"Mandatory disclosure is a proportionate response to scientific uncertainty." Discuss with reference to the Madras HC's micro/nano-plastics labelling order.

When the science on a risk is still unsettled, disclosure sits between banning a product and staying silent. On 6 February 2026, the Madras High Court ordered that drinking water, sugar and salt sold in plastic packaging carry a bold red warning: "may contain micro/nano plastics". The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against this order in May 2026, and the High Court rejected FSSAI's review petition in September 2026 [1]. Mandatory disclosure is largely proportionate here, but only as a temporary measure.

Why disclosure is proportionate

• Least restrictive tool: The Court did not find the products unsafe. It required only a warning so consumers can make an informed choice [1]. Trade continues and nothing is banned.
• Scientific gap is real: WHO found no clear risk at current levels. However, it said data on nanoplastics is insufficient, and smaller particles may be absorbed into the body more easily [2][3].
• Regulator's own framing: FSSAI's own project calls micro- and nano-plastics "emerging food contaminants" [4]. This weakens its claim that the warning will cause panic.
• Filling a regulatory vacuum: There were no validated test methods and no safe limit. Disclosure was the only remedy that did not need a scientific finding first. This fits Article 21 and the precautionary principle.

Limits of the approach

• Panic without guidance: FSSAI argued that the evidence was only a review of papers and was inconclusive [1]. A warning with no threshold gives the consumer nothing to act on.
• Illusory choice: Microplastics have also been found in salt and sugar more generally [4]. A label tied only to plastic packaging may point buyers at the wrong source.
• Institutional competence: Food-safety standards are the job of the expert regulator under the FSS Act, 2006, not the courts.
• Source vs. symptom: WHO says controlling plastic pollution and treating water properly matter more for health [2][3].

On balance, disclosure fits a situation where harm is not proven but safety is not established either. It respects consumer autonomy without banning essential goods. The way forward is for FSSAI to finish its March 2024 method-validation project with CSIR-IITR, ICAR-CIFT and BITS Pilani [4]. It can then replace the general warning with evidence-based limits covering all products, not just packaged ones. Adding source-side plastic control would make precaution durable and help deliver SDG 3 and SDG 12.