Every claim on pack tested against authorisation, wording and your product's actual composition, alongside a full check of the nutrition declaration underneath it.
A nutrition and claims review checks two things. First, whether the nutrition declaration on a product is correct, complete and in the format the market requires. Second, whether every claim on pack is permitted, expressed in acceptable wording, and supported by the product's actual composition. Claims fail most often on the third of those, because the claim is authorised and the product does not qualify for it.
The two halves depend on each other. Every claim rests on the nutrition declaration, so a panel carried over from an old recipe invalidates the claims sitting on top of it as well as being wrong in itself. Checking claims without checking the numbers behind them answers half the question.
A verdict on every claim with the basis cited, a full nutrition declaration check, and compliant rewording where a claim cannot stand. Delivered remotely, in any language, quoted on scope.
A claim has to satisfy all eight. Failing any one of them means it cannot stay on the pack as written.
| Test | What it requires | Where it goes wrong |
|---|---|---|
| Is the claim authorised? | The claim must exist in the market's register of permitted claims, or fall within a permitted category. | A claim borrowed from a competitor selling into a different market. |
| Is the wording acceptable? | The words used must convey the same meaning as the authorised claim to the consumer. | Wording rewritten by marketing until it no longer matches what was authorised. |
| Does the product meet the conditions of use? | Each claim carries compositional conditions the product must satisfy to bear it. | A source of claim on a product falling just under the threshold. |
| Is the nutrient profile satisfied? | Some markets restrict claims on products high in fat, sugar or salt, regardless of the nutrient being claimed. | A high in fibre claim on a product disqualified by its sugar content. |
| Are the mandatory accompanying statements present? | Certain claims require additional wording alongside them, and omission invalidates the claim. | A health claim without the required varied diet statement. |
| Is the declaration consistent with the claim? | The nutrition declaration has to support what the claim asserts. | A reduced sugar claim with a declaration that does not evidence the reduction. |
| Is the claim implied without words? | Imagery, product names and graphics can constitute a claim without any words being used. | A heart graphic or a natural style name carrying an unauthorised implication. |
| Is it a medicinal claim? | Claims that a food prevents, treats or cures disease are generally prohibited for foods in any market. | Wording drifting from wellbeing into treatment of a condition. |
Eight checks on the declaration itself, since every claim on the pack depends on it being right.
The nutrients the market requires, in the required order.
The units each value is expressed in, and the rounding rules applied.
Per 100 g or 100 ml as required, plus per portion where used, with the portion defined.
Whether values came from analysis, calculation or a recognised data table, and whether that source is defensible.
Whether the declaration matches the current recipe, since formulation changes commonly outrun the panel.
Whether declared values sit within accepted tolerance of what the product delivers.
Tabular or linear presentation, field of vision and legibility requirements.
Any additional nutrients declared voluntarily, and whether their inclusion is permitted.
These eight account for most claims findings, and the first one accounts for a large share on its own.
The claim is authorised, the wording is right, and the composition falls short of the threshold. This is one of the most common claims failure and it is entirely avoidable with a calculation.
An authorised claim edited for tone until it says something the authorisation does not cover. The meaning conveyed to the consumer is what matters.
Competitors sell into different markets, use different formulations and sometimes make claims that are themselves noncompliant. Copying inherits the risk.
A formulation change made without the panel being updated. Every claim resting on that panel is then unsupported too.
Imagery, colour, product names and graphics can constitute a claim. Assessment that only looks at sentences misses them.
An unrealistically small portion making values look better. Where a market defines or constrains portion size, this fails, and it also invites challenge.
A health claim without the wording that has to travel with it. The claim is invalidated by the omission alone.
Language about supporting, maintaining or protecting shading into preventing or treating. The line matters and it is crossed gradually.
Food and beverage manufacturers, food supplement companies and brand owners making claims on pack. It suits any business where marketing writes the claim wording and nobody checks it against the composition before artwork is commissioned.
You are putting a claim on pack for the first time.
Marketing has drafted claim wording that nobody has checked.
A recipe has changed and the nutrition panel has not been recalculated.
You are entering a market with a different claims position.
A retailer or authority has queried a claim you make.
You are launching a food supplement or fortified product.
Front of pack imagery may be implying something you cannot support.
You have copied a claim you saw on a competitor's product.
You send the recipe, the nutrition data with its source, the artwork or claim wording, and the markets in scope.
