FSSAI Draft Amendment 2026 for School Food: Proposed Fat, Sugar and Salt Limits Explained

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has published a draft amendment to its rules on safe food and balanced diets for children in school. The FSSAI Draft Amendment 2026 proposes exact limits for deciding when a solid or liquid food is high in added fat, added sugar or salt.

The draft was notified on 7 August 2026 and published in the Gazette of India on 10 August 2026. It is not a final amendment yet. FSSAI has invited objections and suggestions before it decides on the final wording. This means businesses should study the proposal and prepare, but they should not describe the proposed limits as a new law already in force.

The proposal is short, but it may affect manufacturers, schools, canteens, caterers, distributors and sellers. Clear limits could make it easier to decide which products fall under the existing school food controls.

Notification at a Glance

The most important point is the document’s draft status. It creates a proposal and a public comment process. A final legal duty will depend on the text that FSSAI later notifies, if the proposal is finalised.

The Regulatory Framework

Role of FSSAI

FSSAI is India’s main food regulator. It makes food standards and supervises food safety under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The draft states that FSSAI is acting with the previous approval of the Central Government.

The legal power mentioned in the notification comes from Section 92 of the Act. Section 92(1) deals with the publication of draft regulations before final rules are made. Clause (v) of Section 92(2) supports regulations concerning conditions and guidelines relating to food business activities covered by the Act.

FSSAI must first show the proposal to the public. Affected people and businesses can comment before FSSAI decides the final text.

The 2020 School Food Regulations

The proposal would amend the Food Safety and Standards (Safe Food and Balanced Diets for Children in School) Regulations, 2020. Those regulations create duties for school authorities and food business operators connected with school meals.

The framework covers many types of schools and meals supplied through canteens, messes, hostel kitchens, vending machines and mid-day meal kitchens. It deals with licensing or registration, hygiene, menus, marketing, sale and monitoring.

Why does New Regulation 7 Matter?

The 2020 regulations refer to foods high in saturated fat, trans fat, added sugar or sodium. They restrict the sale or offer of such food on school premises or campuses. They also address advertising, marketing and sale to school children within 50 metres of the school gate in any direction.

The 2020 text does not give these numerical tests. Proposed Regulation 7 would act as a measuring rule. It would not replace the wider framework.

Scope and Applicability

Businesses and Institutions That May Be Affected

The draft does not create a separate list of covered businesses. Its reach comes from the 2020 regulations that it proposes to amend. The following groups may be affected if the amendment is finalised:

• School authorities that sell or provide meals themselves. 
• Canteen, mess and hostel kitchen operators working inside school campuses. 
• Caterers and food business operators supplying prepared school meals. 
• Manufacturers whose packaged foods or drinks are sold, supplied, promoted or advertised in school settings. 
• Distributors and vendors supplying products to schools. 
• Sellers operating in places covered by the 2020 school food rules. 
• Nutrition, quality, legal and compliance teams that review products for school channels. 
• State food authorities and other notified public authorities involved in monitoring. 

Products That May Be Affected

The proposal uses the broad term “food products.” It provides separate tests for solid and liquid products. It does not list brands or product categories. A product would need to be checked through its recipe, reliable nutrition data and, where needed, suitable testing.

The 2020 schedule gives examples of foods for school menus, but it says the lists are illustrative. Products should not be classified only by their everyday name. Two biscuits, drinks or snacks can have different recipes. One may cross a limit while another may not.

Questions the Draft Does Not Fully Answer

The draft does not explain how to handle semi-solid foods, powders, concentrates or multi-part packs. It also gives no testing method, rounding rule, tolerance or method for separating added nutrients from naturally present nutrients. Businesses may raise these questions during consultation.

What Has Changed Under the FSSAI Draft Amendment 2026?

The proposal contains one main legal change. It would insert Regulation 7 after Regulation 6 of the 2020 regulations. Regulation 7 would define when certain foods are considered high in added fat, added sugar, or salt.

Proposed High Added Fat Limit

• A solid food would be considered high in added fat when it contains more than 4.2 grams of added fat per 100 grams.
• A liquid food would be considered high in added fat when it contains more than 1.5 grams of added fat per 100 millilitres.
• “More than” matters. A solid product at exactly 4.2 g would not cross the limit under the plain wording; a value above it would. The same logic applies to every proposed limit.

