Why food brands get health claims wrong before they even start

Those early errors snowball into compliance issues, rework, and wasted budgets. Here’s why it happens, and how Australia’s science-driven regulatory framework amplifies the cost of getting it wrong.

1. Mistaking marketing language for regulatory health claims

Many food brands start with a bold idea: “Our product will help improve wellbeing.” Unfortunately, that often blurs the line between desirable marketing language and scientifically and legally substantiated health claims.

Australian rules, specifically Standard 1.2.7 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, clearly distinguish between:

Nutrition Content Claims – statements about nutrient levels (e.g., “low in fat”, “good source of fibre”).

Health Claims – statements about the relationship between a food and health (e.g., “calcium for strong bones”).

Each has different requirements and thresholds. For example, a nutrition content claim about calcium requires that the product actually contains a defined minimum amount of calcium in the specified serving size, as laid out in the Code.

Brands that leap from a marketing slogan to a health claim often fail to check whether their product even meets basic compositional criteria, such as nutrient thresholds or the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC), a scoring system that classifies foods based on healthiness. Only foods meeting NPSC can carry most health claims.

Early takeaway: Start by understanding what category of claim you intend to make, not what you wish the claim could be.

2. Treating health claims as an afterthought

One of the biggest early mistakes is defensive thinking: “We’ll worry about claims after the product is finished.” But health claims aren’t decorative, they’re science-based regulatory statements.

In Australia, all health claims must be supported by scientific evidence that meets the Code’s standards, whether:

– Based on one of the 200+ pre-approved food-health relationships, or

– On a self-substantiated relationship backed by a systematic review (with notification to Food Standards Australia New Zealand – FSANZ).

High-level claims, such as those about disease risk, must be pre-approved by FSANZ and require even stronger evidence.

Too often, R&D, marketing, and regulatory teams don’t engage early to:

– Map available scientific evidence

– Assess whether the product’s formulation can even support the evidence

– Decide whether a claim is realistically achievable

This leads companies down a path where formulation, packaging design, and marketing are all built before understanding the regulatory evidence requirements. The result? Costly reformulation or slow, expensive pre-market approval processes when trying to retrofit a compliant claim.

3. Misunderstanding the scale and rigour of evidence needed

Scientific evidence isn’t a buzzword, it’s a regulatory prerequisite.

Australia’s Code does not allow vague scientific rationale; claims must be backed by systematic literature reviews or pre-approved relationships that demonstrate:

– A clear, reproducible link between the food (or nutrient) and the claimed effect

– Evidence derived from credible research methodologies

– Documentation that meets regulatory scrutiny

Self-substantiation, often seen as a shortcut, can be risky. Research shows that up to half of industry-notified food-health relationships fail to have adequately robust evidence when objectively assessed.
PMC

Early planning often assumes “good evidence exists somewhere”. Without proper scoping and expert review, brands risk building claims on weak or inappropriate evidence, a recipe for regulatory non-compliance and consumer mistrust.

4. Ignoring the nutrient profiling scoring criterion (NPSC)

A frequent blind spot is the NPSC, a tool used to determine a food’s eligibility to carry health claims. Technically, a product must score well in the nutrient profiling system to qualify for health claims under Standard 1.2.7.

Many brands assume that including a beneficial ingredient (like oats or probiotics) automatically qualifies them for a claim. However, if the overall product contains too much sugar, saturated fat, or sodium, it fails the NPSC, even if the beneficial ingredient is scientifically supported.

Failing the NPSC late in development can force:

– Reformulation to improve nutrient scores

– Removal or revision of planned marketing claims

– Delays in go-to-market timing

All of which are costly and avoidable with early product profiling.

5. Not planning feasibility + compliance checks at the outset

Technical compliance isn’t just about meeting legal checks at the end of a project. Assurance of claim feasibility must be integrated into every stage of product development.

Best practice paths include:

– Conducting early nutrient profiling to evaluate whether claims are viable.
– Commissioning or reviewing scientific evidence before formulation decisions.
– Consulting regulatory experts to interpret Standard 1.2.7 and enforceable Australian Consumer Law around false or misleading claims.

Brands that wait until pre-launch often find they don’t have the evidence, formulation, or scoring required, forcing last-minute pivots that undermine quality, market positioning, and consumer trust.

Build claims on a foundation, not a wish

Health and nutrition claims are more than marketing copy – they’re regulated, evidence-based assertions that must stand up to scientific and legal scrutiny in Australia. The companies that get them right:

– Start with clear regulatory classifications
– Align formulation with claim eligibility early
– Invest in robust evidence reviews
– Integrate compliance checks throughout product development

Avoiding these early pitfalls isn’t just about playing by the rules, it’s about building products and brands that consumers can believe in.

If this made you realise how early health-claim mistakes compound fast, don’t leave it to chance.

Download The Six Biggest Mistakes Food Brands Make With Labelling & Health Claims