That’s What You Claim

The origin story of the Angry Chef lies within my work for large food manufacturers. For most of my career, health has been the biggest trend in food, and a lot of my working life has been spent trying to make food products a little bit healthier. This generally involves removing salt, sugar, fat, and calories from recipes, or by trying to add ingredients such as fruit, vegetables, and fibre. As a chef, it is my job to ensure that the resulting products are still delicious, because a healthy food that no one eats is not healthy at all.

As a result, I have a fair working knowledge of what is and isn’t allowed as a health claim on a food product. The rules are generally quite clear, and the companies I have worked for have always had highly zealous regulatory teams, insistent that we remained within the letter and spirit of the law. 

So, when a generation of Clean Eating Instagram gurus sprung up in the mid 2010s, I started my funny little blog, cartoonishly ranting about the many spurious health claims being made for recipes, diets and ingredients. The initial intended audience was a few like-minded food industry friends and colleagues, but it somehow became popular, and the Angry Chef was born.

Although there is a lot of money to be made claiming that foods have miracle health properties, when you know a bit about the regulations, it is hardly surprising that influencers tend to focus on books and blogs, rather than manufactured food products. Recipes, diet plans and magazine articles have virtually nothing to govern the health claims being made, other than the integrity of author and publisher (two words – Belle Gibson). But packaged retail food is strictly regulated, so it is hardly surprising that virtually none of the popular health gurus I have burned over the years, Deliciously Ella being a notable exception, have made the shift into manufactured products. If they did, they would find that the complex regulations, restrictions, and laws that govern on pack health claims, would frequently get in the way of their business model.

Firstly, you are not allowed to make any health claims related to weight loss on a manufactured food product, which would rule out many of the online gurus I have covered over the years. Secondly, it not legal to reference any individual doctors or health professionals, so Malhotra would instantly be in trouble should he choose to launch his keto bullshit quackery range of Pioppi-flavoured jerk cauliflower pizzas. And thirdly, no food product can claim to be a cure or a treatment for a specific medical condition, which would put everyone else I have written about on the wrong side of the law should they decide to launch a food product. The Ivor Cummin’s range of beef dripping based cardiovascular treatments – illegal. Zoe Harcombe’s lamb’s liver and pig entrail blood pressure control bars – call the cops. The Hemsleys’ ayurvedic ready meals for depression – Jasmin and Melisa would be looking at a 5 stretch. 

It gets worse for wannabe bullshit food entrepreneurs. Claims must not be ambiguous or misleading, must not encourage excess consumption, and can never imply that the product being sold provides nutritional benefits beyond those attainable from a healthy, balanced diet. These rules do not just apply to claims made on packaging, they also cover any commercial communication about the product, including advertising and social media posts. You can see why the average health and diet guru would get in deep legal shit if they ever moved into the big bad world of manufactured foods, and why reputable producers rarely touch online health influencers with a bargepole, despite their undoubted reach and power. 

There are two types of claims that can legally be made on food products, ‘nutrition claims’ and ‘health claims’. Nutrition claims are straightforward, related to the amount of certain nutrients in a product. They include wording regularly seen on packs of manufactured foods such as ‘high fibre’, ‘low salt’, ‘low fat’, ‘source of protein’ etc. There are strict cut off levels regarding the amount of the nutrient referred to that must be met to make such a claim. This sort of wording is thought to be quite compelling for certain consumers, and manufactured products are often designed with these levels in mind.

There are also several allowable ‘health claims’ that can be made, dependent upon the presence of a particular ingredient or nutrient in sufficient quantity. Around 350 of these are listed for use within the UK, including such things as ‘helps build strong bones’ (Calcium) and ‘proven to lower blood cholesterol’ (plant stanols).

Many of the allowable health claims are not ideal from a marketing perspective. Although increasing fibre in people’s diets probably contributes positively to many areas of health, the allowable claims on most types of dietary fibre are limited to ‘increases fecal bulking’ or ‘improves intestinal transit’, which is not what most people want to see on their food packaging.

