The hidden labelling risks brands miss: images, design & implied claims

Under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, health claims are not limited to written statements. A health claim is any representation that states, suggests or implies a relationship between a food (or a property of that food) and health, and that representation can be made through words, pictures, symbols or other means.

In other words, regulatory risk doesn’t just sit in your copy. It sits in your design.

Health claims are not only written

An image, icon or graphic can trigger the health claims framework just as easily as a sentence can. If a visual element suggests a relationship between your product and a health outcome, it may be treated as a health claim, even if no explicit wording appears anywhere on the pack.

If that threshold is crossed, the product must meet the relevant compositional requirements, satisfy the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion where required, and be supported by appropriate evidence.

The absence of text does not remove the trigger.

Where brands unintentionally create exposure

One of the most common areas of risk is the use of health-associated imagery. Hearts, brain symbols, shields, muscle silhouettes and lightning bolts are powerful visual shortcuts. To a regulator, these are not decorative. They can imply cardiovascular benefit, cognitive support, immune protection or performance enhancement. If the overall message connects the product to a health outcome, it may fall within the health claims framework.

The same applies to softer marketing language. Phrases such as “supports clarity,” “gut-friendly,” “performance blend”, or “calm focus” may appear lifestyle-oriented, but if they imply a physiological effect, they can constitute general-level health claims. Marketing language does not sit outside the Code simply because it sounds gentle or indirect.

Endorsement-style badges and logos introduce another layer of complexity. The Code places strict requirements on representations that imply approval from a health organisation or professional body. Even design elements that resemble endorsement, unintentionally, can create regulatory exposure.

Ingredient imagery can also shift a label into risky territory. While showcasing ingredients is standard practice, visual prominence matters. A large, front-of-pack image may create expectations about meaningful inclusion or functional benefit. When that imagery is paired with health positioning, the implied message can become stronger than intended.

The “overall impression” principle

Regulatory assessment does not examine each element in isolation. Authorities assess the representation as a whole and consider how an ordinary consumer would interpret it.

Layout, font hierarchy, icon placement, colour, imagery, website presentation and social media visuals all contribute to that overall impression. Even if each individual element appears compliant on its own, the combined effect may still imply a health relationship that is not permitted or not substantiated.

This is where many brands are caught off guard. The science may be accurate. The wording may be technically careful. But the total communication environment tells a different story.

Why this matters commercially

The consequences of getting this wrong are rarely dramatic at first. More often, they are operational and expensive: label reprints, packaging redesign, retailer scrutiny, competitor complaints, regulatory investigation and reputational damage.

In most cases, the issue was not the formulation or the evidence base. It was the design.

The practical shift brands need to make

Before printing, launching or rebranding, the better question is not simply “Is our claim permitted?” but “What is our packaging suggesting?”

Would an ordinary consumer infer a health relationship from the imagery or layout?
Do any visual elements imply endorsement?
Does the product actually meet the conditions required to support that implied message?

Compliance under the Food Standards Code is not purely textual. Pictures and symbols are representations, and representations carry regulatory weight.

For brands operating in a highly competitive market, understanding this distinction is not just about avoiding risk. It is about building credibility in a way that is commercially sustainable.

Trying to figure out food labelling and health claims by piecing together advice online? If you’re looking for a structured, step-by-step way to understand how food labelling and health claims actually work in Australia – without guessing or relying on conflicting advice – you can join the waitlist for Labelled & Legit, our practical education program designed specifically for food brands.