“Overall, the findings underscore the need for improved regulatory clarity, especially for botanicals, and enhanced enforcement mechanisms that extend effectively into digital markets,” wrote researchers in the journal Foods.
The study noted that low levels of compliance from the on-hold list undermine the objectives of the NHCR and mean that consumers “may be exposed to potentially misleading information, believing such claims to be scientifically validated.”
The findings also highlighted “the difficulties arising from the wording requirements of authorized health claims, which may not always be easily understood by consumers.”
Study details
Researchers from Ulster University and other institutions in Denmark and the Netherlands examined the prevalence and compliance of health claims on food supplement labels in the Republic of Ireland.
They randomly selected 192 products from two participating retail outlets (a supermarket and a health store) and compared the label information with what was presented on their online shopping websites.
The data collected included the types of health claims present and their categories, whether the health claim was authorized under the EU Register of Nutrition and Health Claims, whether the wording complied with the mandatory information requirements and where on the packaging the claim was presented. The researchers then analyzed the data using appropriate statistical methods.
Multivitamins accounted for a third of the products reviewed, followed by botanicals and single vitamins. Essential fatty acids had the highest number of health claims in store, and amino sugars had the highest online. Vitamin D was the most commonly referenced nutrient, both in store and online, followed by vitamin C.
“Interestingly, vitamin D was most linked to the claims ‘bone health’ and ‘muscle function’, rather than ‘immune system’ claims,” the researchers noted.
The overall results showed that at least one health claim was present on 89% of in-store products and 93% of online products. However, only 80.7% of in-store products were authorized, and 75.6% of online products.
Regarding compliance, only 58.7% of in-store products and 48.8% of online products were acceptable, with claims about the immune system accounting for over 16% of cases. Only 17.4% of the authorized health claims for botanicals were compliant in-store, and 19.1% online.
The on-hold list
The study also assessed whether claims were on the EU on-hold list of botanical health claims, which has been in regulatory limbo since 2012.
“The use of health claims from the on-hold list was moderate in-store (28.5%) with higher use rates online (33.1%),” the researchers wrote, noting compliance rates of only 16% and 8.9% for on-hold health claims in-store and online, respectively.
They noted that the results are in line with previous studies demonstrating that consumers are subject to unsubstantiated health claims on botanical products from the on-hold list.
“Consumers are exposed to potentially misleading information as they may believe that the beneficial effects of the supplements have been scientifically assessed by EFSA,” they wrote.
“Overall, the low compliance of botanical supplements, especially those on the on-hold list, seems to result from both unclear rules and poor adherence by the industry.”
Consumers don’t understand wording
The study found that around 30% of authorized health claims used the exact wording prescribed by EU regulation.
“This suggests that the wording is not understandable by consumers,” the researchers noted, citing a previous study showing that consumers find health claims difficult to understand and to trust.
Current EU regulation requires claims to be presented in scientific language, challenging food manufacturers “to make the claim non-misleading, scientifically substantiated, compliant with regulatory wording but also understandable by the consumer,” they wrote.
General claims such as ‘contributes to overall vitality and well-being’ accounted for 7% of overall health claims in-store and online, all of which were non-compliant.
“These vague claims could be misleading or not correctly understood by the average consumer,” the researchers wrote, noting the need to reinforce the “importance of comprehensive regulation and transparent product information across all platforms.”
Source: Foods 2026, 15(2), 286. doi: 10.3390/foods15020286. “The Prevalence and Compliance of Health Claims on Food Supplements with Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006 Sold In-Store and Online Within the Republic of Ireland.” Authors: N. Barrow et al.