Proposed High Added Sugar Limit

• A solid food would be considered high in added sugar when it contains more than 3 grams of added sugar per 100 grams.
• A liquid food would be considered high in added sugar when it contains more than 2 grams of added sugar per 100 millilitres.
• Added sugar is not always the same as total sugar. Sugar may occur naturally in fruit or milk, while another amount is added during production. The notification does not say how to separate the two.

Proposed High Salt Limit

• A solid food would be considered high in salt when it contains more than 0.625 grams of salt per 100 grams.
• A liquid food would be considered high in salt when it contains more than 0.175 grams of salt per 100 millilitres.
• Salt and sodium are related, but they are not the same measurement. The draft gives no conversion formula.

Complete Proposed Threshold Table

These are product concentration limits, not daily intake or per-pack limits. Values must be expressed per 100 g or 100 ml.

Important Difference Between “Added Fat” and “Total Fat”

Total fat can include natural fat and fat added during production. A manufacturer may know the added amount from its recipe, but a buyer may see only total fat on the label. The final rule should state which records or tests can prove added fat.

Important Difference Between “Salt” and “Sodium”

The opening sentence of the proposed Regulation 7 refers to food products high in “added fat or added sugar or sodium.” The detailed tests below it uses the headings high fat, high sugar and high salt. The existing 2020 regulations also refer to saturated fat, trans fat, added sugar and sodium.

This poses a question of interpretation. Salt and sodium are different, while fat refers to more than saturated or trans-fat. The FSSAI needs to be explicit about the relation between the proposed limits and the wording used.

Implementation Schedule and Standards

Current Status of the Procedure

The amendment is in draft form. The FSSAI issued it to allow stakeholders to examine and comment on it. Neither 7 August 2026 nor 10 August 2026 is the effective date of the proposed limits.

The 60-Day Consultation Period

The notification allows 60 days from the date Gazette copies are made available to the public, but it does not state that date. Businesses should confirm the deadline. Comments may be sent to the Chief Executive Officer, FSSAI, FDA Bhawan, Kotla Road, New Delhi–110002, or regulation@fssai.gov.in.

What Happens After Consultation?

FSSAI will consider timely comments and may keep or revise the text. The draft gives no final-notification date, effective date, or transition period.

Why Was This Proposed?

Giving the Existing Rules a Measurable Test

The clearest practical reason is the need for a number-based test. A rule that says “high in sugar” can be difficult to apply if different people use different ideas of “high.” A fixed value gives manufacturers, schools, sellers and inspectors a common starting point.

This does not remove every doubt, but it can reduce basic disagreement. A product above a clearly written limit can be identified more easily than a product judged only through a broad description.

Alignment with the Dietary Guidelines for Indians 2024

The draft expressly links its proposed limits to the Dietary Guidelines for Indians 2024 issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research. The ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition guidelines encourage people to minimise foods high in fat, sugar and salt, and ultra-processed foods.

The food system for school considers children, who acquire food behaviours when young. The proposal seems aimed at transforming food guidelines into measurable standards in this environment. It is a logical deduction from the documents but not an additional reason stated explicitly in the brief document.

Supporting Safer and More Balanced School Food

The 2020 regulations aim to improve the food environment in and around schools. They promote safe meals, balanced diets, clean food handling, suitable menus and regular monitoring. They also restrict certain marketing and sales practices for foods covered by the nutrient description.

The proposed limits may help school authorities select products and review vendors. They may also help food businesses design products for school supply. Clearer classification can support more consistent decisions, provided FSSAI resolves the technical wording issues.

Impact on Businesses

1. Food Manufacturers

Manufacturers may need to map products sold through school channels and review recipes, added ingredients and nutrition data. Products above a final limit may lose access to some school channels. The draft does not order a recall, packaging change or nationwide ban.

2. School Canteens, Caterers and Meal Providers

School food operators may need product specifications or recipe declarations because total values may not prove added nutrients. Canteens may also review menus and update approved product lists when recipes or suppliers change.

3. Distributors and Sellers

Distributors may need to separate products and share current specifications with schools. A distributor making a product claim should keep reliable support for it.

4. MSMEs and Startups

Small businesses may face higher relative costs for recipe review, nutrition analysis and reformulation. Yet a startup that creates suitable products may find buyers if it can meet quality, price and supply needs.

5. Schools and School Authorities

Schools may gain clearer vendor criteria but face more checking and record-keeping work. The proposal does not remove the wider duties on safe handling, suitable licensing, balanced menus and monitoring.

What Businesses Should Do Before Finalisation?

Because the amendment is a draft, the right approach is preparation, not a claim of completed legal compliance.

