Regulation of Labels: Food, Drink and Supplements
.png)
Introduction
Understanding the information displayed on food, drink, and supplement labels is essential for making informed dietary choices.
In the United Kingdom (UK), authorised nutrition claims and authorised health claims are tightly regulated to ensure they are evidence-based, clearly defined, and not misleading.
However, alongside authorised claims, consumers are also exposed to 'on hold' claims and the much less credible 'marketing terms,' which may blur the line between science and promotion.
This article explores how nutrition claims and health claims are defined, regulated, and applied in practice, while also providing a comprehensive overview of the full range of authorised and provisional claims that appear across products and online platforms.
1. Nutrition Claims
The UK maintains regulations regarding claims – relating to nutrition or health – that can be applied to food, drink, or supplement labels. <tt>2100</tt>
Nutrition claims are listed in the Nutrition and Health (NHC) register published by the Department of Health and Social Care. They are intended to inform businesses of the specific criteria that must be met before each claim can appear on labels.
This register distinguishes authorised nutrition claims from “marketing terms”, which have no legal or regulatory meaning and serve only to enhance product appeal rather than to inform consumer choice.
By definition, an authorised nutrition claim refers to a statement that describes the quantity—or absence (e.g., “sugar-free")—of a nutrient or substance in a food, drink, or supplement product.
Examples of authorised nutrition claims include “Low fat”, “Low sugar”, “High in fibre”, “Source of vitamin C”, and “Reduced sodium”, each with a quantified definition.
Consider sugar as a common example and compare how the nutrition and health claims (NHC) define the relevant terms frequently found on labels:
- <u>'Sugar-free'</u> is defined as 'containing no more than 0.5g of sugars per 100g or 100ml'.
- <u>'No added sugar'</u> is defined as 'not containing any ADDED mono- or disaccharides or any other food used for its sweetening properties'.
- <u>'Low sugar'</u> is defined as containing 'no more than 5g of sugars per 100g for solids or 2.5g of sugars per 100ml for liquids.'
These regulations also apply to any nutrition claim that is likely to have the same meaning for the consumer.
See the interactive dashboard below for definitions of each nutrition claim seen on the NHC register.
.png){kind=small}
2 Health Claims
Similar to authorised nutrition claims, authorised health claims can also be found on the nutrition and health claims (NHC) register.<tt>2100</tt>
A health claim refers to any statement that suggests a relationship between a food, drink or supplement or one of its components and its role in supporting normal health functions.
With the exception of a few (e.g., sugar-free contributing to reducing plaque in teeth), authorised nutrition claims do not claim to prevent disease; such claims are reserved for the marketing of medications.
Importantly, authorised claims are not only related to labels of food, drink and supplements – which are enforced by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), but also to advertisements and even endorsements, which are enforced by the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA).
<u>2.1 Micronutrients</u>
Some micronutrients are associated with multiple authorised health claims; these include vitamin C, vitamin D, magnesium and zinc.
These claims would describe how a nutrient contributes to a normal physiological function or process in the body. For example, 'Iron contributes to normal cognative function'.
The health claim is related to the iron in the product, rather than the product itself. And so the brand is benefiting from the inference that a consumer will likely make that this product is salubrious, as opposed to the brand explicitly stating so.
However, these health claims may be useful in giving confidence to consumers seeking to make healthier dietary choices or when there exist, for example, concerns of a deficiency, such as iron deficiency concerns among pregnant patients.
<u>2.2 Macronutrients</u>
It is also fairly common to see health claims relating to <u>macronutrients</U> on product labels, for example, carbohydrates in weight-loss meal replacements, unsaturated fats in olive oils and fibre in wholegrain products.
Well-established authorised health claims in relation to fibre include, for example, 'rye fibre contributes to normal bowel function'.
Another popular health claim in relation to oleic acid, an unsaturated fat high in olive oil, is that 'Replacing saturated fats in the diet with unsaturated fats contributes to the maintenance of normal blood cholesterol levels. Oleic acid is an unsaturated fat.'
A health claim relating to macronutrients typically needs to also be considered the source of said nutrient (i.e., contain a regulatory defined quantity) as defined by the nutrition and health claims (NHC) register before also using authorised health claims on labels.
However, of the 2558 claims on the NHC register, only 13.5% are authorised to be used in the UK.
3. On Hold Claims
In the UK, there is another register for claims considered neither authorised nor rejected but rather currently under 'consideration' by the UK Nutrition and Health Claims Committee (UKNHCC).
These claims are related to botanicals (i.e., plants) and their purported health effects.
