What we can, and cannot, claim in the EU.

01  The rulebook

The EU framework, in plain words.

In the EU, a health claim is any statement that says, suggests, or implies a relationship between a food (or one of its ingredients) and health. That is broad on purpose. "Supports focus", "for energy", "calms stress", "boosts immunity", a brain icon next to an ingredient, even a chart implying a benefit, all of these are health claims.

Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 is the controlling law. Its core rule is simple and strict: a health claim may only be used if it is on the EFSA register of authorised claims. If a claim is not authorised, it cannot be used. There is no general "we believe it works" exception, and there is no US-style "these statements have not been evaluated" disclaimer that unlocks an unapproved claim. The default is no, unless the exact relationship has been assessed and approved.

Two further pillars matter for our formula:

• Botanicals and fungi are mostly stuck "on hold." Around 2,000 claims for plants and fungi were submitted, then frozen by the Commission in 2010 to 2012 pending EFSA assessment. They have sat there ever since. These "on-hold" claims were, for years, tolerated under transitional arrangements, which is how a lot of the supplement market kept using soft botanical claims.
• The 30 April 2025 CJEU ruling tightened this hard. The Court of Justice of the EU held that you may not advertise a food with a health claim about a botanical until the Commission has actually authorised it. In practice this removes the comfort the "on-hold" grey area used to give. For us, that means the mushroom and adaptogen claims (Lion's Mane, Cordyceps, Chaga, Rhodiola, propolis) should be treated as not usable, not as "on hold and probably fine."

So our working position is conservative: a claim is usable only if there is a specific authorised EFSA claim, at the required dose, for an ingredient we actually contain at that dose. Everything else is off-limits as a health claim, however true we believe it to be.

02  Ingredient by ingredient

Per-active claim status.

For each of the 11 actives: is there any authorised EU health claim we could use, and if not, what is the safe way to talk about it. Read the pills as Claimable (an authorised claim exists and may be usable, usually with conditions), Conditional (only via a different route or a specific dose), and Not claimable (no authorised health claim, so no health benefit may be stated or implied).

03  The one real unlock

What we can actually say: the niacin / B3 unlock.

This is the most useful page in the document, because it is the one place the answer turns from "no" to "yes." Daylight contains nicotinamide, delivered as the NAD+ precursor nicotinamide riboside (NR), 300mg per serving. Nicotinamide is a recognised form of niacin (vitamin B3). Niacin is a vitamin, and unlike the mushrooms and adaptogens, vitamins have a full set of authorised EFSA health claims with fixed, legal wordings. So if the niacin in our serving clears the dose threshold, a real family of benefit claims opens up to us, the energy, fatigue, focus-adjacent and skin language we otherwise could not touch.

The five (really six) authorised niacin claims, exact wording.

These are the permitted wordings from Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 (the legally binding list of authorised claims). They must be used essentially verbatim, or in wording with the same meaning for the consumer. They are reproduced here exactly:

The condition of use: the dose has to qualify.

An authorised vitamin claim can only be used if the product contains a significant amount of that vitamin, the same threshold that lets you call a food a "source of" it. For vitamins that threshold is at least 15% of the Nutrient Reference Value (NRV) per serving / daily portion. For niacin the EU NRV is 16 mg, so the bar is:

The exact condition-of-use sentence attached to each claim in Regulation 432/2012 is: "The claim may be used only for food which is at least a source of niacin as referred to in the claim SOURCE OF [NAME OF VITAMIN/S] AND/OR [NAME OF MINERAL/S] as listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006." In plain terms: be a source of niacin (>=2.4 mg per portion), and you may make the claim.

Do we clear it? Almost certainly yes, but it must be verified and declared.

We deliver 300 mg of nicotinamide riboside per serving (confirmed in products.json and TH_PRODUCTS.md). Nicotinamide riboside is a high-molarity form of vitamin B3, so even after accounting for the molecular weight of the riboside, the niacin-equivalent content of 300 mg NR is far above the 2.4 mg bar, by a wide margin, not a close call. On dose alone, we clear it comfortably.

What this unlocks for the copy, concretely.

• Energy, the legal way. "Niacin (vitamin B3) contributes to normal energy-yielding metabolism." This is the compliant substitute for the "energy" angle we lose by having no added caffeine, sourced from a vitamin, framed as the body's own metabolism.
• Tiredness and fatigue. "With niacin (vitamin B3), which contributes to the reduction of tiredness and fatigue." Tailor-made for a morning product.
• A mind / focus-adjacent line. "Niacin contributes to normal psychological function" and "...to the normal functioning of the nervous system." These are not the word "focus", but they are the authorised, on-strategy stand-ins for the mind half of "calm body, sharp mind."
• Skin, without collagen. "Niacin contributes to the maintenance of normal skin", a real beauty-adjacent claim our collagen cannot legally make.

04  The question we keep asking

The MUD\WTR question: can we cite a study to support an energy or focus claim?