Step 1: Check Applicability

Identify whether products are sold, supplied, promoted, or advertised through school-related channels covered by the 2020 framework. Record the schools, caterers, distributors, and vendors involved.

Step 2: Create a Product List

List the solid and liquid products, recipe version, supplier, nutrition values, and last testing date.

Step 3: Review Added Nutrients

Check added fat, added sugar, and salt in every recipe. Record any differences between recipe and label measures.

Step 4: Compare Values with the Draft Limits

Express values per 100 g or 100 ml. Mark products above, equal to, and below each limit. Review borderline products carefully.

Step 5: Check the Evidence

Record whether each value comes from a recipe, supplier declaration, calculation or test. Match the evidence to the correct product version.

Step 6: Assess Reformulation

Study whether a product can be reformulated without harming safety, quality or shelf life. Involve food technology and quality teams.

Step 7: Review Contracts and Product Claims

Check school-channel contracts. Do not claim compliance with a draft standard without a sound basis.

Step 8: Submit Comments Where Needed

Comments to FSSAI should identify the clause, explain the problem, provide evidence, and suggest workable wording. Issues may include nutrient terms, tests, tolerance, and semi-solid foods.

Step 9: Monitor the Final Notification

Assign a team member to watch official updates and compare the final amendment with the draft.

Benefits for Businesses

• Clearer Product Decisions: Numerical limits can reduce uncertainty. Businesses can use one reference point when screening products for school supply. This may improve communication between manufacturers, distributors, schools and regulators.
• Better Product Development: The proposal can guide food businesses that want to create products for children. Research and development teams can consider the limits at the recipe stage instead of discovering a problem after launch.
• Stronger Procurement Records: Schools and caterers can ask vendors for data linked to fixed criteria. This can make product selection more consistent and easier to review during an inspection.
• Consumer Trust: Parents often want clear information about food offered to children. Businesses that maintain sound evidence and communicate honestly may build stronger trust. This is a possible commercial benefit, not a guaranteed result.
• Early Preparation: Businesses that study the draft now will have more time to identify data gaps and technical problems. Early review can reduce rushed decisions after a final notification.

Challenges and Cost Implications

• Testing and Data Costs

Businesses may need better recipe calculations, supplier information or laboratory support. The exact cost is not stated in the draft and will differ by product and business.

• Reformulation Work

Reducing fat, sugar or salt can change taste, texture, preservation and customer acceptance. A new recipe may require trials, stability checks and updated production controls.

• Unclear Technical Terms

The salt-sodium and added-fat issues can lead to different results. Semi-solid foods and products prepared with water may also be treated differently by different parties unless FSSAI gives clear rules.

• Burden on Small Businesses

MSMEs may not have in-house nutrition or regulatory teams. They may depend on outside experts and laboratories. A clear transition period in the final amendment could help such businesses prepare.

Is This a Right Decision or an Additional Burden?

Arguments Supporting the Proposal

The proposal supports a valid public-interest goal: making the school food environment easier to manage. Clear numbers can help identify products consistently. They can also encourage food businesses to improve recipes and give schools a better tool for procurement.

Children are the main group protected by the 2020 regulations. A simple classification system can make the rules easier for school staff and parents to understand. The link with the Dietary Guidelines for Indians 2024 also gives the proposal a current nutrition-policy basis.

Additional Burden on Businesses

The weight is genuine. Businesses can require product mapping, formula checking, nutritional assessment, record-keeping, and reformulation of their products. Small businesses can suffer relatively higher costs due to their smaller size.

There are still some outstanding issues that the draft fails to address. The business must not be subjected to any enforcement dilemma where one document calls for sodium and the other for salt. There must be no confusion between added fat and saturated fat without legal clarification.

Is the Timeline Practical?

The draft gives a 60-day consultation period but no implementation timeline for a final amendment. It is therefore too early to decide whether the compliance timeline is practical. A final rule should clearly state its commencement date and allow reasonable preparation where product changes are required.

Balanced Assessment

The policy approach makes sense insofar as there could be tangible boundaries that will help ensure school foods are safer and more uniform decisions are made. But the policy cannot be finalised until it has better definitions and a framework for measuring that aligns with the terminology of the nutrients from 2020.

Ideally, what is needed is a well-defined final regulation with a reasonable transition period. This will help safeguard the interests of children and at the same time offer legitimate businesses a reasonable chance to prove themselves.

Business Opportunities Created

• Healthier Food and Beverage Development

Manufacturers can develop products with lower added fat, added sugar and salt for school and family markets. Success will still depend on safety, taste, price and reliable supply.

