Nano Plastics", and asked the authorities to issue the necessary notifications.

FSSAI first challenged the order before the Supreme Court and then withdrew that petition unconditionally. It then sought a review before the High Court, while the PET Packaging Association for Clean Environment and the federation of packaged drinking water manufacturers sought recall of the order. On 28 September 2026, a Division Bench of Justices N. Sathish Kumar and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed all three applications in Food Safety and Standards Authority of India v. G. Subramania Koushik, 2026:MHC:3978.

The reasoning turns on four points:

1. Presence was not disputed. FSSAI and both industry bodies accepted that micro and nano plastics were present in the products. The dispute was only about whether consumers should be told.
2. The statute speaks of potential risk. Section 18 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, which sets out the general principles of food safety, refers to potential rather than actual harm and to reasonable grounds to suspect a risk rather than adequate proof, and contemplates provisional risk-management measures where scientific uncertainty persists.
3. Disclosure is the purpose of labelling. The Court held that where something is present in a product, it should be disclosed so that consumers can make an informed choice, and that the source of the microplastics, whether the packaging or the water itself, made no difference to that obligation.
4. No declaration of unsafety. The Court stated expressly that it had not declared packaged water, sugar or salt to be unsafe food, described the direction as the barest minimum disclosure, and left questions of safety to further study.

Warning Versus Verdict: Why the Distinction Matters

The distinction the Court drew is the most useful part of the decision for businesses. A precautionary disclosure tells the consumer what the product may contain, without asserting that it is harmful. A declaration of unsafety, by contrast, has serious legal consequences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, as the sale of unsafe food is an offence that can attract prosecution, recalls and penalties.

By keeping the two apart, the Court avoided placing businesses in an impossible position, i.e., being required to label a product as dangerous on the basis of science that has not yet established danger. At the same time, it rejected the argument that scientific uncertainty is a reason to say nothing at all. Thus, the decision establishes a middle ground in which disclosure is expected, but conclusions about harm are reserved for the regulator and for further evidence.

For businesses, this suggests three distinct categories of statement, each governed by a different legal standard.

The Supreme Court's Parallel Scrutiny of Warning Labels

The Madras decision does not stand alone. In 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India, the Supreme Court is supervising FSSAI's proposals for front-of-package warning labels on foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat. By an order of 10 September 2026, reported as 2026 INSC 988, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran examined FSSAI's proposed red hexagonal warning label and raised several concerns. These included whether phasing coverage to products high in two or more nutrients had a scientific basis, whether word-only warnings would reach consumers with limited literacy, and whether red might be confused with the colour coding used for non-vegetarian food. The Court asked FSSAI to answer a detailed set of questions on affidavit.

The two proceedings approach labelling from different directions, but they point the same way. Courts are increasingly treating labels as a public health instrument, linked to the consumer's right to make an informed choice, and are prepared to require that warnings be scientifically grounded, conspicuous and introduced within a defined time. Businesses should expect that the regulator, under judicial pressure, will move more quickly on disclosure requirements than it has in the past.

Implications for Manufacturers, Food Businesses and Packaging Companies

Food business operators in the affected categories should confirm whether FSSAI has issued notifications implementing the High Court's direction, and ensure that their labels comply with its wording, colour and font size. More broadly, they should identify other contaminants or substances which testing may reveal in their products and decide in advance how they would communicate such findings, rather than waiting for litigation to decide it for them.

Manufacturers of other consumer goods should note that the reasoning extends beyond food. Under Section 84 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a manufacturer may be liable in a product liability action where a product does not contain adequate instructions or warnings to prevent harm. A business which knew of a credible potential risk, and chose not to disclose it, may find that the Madras High Court's reasoning is relied upon against it.

Packaging companies are directly affected, as the declaration requirement arises from the interaction between packaging and contents. They should expect their customers to seek migration and contamination test data, contractual warranties about packaging materials, and indemnities for the cost of relabelling or recalls. The Court's refusal to accept that the source of microplastics determined the duty to disclose also means that disputes between brand owners and suppliers over who caused the contamination will not relieve the brand owner of its labelling obligation.

Avoiding the Opposite Risk: Unsupported Claims

The natural commercial response to a precautionary label is to compete on reassurance, for example by marketing a product as "microplastic-free" or in "safer" packaging. That carries its own legal risk. The FSS (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 require claims to be truthful, unambiguous and scientifically substantiated, and the Food Safety and Standards Act penalises misbranding and misleading advertisements. The Central Consumer Protection Authority may also act against misleading advertisements under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and its Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing or Misleading Environmental Claims, 2024 require environmental claims to be supported by verifiable evidence.

Hence, a business that cannot prove a product is free of microplastics, given the limits of current testing methods, should not claim that it is. A more defensible approach is to describe specific, verifiable steps, such as the type of filtration used or the packaging material, without implying a guarantee of safety that the science cannot yet support.

Supply-Chain Responsibilities

Precautionary labelling also has a contractual dimension. Brand owners rely on packaging suppliers, contract manufacturers and ingredient suppliers whose processes they do not fully control. Supply agreements should therefore address:

1. Testing and data sharing. Suppliers should be required to test against agreed parameters and share results, including adverse findings, promptly.
2. Specifications and change control. Changes to packaging materials or processes should require notice and approval, as they may affect what the product contains.
3. Allocation of relabelling and recall costs. The contract should state who bears the cost of relabelling, withdrawal or recall where a disclosure requirement arises from the supplier's materials.
4. Regulatory cooperation. Suppliers should be obliged to assist with regulatory enquiries, testing and any proceedings.

A Practical Approach to Label Review

Businesses should treat label review as a continuing risk-management process rather than a one-time compliance exercise.

1. Monitor regulatory and judicial developments. Track FSSAI notifications, the continuing Madras High Court proceedings and the Supreme Court's front-of-package labelling case.
2. Audit current labels and claims. Check every health, safety and environmental claim for substantiation, and remove claims that cannot be supported.
3. Prepare disclosure protocols. Decide in advance how the business will respond if testing identifies a substance of potential concern, including who decides, what is disclosed and how quickly.
4. Align consumer communications. Ensure that websites, advertising, customer service scripts and social media are consistent with the label, and avoid language that either alarms consumers or implies a guarantee of safety.
5. Document the reasoning. Record why particular disclosures were or were not made, as that record will matter if a regulator, court or consumer later questions the decision.

Conclusion

So, when science is uncertain, must businesses warn consumers? After the Madras High Court's decision, the answer in India is increasingly yes, at least where the presence of a substance is established and there are reasonable grounds to suspect a risk. However, the obligation is one of disclosure rather than condemnation, as the Court was careful not to declare any product unsafe. Thus, the businesses best placed to manage this emerging law will be those which disclose what they know accurately, avoid claims they cannot prove, and build the testing, contractual and communication processes needed to respond quickly when the science moves.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.