Study flags widespread misuse of health claims on protein products

Published in Nutrients, the study identified 38 distinct health claims across 102 protein supplements, with only six in full compliance with regulatory requirements.

The findings add to existing evidence that the use of unauthorized claims on supplement labels is becoming increasingly frequent, according to the researchers from the University of Alicante and the Catholic University of Murcia.

Food risk scientist and expert in food regulation Luca Bucchini agrees, adding that EFSA’s reluctance to accept new health claims is making this practice more common.

“I am not at all surprised [by the findings]. Marketing teams are pushing for creative claims, and often R&D and scientific marketing teams confirm that some of the proposed, non-compliant claims have at least some scientific backing,” he told NutraIngredients.

“The problem is not only that enforcement is so weak, but that the incentives for non-compliance are high. It is also that EFSA’s extremely conservative attitude has meant that very few ways are available to communicate the benefits of protein.”

The rise of non-compliant labeling

Over the last decade, a number of research papers have investigated fraudulent labeling practices.

For example, researchers from the University of Novi Sad, Serbia, recently conducted an analysis of 87 commercially available herbal food supplements and found that only 10.7% of labelled health claims were fully compliant with EU regulations.

Similar findings have been observed in studies on health claims related to recovery beverages, creatine monohydrate and caffeine dosages in sports supplements.

Protein powders, bars and drinks are some of the most popular and widely used supplements by consumers, with the market value projected to reach $21.5 billion by the end of 2025.

However, until now, it had not been evaluated whether the health claims on the labels of protein supplements marketed within the EU are compliant with the EFSA’s opinions and approved health claims.

Study details

To conduct their study, the researchers assessed more than 100 protein products purchased via Amazon and Google Shopping. Of the 156 products identified, 54 were excluded due to duplication or because they contained ingredients other than protein or did not specify health claims.

Of the 102 products included in the final analysis, 99 cited EFSA’s approved health claim that protein contributes to an increase in muscle mass, while 79 and 31 respectively used the approved claims that protein contributes to the preservation of muscle mass and the maintenance of bones.

However, 43.8% of the products listed health claims not authorized by the EFSA. The most frequent unauthorized health claim referred to protein’s ability to aid post-workout recovery, appearing on one in 10 (11%) supplements.

Another common non-compliant claim included protein’s ability to improve performance, while a smaller number cited claims regarding muscle tissue repair, increased strength and supporting appetite regulation and fat loss.

Is labeling products with unauthorized health claims a fraudulent practice?

The researchers say the findings add to the existing body of evidence on food fraud and emphasize the importance of revisiting existing legislation.

“Despite the legislation in force and the efforts of organizations such as the European Food Safety Authority, the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Olympic Committee, nutritional supplement marketing fraud is still frequent,” they wrote. “This indicates that current legislation needs to be reviewed and strengthened.”

However, whether this mislabeling constitutes a fraudulent practice depends on the nature of the claim, according to Bucchini.

“The internet and social media have led to an astonishing increase in misleading information in all domains— sports nutrition is no exception,” he said. “However, the use of some claims which are backed by science although not authorized is not as serious as proper fraud, even if compliance with the letter of the regulation is important. For example, there might not be consensus that protein aids recovery, but there is credible evidence.”

Instead of strengthening legislation, Bucchini highlights the importance of educating consumers to better scrutinize products, particularly those advertised on social media platforms, and for EFSA to consider a wider array of health claim requests.

“Educating consumers is important but challenging,” he said. “Enforcement needs to play a role, but as long as social media platforms do not introduce systems to monitor health claims, it is difficult to see a change. Finally, there is a role for making the authorization of health claims, at least some of them, more open to new evidence.”

Source: Nutrients. doi: 10.3390/nu17111923. “Health Claims for Protein Food Supplements for Athletes—The Analysis Is in Accordance with the EFSA’s Scientific Opinion.” Authors: Rodríguez-Hernández, et al.