Nutrients, order, units, rounding, basis, source and recipe alignment are all verified.
Every claim is listed, including claims implied by imagery, naming, colour or graphics.
Each claim is checked against the market's permitted position and against the wording that was authorised.
The product's composition is calculated against each claim's threshold, which is where most claims fail.
Each claim is marked usable or not, with the basis cited and a compliant alternative supplied where one exists.
Laboratory analysis to generate nutrition values. Where data is missing or the source will not stand up, the review states what analysis is needed.
Reformulation. Where a product misses a claim threshold, the review states the gap and the formulation work is yours.
Where no compliant alternative to a claim exists, that is said plainly. A claim that cannot be supported comes off the pack.
Every review is quoted against its own scope. One product with a single claim and a supplement range with twelve claims across four markets are very different pieces of work. These factors set the price.
These are the primary sources this work is built on. Where a market you sell into has its own requirement, that takes precedence and we assess against it.
A nutrition claim states or implies that a food has beneficial nutritional properties, such as low fat, high fibre or source of protein. A health claim states or implies a relationship between a food and health. Health claims are generally more tightly controlled and more of them require specific authorisation.
Because the product does not meet the conditions of use. The claim itself is authorised and the wording is acceptable, and the composition falls short of the threshold the claim requires. It is the easiest failure to avoid, because it is settled by a calculation before artwork is commissioned.
Only where the new wording conveys the same meaning to the consumer as the authorised claim. Editing for tone is where this goes wrong, because small changes shift meaning and the authorisation covers what was authorised.
Yes. Imagery, colour, graphics, product names and even pack shape can convey a claim without any words. Assessment limited to sentences misses these, and they are enforced in the same way as written claims.
It is a set of criteria restricting which products may bear claims, based on levels of nutrients such as fat, sugar and salt. Where it applies, a product high in one of those can be disqualified from making a claim about a different nutrient entirely.
By checking the source. Values from analysis are strongest, values calculated from a recognised data table are acceptable where the calculation is sound, and values inherited from an old recipe are among the most common problem. The review establishes which of these you have.
They have to sit within accepted tolerance of what the product delivers, since natural variation exists. What is not acceptable is a declaration that no longer reflects the recipe, because that is a different problem from variation.
Within limits, and it should be realistic. A small portion chosen to make values look better invites challenge, and some markets define or constrain portion sizes for particular categories. Per 100 g or 100 ml remains the required basis regardless.
No. Each market maintains its own position on which claims are permitted and on what wording is acceptable. A claim lawful in one country can be prohibited in another, which is why claims are assessed market by market.
Supplements carry additional constraints, including which substances may be the subject of a claim, permitted forms, maximum levels and mandatory warnings. Claims on supplements attract more enforcement attention than most categories.
The review says so and supplies a compliant alternative where one exists. Where no alternative exists, that is stated plainly. A claim that cannot be supported has to come off the pack, and softening the wording does not fix it.
A claim by claim verdict citing the basis for each, a nutrition declaration check covering nutrients, units, basis, source and recipe alignment, an assessment of implied claims, and compliant rewording for anything that cannot stand as written.
Confi Food assigns work by subject. HACCP, labelling, certification standards, regulatory compliance, supplier assurance and monitoring are separate disciplines, and each piece goes to someone who works in that area. Every deliverable is reviewed internally by a second specialist before it reaches you.
Our technical positions are built from primary sources, meaning the legislation, the competent authority, Codex Alimentarius, the certification scheme owner or the relevant standards body. We set out how that works in our technical review and editorial policy, and what happens at each stage of an engagement in how Confi Food works.
A full legal review of your product label against the food information rules of every market you sell into.
Read about Food Label Compliance Review →A review of every ingredient and additive in the recipe, checking each is authorised for that food category at that level in each target market.
Read about Ingredient and Additive Compliance Review →Certificated course covering food information law, claims and market specific labelling.
View Certified Global Food Labeling Specialist →Expert EU food labelling consulting worldwide. Regulation 1169/2011 mandatory particulars, allergen labelling, origin and primary ingredient rules, nutrition...
See EU Food Labelling Consulting →Expert FSANZ consulting worldwide. Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code compliance, labelling, food safety standards, alcoholic beverage energy labelling, and...
See FSANZ Consulting →Send the recipe, the nutrition data, the claim wording and the markets, and receive a written quote covering the scope, the deliverable and the price.