There are several more compelling health claims when it comes to micronutrients, including most of the essential vitamins, and minerals such as Zinc, Iron, Calcium, Selenium and Magnesium. These include claims related to cognitive function, bone development, immune system support and fatigue, many of which are a marketer’s dream. This has always felt troubling to me, because those claims are only applicable when preventing a deficiency of the specific mineral or vitamin, which should not be the case if you are eating a healthy, balanced diet. If a product says that it can reduce fatigue on the packaging, consumers might reasonably assume that it will give you extra energy. But the reality is that it can only reduce fatigue caused by a deficiency of that specific vitamin, which feels hugely misleading. As a result, I would never involve myself in a project or with a brand that pursues this sort of health claim (a lot easier now that I am freelance). 

This grey area gets even murkier for certain types of products. Many probiotic drinks and supplements sell themselves as health promoting, but there are no health claims for probiotic bacteria allowed in the UK or Europe, despite many millions being spent on research attempting to prove benefits exist. The ASA even advise caution over the use of the term ‘probiotic’ in advertising, which they feel is generally associated with health, and so misleading for these sorts of products.

This has long been an issue for probiotic brands, as they cannot legally make health claims for their bacteria on packaging or advertising. Instead, many manufacturers fortify their products with vitamins and minerals, so allowing specific vitamin related health claims for cognitive function, fatigue, immunity and the like. In my opinion, this is weasel wording that misleads consumers, who will naturally assume the health claims listed are related to the magic bacteria, when the reality is nothing of the sort. I would challenge any brand claiming that this is not the case to prove it in surveys or focus groups, where consumers are asked about where the listed immune system and fatigue reduction benefits of probiotic products are coming from. The whole good bacteria thing, supporting a multi-billion-dollar global industry, does not have evidence to support legally allowable claims, and many companies have an interest in consumers not finding that out.

Several other businesses follow this disingenuous model. Manufacturers of superfood smoothies fortify them with artificially manufactured vitamins, allowing on-pack claims that consumers wrongly attribute to the seemingly magical berries. Health claims are attached to countless wellness drinks and magical elixirs, only made legal by the addition of mass-produced vitamin mixes. Ironically, once these vitamin and mineral blends are added, the resulting products can no longer claim to be made from ‘All Natural Ingredients’, because different legislation prevents the chemically modified vitamins from being classified as ‘natural’.

Of course, many other food products are sold or advertised in even more disingenuous ways, either lying, ignoring legislation, or just being ignorant of the rules. Walking around any health food shop, or even major supermarket, it is easy to spot dozens of infringements. Leading herbal tea brands claim that they can help you sleep, detox your system, or boost immunity. Fermented foods declare countless wild, yet completely unproven benefits. A million products loudly promote weight loss benefits, often due to laxative properties. Turmeric supplements and green tea extracts wang on about their anti-inflammatory and immune boosting properties, without understanding how oxymoronic they are being. And that’s on the high street. It’s a million times worse when we look at products on-line. 

If you are wondering how they get away with it, it’s because there is simply not enough resource to pursue all such cases, and there is too much money to be made misleading consumers. And in a world where spurious food related health claims can be made in books, blogs, newspapers and on social media without the slightest challenge, it is hardly surprising so many smaller manufacturers are getting away with it. 

With such a limited framework for enforcement, a lot depends on the honesty and integrity of manufacturers. Larger companies rarely want to upset the authorities, who can easily make their life difficult, so tend to stick to the rules. There are also, perhaps surprisingly, an awful lot of people in large companies whose job it is to care about such things, although a cynic might suggest that is because the big players want a level playing field. But there are a lot of people like me within the industry, who genuinely despise seeing consumers lied to or misled. If you dedicate your life to working with food, you probably think it is important. And when you see lies being told, it can provoke a strong reaction.

In my perfect world, it would not be possible for anyone, anywhere, to make a health claim related to food, legal or otherwise. Some consumers find nutrition claims useful, for instance if they want to avoid high fat foods or reduce salt consumption, and a clear signpost can help. But specific health claims always seem more trouble than they are worth. Eating patterns, not individual foods define dietary health. If we consumed food for pleasure alone, and just tried to eat a wide variety of different things, I am sure we would be much better off. 

I guess that is a nirvana we shall never reach, as the desire to frame individual foods as possessing magical properties is too strong and too lucrative. But at least there is a vaguely sensible framework in place for manufactured foods, that largely prevents outright deception. It would be even better if we tightened the loopholes, had harsher judgements as to what constitutes misleading, and clamped down on those that game the system. Because even with the rules as they are, too many people are being deceived, and no good can come from that.