• Product Reformulation Services

Food technologists and ingredient specialists may support recipe changes. Businesses may need help reducing nutrients while protecting texture, shelf life and product quality.

• Nutrition Testing and Data Services

Demand may grow for reliable nutrition analysis, recipe calculations and product specification review. Laboratories and technical consultants must avoid claiming that a test proves legal compliance when the final method has not been specified.

• School Procurement and Menu Support

Schools may need help screening suppliers, planning menus and keeping product records. Nutritionists, dietitians and food safety professionals may support this work within the legal framework.

• Compliance Technology

Digital tools can help manufacturers and institutional buyers track recipes, test reports, supplier declarations and product approvals. Such systems are useful only when the underlying data is correct.

• Regulatory Advisory Services

Businesses may seek support to understand applicability, prepare consultation comments and build a readiness plan. Advice should be based on the exact business model and product, not a generic checklist.

Risks to Avoid

• Do not call the draft a final or implemented regulation. 
• Do not assume that 10 August 2026 is the effective date. 
• Do not treat added sugar as total sugar without a legal and technical basis. 
• Do not treat salt and sodium as the same number. 
• Do not assume every packaged food is automatically banned in schools. 
• Do not use a product name as proof of its nutrient content. 
• Do not rely on an old test report after a recipe or supplier change. 
• Do not promise that a product complies before checking the final notification. 
• Do not ignore the wider duties contained in the 2020 school food regulations. 

How can Corpseed help?

Corpseed can support food businesses, schools and institutional suppliers that need to understand the draft and prepare for possible changes. Its FSSAI compliance services should be matched to the client’s actual product, role and regulatory need.

• Regulatory Applicability Assessment- Corpseed can review the business model, product category and school-related sales channel to identify which parts of the framework may apply.
• Product Compliance Gap Review- The team can help organise product data, compare available values with the proposed thresholds and record points that need technical confirmation.
• Testing and Technical Coordination- Where suitable, Corpseed can assist with coordination between the business and qualified food-testing or technical service providers. Testing scope must be selected carefully because the draft does not specify every method.
• FSSAI Registration and Licence Support- Food business operators that require registration or licensing under the wider FSSAI framework can receive application and documentation support. The correct requirement depends on the business activity and eligibility conditions.
• Labelling and Documentation Review- Corpseed can support a structured review of product labels, specifications, supplier records and compliance documents. It cannot replace missing scientific evidence with a declaration.
• Consultation Response Support- Businesses with technical or legal concerns can receive help preparing clear objections or suggestions for FSSAI. The submission should be evidence-based and filed within the verified consultation period.
• Ongoing Regulatory Monitoring- Corpseed can help businesses track the final notification and update the compliance plan when the legal position changes.

Corpseed’s Core Message

Understand Before Acting

The FSSAI Draft Amendment 2026 is a proposal, but it deserves early attention. Businesses should first understand whether their products and school channels are connected with the 2020 regulations.

Prepare Reliable Product Data

Good decisions need good records. Manufacturers and suppliers should know what is added to each product, how the nutrition value was calculated, and which product version the data supports.

Use the Consultation Period Well

If the draft wording creates a genuine problem, businesses should explain it to FSSAI with facts. Waiting until the final regulation may remove the chance to improve unclear wording.

Seek Product-Specific Support

Generic advice cannot answer every question about a recipe, label or supply chain. A product-specific assessment can help businesses focus on the issues that matter.

Food manufacturers, school suppliers, caterers and institutional vendors can contact Corpseed for an applicability review and practical FSSAI regulatory compliance plan. Professional support should improve decision-making, but it cannot guarantee government approval or a particular regulatory outcome.

Key Takeaways

• FSSAI has proposed a new Regulation 7 under the 2020 school food regulations. 
• The proposal is a draft and is not yet a final enforceable amendment. 
• It introduces separate limits for solid and liquid foods. 
• The limits cover added fat, added sugar and salt in the detailed text. 
• The draft invites objections and suggestions during a 60-day consultation period. 
• Businesses should confirm the actual submission deadline instead of assuming it. 
• Manufacturers and school suppliers should review product recipes and nutrition evidence. 
• FSSAI should clarify the differences between salt and sodium and between added fat and the fat terms used in the existing regulations. 
• Early review can help businesses prepare comments, identify data gaps and plan possible reformulation. FSSAI Draft Amendment 2026 for School Food: Proposed Fat, Sugar and Salt Limits Explained