Unapproved ingredients: the fastest way to trigger compliance issues

That it’s about wording, formatting, or whether a claim is phrased correctly. But in practice, one of the fastest ways to trigger serious compliance issues sits much earlier – in the ingredient itself.

Because if an ingredient isn’t permitted under the Food Standards Code, you don’t have a labelling problem. You have a product that shouldn’t be on the market.

Where this usually starts

This isn’t typically a deliberate decision. It tends to come from reasonable, commercial thinking.

A brand sees an ingredient gaining traction overseas. A supplier positions it as functional, natural, or backed by emerging research. It feels like an opportunity to differentiate. And so it gets built into the formulation early – often before anyone has properly asked whether it can actually be used in Australia.

That’s the moment the risk is created. Not in the packaging. Not at retail. Not when claims are written. At formulation.

Why “it’s used overseas” isn’t enough

One of the most common assumptions is that global use equals local approval. It doesn’t.

Each jurisdiction operates on its own regulatory framework, with its own definitions of safety, history of use, and what constitutes a novel food. An ingredient that is widely used in the US or Europe may still be unassessed in Australia, considered novel, or restricted to specific uses that don’t align with your product.

So by the time a brand relies on “it’s already on the market elsewhere,” they’re often building on an assumption that doesn’t hold locally.

The novel food trap

This is where things escalate quickly. If an ingredient is classified as a novel food, it requires formal assessment and approval before it can be sold – and that process is not something that can be worked around after the fact. It involves demonstrating safety, defining conditions of use, and undergoing regulatory review, all before commercialisation.

What catches brands out is that “novel” doesn’t always mean new. It can include new sources of existing ingredients, different processing methods, concentrated or isolated forms, and ingredients with limited history of consumption in Australia. Something that feels familiar or well-researched can still fall into this category.

Why this becomes expensive, fast

By the time this issue is identified, most brands are no longer in early-stage development. They’ve finalised their formulation, invested in packaging, started conversations with retailers, and built marketing around the product.

At that point, there are very few easy fixes. You can’t adjust the wording to resolve it. You can’t rely on disclaimers. You can’t soften the positioning. If the ingredient isn’t permitted, the only real option is to go backwards – reformulate, reassess, and delay.

That’s where the cost comes in. Not just financially, but in lost time, missed opportunities, and strained commercial relationships.

What enforcement actually looks like

A lot of brands assume enforcement is rare or reactive. In reality, issues with ingredients tend to surface through very practical channels – retailers flag concerns during ranging, competitors raise questions, or internal compliance reviews uncover gaps late in the process.

And once an issue is identified, the response isn’t subtle. Products can be rejected, reformulation may be required, and in more serious cases, regulatory involvement can follow – particularly if the ingredient is tied to implied or explicit health positioning. By that point, the business impact is already in motion.

The shift most brands need to make

The mistake isn’t just using an unapproved ingredient. It’s treating compliance as something that happens at the end.

In reality, compliance is set at the beginning – in the decisions that feel the most commercial, not the most regulatory. Ingredient selection is one of those decisions, and it’s often made quickly, based on innovation, differentiation, or supplier input, without fully understanding the regulatory implications.

The bottom line

If there’s one question that should be asked earlier and more often, it’s this: can we legally use this ingredient, in this product, in this way, in Australia?

Because if that isn’t clear, everything built on top of it becomes unstable. Unapproved ingredients remain one of the fastest ways to turn a strong product idea into a delayed, expensive problem.

Most costly compliance issues don’t come from the label itself;  they start earlier, in decisions that feel commercial but carry significant regulatory weight. If you want to understand where food brands commonly go wrong (and how to avoid these mistakes before they become expensive), we’ve put together the FREE Food Label Compliance Checklist for you.