Walk through any supermarket today, and the front of a food pack is doing a lot of talking. “High Protein.” “Rich in Fiber.” “No Added Sugar.” “100% Natural.” “Immunity Boosting.” “Good for Gut Health.” “Made with Real Ingredients.”
These are no longer just marketing lines. For many consumers, they have become shortcuts for deciding what to put in the shopping basket. And that is where the problem begins.
A claim that takes two seconds to read can take much longer to substantiate. I have seen this change closely over the years. Food businesses today are far more conscious of what consumers want. They know that protein, clean ingredients, natural products, low sugar, and functional benefits influence buying decisions. The pressure to communicate these benefits clearly is understandable.
But the front of a pack is not a place where a business gets unlimited creative freedom. Every claim creates a question behind it: What exactly are you claiming? What is the basis for saying it? Does the product meet the applicable requirements? Can you substantiate it consistently?
That is where marketing and compliance meet. And increasingly, they are meeting much earlier in the product-development process. The claim is small but responsibility is not.
Take high protein, It sounds simple. But high compared to what? How much protein does the product actually contain? Is the claim being made in a way that meets the applicable regulatory requirements? Does the declared nutritional information support what the front of the pack is communicating?
The same applies to “no added sugar.” A consumer may read that as “this product does not contain sugar.” A food business may mean something much narrower: that sugars were not added during formulation. Those are two very different interpretations.
This is why I believe food businesses need to stop looking at claims as a marketing finishing touch. A claim should be treated as part of the product itself.
Before the packaging designer puts a phrase on the front, someone in the business should already be asking: Can we prove this?
The natural problem- “Natural” is an even more interesting example because it is one of the most powerful words in food marketing. Consumers instinctively attach a meaning to it. Natural sounds simple, wholesome, and trustworthy. But food manufacturing is rarely simple.
Ingredients are sourced through multiple suppliers. Processing methods vary. Flavours, colours, additives, and other components may be involved. Formulations change. Vendors change. So when a business puts “100% natural” on a pack, it is not making a statement about one ingredient sitting in isolation. It is making a statement about the product.
That means the business needs to understand exactly what that statement means, whether it is permitted in the context in which it is being used, and whether its supply chain and formulation records can support it.
The uncomfortable question is this: If a regulator, retailer, or consumer asks, “Show me why you made this claim,” can the business answer immediately?
If the answer is no, the claim is already a risk. Marketing moves fast compliance usually cannot. This is where businesses can get caught.
A marketing team may identify a consumer trend on Monday. A new formulation may be developed over the next few weeks. Packaging gets designed, a launch date is fixed, and somewhere along the way, compliance is asked to review the final artwork.
That is too late. By then, the claim may already be built into the product positioning, packaging, advertising, and sales strategy. Changing it becomes difficult because the business is no longer changing just a sentence. It may be changing the entire commercial proposition.
Food businesses need to bring regulatory and technical teams into the conversation much earlier. Not to slow marketing down, but to prevent marketing from having to slow down later.
The bigger risk is inconsistency. There is another issue that does not get enough attention. A claim may be correct when a product is launched and become difficult to defend later.
Suppliers change. Raw materials change. Formulations are adjusted. Nutritional values can vary. Production processes evolve. Yet the packaging often remains unchanged.
This is why claim substantiation cannot be a one-time exercise. If a company claims that a product is “high protein”, it should know where that protein is coming from and how consistently the product delivers the stated nutritional profile. If it says “100% natural”, the business should know what happens across its ingredient and processing chain. If it says “no added sugar”, the formulation and ingredient records should support that statement.
The claim printed on the pack should have a trail behind it. Consumers are becoming better at questioning labels. There is a positive side to all this. Consumers are no longer looking only at price and taste. They are asking more questions.
Where did this ingredient come from? How much protein is actually in this? What does “natural” mean here? Is “no added sugar” the same as sugar-free? What exactly does “gut health” mean?
That scrutiny is healthy for the industry. But it also means businesses cannot rely on attractive language alone.
A claim that once sounded impressive may now invite a second question. And that second question needs an answer.
The real test happens before the label reaches the shelf. I do not think the answer is to make food packaging dull or eliminate every consumer-friendly claim. Food businesses should be able to communicate genuine product benefits. But the discipline has to change.
Instead of asking, “What claim will help us sell this product?” businesses should also ask, “What claim can we defend?”
That means checking claims during formulation, reviewing ingredient specifications, verifying nutritional values, assessing supplier documentation, reviewing applicable regulatory requirements and, where necessary, testing the product to establish that what is being communicated is actually reflected in what is being sold.
The strongest claim is not necessarily the loudest one on the packet. It is the one that can withstand scrutiny because today, food compliance is no longer confined to the factory floor or the inspection room. It is also sitting in bold letters on the front of the pack and every word there carries a responsibility.
(The author is CEO at Equinox Labs)