MUD\WTR, and most US functional-drink brands, freely say things like "for focus and sustained energy" and back them with cited studies, then carry a small disclaimer. The instinct is to copy that: surely if we link to the research, we can say Lion's Mane supports focus. In the EU, no.

Here is the key point, and it is the one most likely to trip us up: in the EU, citing a study to imply a benefit is still making a health claim. The law does not care whether you said the benefit directly, implied it with an icon, or "supported" it with a footnote to a clinical paper. If a reasonable consumer comes away believing the ingredient does something for their health, that is a health claim, and it must be on the EFSA authorised list. A citation does not turn an unauthorised claim into a legal one. It just documents that you made it.

Why MUD\WTR can and we cannot: the US runs under FDA rules, where "structure/function" claims are allowed for supplements as long as you carry the "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA..." disclaimer. That disclaimer is a real, legal mechanism in the US. It has no equivalent in the EU. There is no sentence we can add at the bottom of the page that unlocks "supports focus." So a US competitor's product page is not a safe template for our EU claims, even though it is an excellent template for layout and flow (which is why we still model our page structure on it).

05  The safe ground

What we can safely say.

The good news: the rules restrict health claims, not the whole story. A large amount of what makes our brand compelling is not a health claim at all and is fully usable. The safe lanes are:

• Authorised claims only, where they apply. The niacin / vitamin B3 claims via NR (energy metabolism, tiredness/fatigue, nervous-system and psychological function, skin, if the niacin dose qualifies and niacin is declared, see the niacin unlock), and the cacao-flavanol vasodilation claim (if we deliver 200mg flavanols, exact wording). These are the two health-claim routes, and both need an advisor to confirm dose and wording.
• Factual / educational ingredient descriptions, carefully. Describing what an ingredient is ("nicotinamide riboside is a form of vitamin B3"; "cacao is a polyphenol-rich bean") is lower-risk than a benefit claim. But be careful: in the EU, describing an ingredient's role in a way that implies a non-authorised benefit (the LifeSeeds line "NAD+ is essential for cellular energy production and DNA repair") can still be treated as an implied health claim. Purely factual, non-benefit descriptions are the safer lane; the safest path of all is to pair a factual description with one of our authorised wordings (niacin or cacao flavanols) rather than with an implied effect. When in doubt, describe composition, not consequence.
• Factual composition. Stating what is in it and how much is not a health claim. "11 actives. Full clinical-gram doses. 1000mg Lion's Mane, 1000mg Cordyceps, 1000mg Chaga, 200mg Rhodiola, 200mg L-Theanine, 3000mg collagen." Naming ingredients and quantities is allowed and is one of our strongest stories.
• Sensory, ritual and lifestyle language. Taste, texture, the moment, the habit. "Tastes like rich hot chocolate." "Your calm morning ritual." "Find your flow." "The cup you reach for instead of coffee." None of these assert a health effect, so they are safe, as long as we do not smuggle a benefit in (see the avoid column).
• Provenance. "Developed in Sweden." Origin and the founder story are fully usable. (Note the brand rule: "Developed in", not "Made in".)
• Quality and process. "Third-party tested." "Eurofins lab-tested." "Same formula every batch, lot-coded." "Dual-extracted." These describe the product and its testing, not a health outcome, so they are safe.
• No added caffeine as a fact. "No added caffeine" is the accurate composition line. Do NOT say "caffeine-free" or "zero caffeine" — cacao carries a trace, so those are inaccurate. We just cannot pair them with an implied benefit like "so no crash" if "no crash" reads as a health claim; keep it factual ("no caffeine") or frame the contrast as experience, not health.
• Comparison on facts. "Same 10:1 extract, ten times the dose" compares quantities, which is factual. Comparing measurable composition is safe; comparing health outcomes is not.

06  Concrete wording

Safe phrasing vs phrasing to avoid.

Side by side, so copywriters have a reference. The left column is usable today (subject to the two authorised-claim doses being confirmed). The right column should not appear anywhere on the EU site, ads, packaging, or email.

Note: many of these forbidden phrases come straight from our own avatar hooks (Fredrik's "moved the needle on HRV", Margareta's "brain fog your doctor won't mention", Sofia's "doesn't mess with your cycle"). Those work as ad-targeting insight and tone, but the literal benefit wording cannot appear in EU-facing copy. The customer truth is fine; the claim is not.

07  Required statements

Mandatory food-supplement disclaimers.

Separate from claims, Directive 2002/46/EC sets out statements a food supplement must carry. These are mandatory on the label and should be reflected on the site where the product is sold. An advisor will confirm exact local-language wording per market, but the required elements are:

Two more practical points: a food supplement label/site cannot state or imply that a balanced diet cannot provide adequate nutrients, and it cannot carry any claim attributing the prevention, treatment, or cure of a disease (that would make it an unlicensed medicine). Allergen and ingredient declaration, net quantity, and storage are standard food-law requirements on top of the above.

08  For Joakim and Nina

Bottom line.