A botanical extract with real traditional use and promising research still might not be allowed to say anything about what it does — because of a category of claims stuck in permanent limbo.
The rule and the register that enforces it
Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 governs nutrition and health claims on food across the EU. Its core principle: any claim made on a food's labelling, presentation, or advertising must be clear, accurate, and based on scientific evidence assessed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The EU Register of Nutrition and Health Claims is the public, searchable record of what's actually allowed.
The three categories that matter
- Authorised claims: those on the approved list under Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012, covering specific, EFSA-reviewed statements tied to particular nutrients, vitamins, minerals, or substances — any business can use these if their product meets the stated conditions
- Rejected claims: claims EFSA evaluated and found insufficiently supported by evidence — these cannot legally be used, regardless of how the wording is phrased
- On-hold claims: a specific, large category of claims relating to botanical substances that remain neither authorised nor rejected, still awaiting final evaluation
Why so many botanical claims are stuck "on hold"
A significant number of health claims for botanical substances have been placed on hold, not because the science was found lacking, but because of an unresolved conflict between the Health Claims Regulation and the EU's Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive — two different frameworks that both touch on plant-based products, without full agreement yet on how their scope divides. Practically, this means a botanical can have a long tradition of use and real supporting research, and its health claim can still be legally unusable, simply because the underlying policy question about which framework applies hasn't been resolved.
What businesses can say instead
Regulation 907/2013 allows "generic descriptors" — names like "digestive biscuit" or "cough drop" — to continue being used even though they might otherwise be interpreted as implying a health claim, provided the business applies for and receives a specific exemption. Outside of authorised claims and generic descriptor exemptions, a food or supplement generally has to describe itself in genuinely neutral terms, without implying a health benefit that hasn't been formally authorised.
How to check a specific product's claims yourself
- Search the exact claim wording (or close variant) in the EU Register of Nutrition and Health Claims.
- If it appears as authorised, check that the product actually meets the conditions of use tied to that claim (often a minimum nutrient content or dosage).
- If it doesn't appear at all, or appears as rejected, treat the claim as currently unauthorised — regardless of how plausible or well-referenced it sounds in the product's own marketing.
- Remember that "on-hold" status for a botanical claim means genuinely undecided, not secretly approved or secretly rejected.
What this means practically
- A claim not appearing in the EU Register is not automatically evidence the ingredient doesn't work — it may reflect an unresolved regulatory question, especially for botanicals.
- An authorised claim always comes with specific conditions of use (dose, nutrient content) — check the product actually meets them, not just that the claim category exists.
- A rejected claim is a much stronger signal than an on-hold one — rejection reflects an actual unfavorable evaluation, not just a pending backlog.
- Generic descriptors like "digestive biscuit" are a narrow, specific exemption — they don't open the door to other implied health claims.
Sources
- European Commission — EU Register of Nutrition and Health Claims: food.ec.europa.eu
- USDA-EU — Overview of on-hold botanical claims and the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive conflict: usda-eu.org
Related Kibbo Tools
- Official Health Claim Database — check whether a specific claim is authorised, rejected, or on hold.
- Supplement Claim & Marketing Red Flags Checklist — spot claims that go beyond what's actually authorised.