Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 set a simple principle: any statement that links a food or ingredient to health must have been evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and authorised by the European Commission. Everything else is forbidden. The result is a public EU Register of a few hundred authorised health claims, each attached to a nutrient, a condition of use and an approved wording. For food supplements, this register is the entire vocabulary a brand is allowed to use about health. Not a word more.
1. The rules in a few markers
2. How a sentence gets onto the list
Step 1 · 44,000 proposals
After 2006, Member States collected the claims companies wanted to keep using: some 44,000 entries, consolidated by EFSA into about 4,600 to evaluate. The task took five years.
Step 2 · One question
For each claim, EFSA asked whether a cause-and-effect relationship between the substance and the effect was established by generally accepted scientific evidence. Not "is there a signal", but "is it demonstrated". Most claims failed that test.
Step 3 · The 2012 list
Regulation 432/2012 published the first authorised list: 222 claims, almost all about vitamins, minerals and a handful of well-studied substances. It has grown a little since, to around 260. More than 2,000 claims were rejected.
Step 4 · Plants left "on hold"
Botanicals were a special case: EFSA rejected traditional use as evidence, Member States disagreed, and the Commission suspended their evaluation. More than 2,000 plant claims have been "on hold" since 2010, usable under national rules and the operator's responsibility, but never formally authorised.
3. Four numbers behind the sameness
4. Why every brand says the same thing
Because the sentence is not theirs. When a brand writes "magnesium contributes to normal psychological function", it is quoting the register almost word for word. Some flexibility of wording is tolerated, provided the meaning for the consumer stays identical: "helps support" may replace "contributes to", but "boosts", "restores" or "fights" go beyond the authorised effect and are refused. The claim must also concern the nutrient, never the product as a whole: a brand may say what magnesium does, not that its box "reduces your stress". And the product must contain a significant amount, at least 15 % of the reference value per daily portion, or the sentence may not be used at all.
| Nutrient | Authorised wording (extract) | On CALM AUTHORITY? |
|---|---|---|
| Vitamin B6 | Contributes to normal psychological function · to normal functioning of the nervous system · to the reduction of tiredness and fatigue · to the regulation of hormonal activity · to normal energy-yielding metabolism | Yes: 2.55 mg per portion, 182 % NRV |
| Magnesium | Contributes to a reduction of tiredness and fatigue · to normal psychological function · to normal functioning of the nervous system · to normal muscle function · to electrolyte balance | Not entitled to: 40 mg is 10.7 % NRV, below the 15 % "significant amount" threshold. Our magnesium is a supporting intake, not a claim carrier |
| Saffron, L-theanine, rhodiola | None authorised. Botanical claims "on hold" may be used under national rules and the operator's responsibility | We describe their science in the Observatory as educational content, kept apart from the product pitch |
Wordings from the EU Register of nutrition and health claims. Conditions of use apply to each.
5. True or false: what you read online
| The claim | Verdict | The nuance |
|---|---|---|
| "If it's written on the site, it's been proven" | False | Authorised claims have been evaluated. Anything beyond them ("anti-stress", "restores serenity") has not, and is illegal even if widespread. Enforcement lags behind the market. |
| "Clinically proven means tested on this product" | Rarely | Nine times out of ten the studies concern an ingredient, at a given dose, in a given population. Transferring them to the finished product is a leap the regulation does not allow. |
| "A customer review can say what the brand can't" | False | A testimonial selected and displayed by the brand is commercial communication. If it implies a medical effect, the brand is responsible for it. |
| "Traditionally used for" is an approved claim | False | It is the wording of a claim "on hold": tolerated pending evaluation, not authorised. Honest brands say so. |
| "A supplement can be 'anti-anxiety'" | No | Anxiety and depression are medical conditions. Claiming to act on them is a therapeutic claim, reserved for medicines. The only permitted territory is normal function: "psychological function", "nervous system". |
Educational content about the regulatory framework, not legal advice. Each claim in the register carries specific conditions of use.
6. What BIORYA has chosen not to say
No medical vocabulary
You will not read "anti-anxiety", "antidepressant", "treats", "heals" or "replaces" about CALM AUTHORITY. Anxiety and depression are conditions that call for a professional, and our disclaimers say so on every page that touches the subject.
Studies stay with the ingredients
The trials we cite on saffron, L-theanine, rhodiola or magnesium concern those ingredients as raw materials. We say so explicitly, and we never present them as proof about the finished product or write "clinically proven" on the box.
A wall between the Observatory and the shop
The Observatory explains the science, with sources, as educational content. The product page states the composition and the authorised claims. The two are linked, but the first is never used as a sales argument dressed up as an article.
No borrowed authority
No white coats, no "recommended by doctors", no before-and-after, no promise of transformation. Reviews are published as written, and we do not use them as evidence of an effect. The claim on our box is the ritual itself: sixty seconds, every morning.
7. And day to day?
When you read a supplement page, look for the register's vocabulary: "contributes to", "normal function", a named nutrient. That is the sound of a brand staying within the rules. When you read "fights stress", "restores your calm", "clinically proven formula", you are reading a sentence nobody has evaluated. Neither is a guarantee of quality, but the first tells you the brand knows the law and chose to respect it. To go further, our article on reading a label in three lines shows where the real information sits, and the vitamin B6 and magnesium articles explain what lies behind the two claims we are allowed to make.
8. Sources
- European Parliament and Council (2006). Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods.
- European Commission (2012). Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims. — the original 222 claims.
- European Commission. EU Register of nutrition and health claims. ec.europa.eu/food/food-feed-portal — authorised and non-authorised claims, conditions of use.
- EFSA (2011). Scientific and technical guidance for the preparation and presentation of a health claim application. EFSA Journal.
- European Parliament and Council (2011). Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 — Article 7: fair information practices, no attribution of medicinal properties.
- European Commission (2020). Evaluation of the Regulation on nutrition and health claims (REFIT). — the state of botanical claims "on hold".
- DGCCRF. Allégations nutritionnelles et de santé. economie.gouv.fr — enforcement in France.
Prefer a brand that tells you what it may not say? Discover the ritual, its composition and its claims, nothing more.