However, despite being under consideration, these claims are permitted to be used on labels while a decision regarding their long-term application on labels is being considered.
There are over 1600 of these on 'hold claims', and many have been on the register for years, mainly because combing through the scientific evidence related to each botanical is going to take some time.
Many supplement products sold online which have a botanical component use these claims.
A popular example of a botanical 'on hold' is Ashwagandha (also known as Withania somnifera), which is sold widely as a supplement.
The related claims currently being considered are ‘Supports in periods of mental and nervous tension and of anxiousness/ Contributes to optimal relaxation/ helps to support relaxation, mental and physical wellbeing/contributes to emotional balance and general wellbeing’.
Whilst these claims do have some scientific basis, whether that scientific evidence meets the threshold required to become ‘authorised’ is not yet decided.
Unfortunately, you may encounter some of these claims on supplement bottles and be convinced of their health benefits, even though they may eventually be rejected due to insufficient scientific evidence.
4 Criticism
While the 'tier-based' system on the Nutrition and Health Claims (NHC) Register supports consumer choice, it's not without shortcomings.
Consumers will likely struggle to differentiate between authorised claims and 'on hold' claims when allowing the latter to be on labels without an accompanying disclaimer or qualifier.
Creating a register for and allowing claims which have dubious supporting evidence could lend credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of a consumer who sees such claims on product labels.
"It's being allowed on the label, so it must be accurate."
Perhaps an additional disclaimer should be mandated to warn the consumer that such claims, though allowed on labels, are currently being investigated. This is often required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA for claims with uncertain evidence backing.
Also, perhaps more nuanced, allowing a product to claim to be a 'source' of a particular nutrient neglects the concept of bioavailability.
Nutrients have varying bioavailability, i.e., the percentage of the nutrient which becomes available for use and storage in the body rather than being only excreted.
For example, non-haem iron, which is found mainly in plant foods such as leafy vegetables and fortified cereals, is generally less bioavailable than haem iron, which is found in animal tissues such as meat (meat, poultry, and fish).<tt>2107</tt>
Non-haem iron is often present in the ferric (Fe³⁺) form and usually must be reduced to the ferrous (Fe²⁺) form before absorption. This absorption can be inhibited by compounds such as phytates but also enhanced by vitamin C.
A consumer reading a ‘Source of Iron’ label on a cereal box may be led to assume that the iron in cereal will be as bioavailable as the iron in their eggs for breakfast.
5. Consumer Response
The evidence is largely consistent in suggesting products with health and nutrition claims are more likely to be chosen by consumers in comparison to similar products without health and/or nutrition claims.<tt>2104</tt>
A 2010 study based on the UK population indicates that 27% of consumers seek out nutrition information on product labels.<tt>2102</tt>
In this study population, consumers were most interested in nutrition claims related to ‘fat (49% of those who had looked for nutrition information), followed by sugar (35%), calories (33%), salt (20%), saturates (11%) and additives (10%)’. This is supported by a recent 2020 study on 1051 consumers in Poland.<tt>2103</tt>
Consumer characteristics most predictive of seeking nutrition and/or health claims were those who have an ‘interest in healthy eating’ and ‘knowledge of nutrition’. This is supported by a recent 2016 review of literature. <tt>2106</tt>
However, age, gender and socioeconomic status were important factors associated with consumers reading claims on labels, but only indirectly because such factors were likely to lead to ‘knowledge of nutrition’ and ‘interest in healthy eating’. For example, females tend to have higher nutritional knowledge than men and are consequently more interested in eating healthy.
The product category was also an important factor in whether consumers sought nutrition information on product labels. Consumers also showed greater interest in nutritional details for foods that were already perceived as healthy.
The product categories in which consumers often sought out nutritional knowledge on product labels were highest for yoghurt (38%) and breakfast cereals (34%), followed by ready meals (28%), carbonated soft drinks (23%), salty snacks (22%) and confectionery (16%)’.
Conclusion
Food, drink and supplement labels can support healthier, more informed choices, but only when consumers understand the difference between authorised claims, on-hold claims and unregulated marketing language.
UK regulations provide useful standards for nutrition and health claims, helping ensure that many statements are evidence-based and clearly defined.
However, provisional botanical claims and vague promotional terms can still create confusion or exaggerate perceived benefits.
Consumers should therefore interpret label claims critically, especially where bioavailability, dosage and strength of evidence are unclear.
Clearer disclaimers and better public understanding would help ensure labels inform consumer choice rather than simply influence purchasing behaviour.