When a European supplement label says omega-3 “contributes to the normal function of the heart,” that exact sentence has been through one of the world’s stricter scientific review systems. Understanding what an EFSA-authorised health claim is — and is not — turns label-reading from guesswork into evidence-reading.
- The system in one paragraph
- What authorisation actually certifies
- What it does not mean
- How to read a claim like an auditor
- Article 13 versus Article 14: the claim hierarchy
- Why most claims failed — and the botanical exception
- Case study: how EPA/DHA passed the bar
- The borders: claims law, novel food, and medicines
- The clinical bottom line
- Primary sources
The system in one paragraph
Under Regulation (EC) 1924/2006, no food or supplement in the EU may carry a health claim unless that claim has been scientifically assessed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and authorised by the European Commission into the public EU Register. EFSA’s panel reviews the totality of human evidence for a precise claimed effect, a precise substance, and a precise intake — and most submissions fail: of thousands of claims submitted after 2006, the large majority were rejected for insufficient substantiation.
What authorisation actually certifies
Three things, narrowly and usefully. Causality: EFSA requires human data showing the nutrient causes the claimed physiological effect in the general population — associations and animal data alone do not pass. Dose: the claim is tied to a condition of use — EPA+DHA heart-function claims require 250 mg/day; the blood-triglyceride claim requires 2 g/day. A product delivering less may not carry the sentence. Wording: only the authorised phrasing (or faithful equivalents) may be used — “contributes to normal heart function,” not “protects your heart.”
What it does not mean
An authorised claim is not a drug approval: it certifies a nutrient’s role in normal physiology, not treatment of disease — disease-treatment language is prohibited on supplements entirely. It is not a product endorsement either: EFSA assesses the nutrient-effect relationship, never your specific bottle; whether the bottle truly contains the effective dose is a quality-control question (GMP, batch testing), separate from the claims system. And absence of a claim is not proof of uselessness — some genuinely researched substances (CoQ10 is a well-known example) hold no authorised claims because the submitted dossiers didn’t meet EFSA’s causality bar for healthy populations.
How to read a claim like an auditor
Check three matches: the substance in the claim vs the ingredient form in the product; the dose condition vs the amount per daily serving; the wording vs the authorised sentence in the EU Register (publicly searchable). A label that quotes an authorised claim while underdosing the nutrient is the most common quiet violation on the market.
Article 13 versus Article 14: the claim hierarchy
The Regulation splits claims into legal tiers. Article 13.1 ‘function claims’ — nutrient X contributes to normal function Y — were assessed en masse from a community list of over 4,000 entries, yielding the ~220-claim core register in 2012. Article 13.5 covers new function claims based on newly developed or proprietary science, each requiring its own dossier. Article 14 houses the heavyweights: disease-risk-reduction claims (‘plant sterols lower blood cholesterol; high cholesterol is a risk factor for coronary heart disease’) and children’s-development claims — each individually authorised with named wording and conditions. Knowing the tier tells you the evidentiary weight: an Article 14 authorisation sits on a dossier reviewed the way medicines agencies review indications, minus only the disease-treatment framing that food law forbids.
Why most claims failed — and the botanical exception
EFSA’s causality bar rejected roughly four in five submitted function claims, mostly on three grounds: the substance was insufficiently characterised (which extract? standardised to what?), the claimed effect wasn’t a defined physiological benefit, or human intervention evidence in healthy populations was absent — animal, mechanistic and traditional-use evidence being explicitly insufficient alone. The great unresolved chapter is botanicals: some 1,500+ plant-substance claims were placed ‘on hold’ in 2010 amid the clash between EFSA’s clinical-trial standard and traditional-use frameworks, and remain in limbo — legally usable under transitional provisions in many member states. That is why herb labels can still carry function language that vitamins could never get authorised today: not stronger evidence, but a frozen queue.
Case study: how EPA/DHA passed the bar
The omega-3 dossiers succeeded because they matched EFSA’s template precisely: chemically defined substances (EPA, DHA — not ‘fish oil’), measurable physiological endpoints in healthy adults (triglyceride concentrations, blood pressure, cardiac function markers), consistent human RCT evidence, and dose-response data allowing conditions of use to be pinned to numbers — 250 mg/day for heart-function and brain/vision claims, 2 g/day for the triglyceride claim, 3 g/day for blood pressure, each with intake ceilings. The lesson generalises: EFSA authorisations exist where nutrition science happens to have drug-grade evidence architecture, which is a statement about evidence logistics as much as about which nutrients ‘work’.
The borders: claims law, novel food, and medicines
Three legal territories are easily confused. Claims law governs what may be said about a legal food ingredient. Novel Food regulation governs whether an ingredient without significant pre-1997 EU consumption may be sold at all — a safety-and-history gate, not an efficacy one (astaxanthin oleoresin’s authorisation lives here). Medicines law captures any product presented as treating or preventing disease, whatever its composition — the reason supplement wording tiptoes around therapeutic verbs. A compliant product needs all three lights green: permitted ingredient, authorised (or no) claims, non-medicinal presentation. Reading labels with this three-border map turns regulatory fine print into a comprehensible system.
The clinical bottom line
EFSA authorisation is the EU’s evidence-graded vocabulary for supplements: a passed claim means human causal data at a defined dose. Read it as strong evidence for the nutrient at that dose — then verify the product actually delivers that dose, which is what independent batch testing exists to prove.
Primary sources
- Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods
- EU Register of nutrition and health claims (public database)
- EFSA: Health claims — assessment methodology
- EFSA Journal: EPA/DHA-related opinions incl. intake conditions
Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer. This article is health journalism intended for general information and education. It is not medical advice and is not a substitute for professional diagnosis or treatment. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider about your individual circumstances. Full disclaimer →
Related Coverage
Editorial standards. This article was produced under the GMJ News editorial process, with oversight by the GMJ Editorial Board. Our editorial process. Spotted an error? Contact the editorial team.
