You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

November 12, 2012

Food Health Claims: Challenges for ASEAN Manufacturers

Informed Counsel

Within the food industry, all eyes are currently turned toward the European Union, because after December 14, 2012, new limitations will be introduced for acceptable health claims on food products.

Regulation No. 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 20, 2006, on Nutrition and Health Claims Made on Foods (the Regulation) has changed the scope of the interpretation of health claims in the European Union. Initially, each country was entitled to have its own set of acceptable claims, but growing inconsistencies between countries made it difficult for manufacturers to sell their products.

European Regulation

In an attempt to harmonize the rules, the Regulation was adopted. It defined health claims as “any claim that states, suggests, or implies that a relationship exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and health” (Article 2 Definition 5). Such claims should not:

  • “Be false, ambiguous, or misleading.
  • Give rise to doubt about the safety and/or the nutritional adequacy of other foods.
  • Encourage or condone excess consumption of food.
  • State, suggest, or imply that a balanced and varied diet cannot provide the appropriate quantities of nutrients in general. . . .
  • Refer to changes in bodily functions which could give rise to or exploit fear in the consumer . . .”

As these restrictions are common in most countries in the world, they are not the reason why companies have raised concerns about this Regulation. The key issue is that the Regulation has provided specific conditions with regard to health claims applicable to products launched in Europe. For example, health claims will only be permitted if certain information is included in the labeling, presentation, or advertising, such as “a statement indicating the importance of a varied and balanced diet and healthy lifestyle” or “the quantity of the food and pattern of consumption required to obtain the claimed beneficial effect.”

The Regulation has set up a process by which companies are able to submit their proposed health claims for approval by the Commission. However, companies must submit generally accepted scientific evidence and ensure that the claim can be well understood by the average consumer. Of the 44,000 claims submitted, only 222 had been approved as of May 2012 according to Commission Regulation No. 432/2012, which established a list of permitted health claims made on foods, except for those claims referring to the reduction of disease or disease risk and to children’s development and health.

Surprisingly, some claims that were widely used in the past and approved by several national health agencies have been rejected, such as claims regarding prebiotics and probiotics products. The arguments raised by the Commission were that the scientific evidence provided by the submitting companies was not sufficient for this type of product. The main industries affected are currently raising their concerns with the Commission.

ASEAN Perspective

For companies set up within ASEAN, implementation of the Regulation will have a significant impact. Although most countries follow Codex Alimentarius and its Guidelines for use of Nutrition and Health Claims, discrepancies still exist between member countries as ASEAN has not yet implemented harmonized legislation on this particular topic. For example, a Malaysian company planning to sell its products in Thailand, Singapore, and the EU would face three different sets of requirements as some countries have even implemented a positive list of nutrition function claims. In another example, Thailand would not accept other function claims, contrary to Malaysia and Singapore, while the Singaporean authorities would authorize a disease risk reduction claim which would not be admissible in Malaysia or in Thailand.

Focusing on the examples of Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore helps to highlight the differences among the interpretations of health claims in ASEAN, and thus the difficulties encountered by ASEAN companies to sell their products both within the region and overseas.

Thailand Experience

In Thailand, health claims are not described as clearly in legal terms compared to the EU, and interpretation is generally on a case-by-case basis. Section 40 of the Food Act refers indirectly to heath claims and states that “no one shall advertise the benefits, qualities, or efficacies of foods which are false or which are misleading, without getting prior approval from the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA).” The Notices of the FDA regarding “Bases on Food Advertisement” provide the requirements for food advertisements and for some specific food categories. However, only nutrition claims have specific acceptable guidelines in place set up by the Thai FDA (Notification of the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) No. 182 of 1998 re: Nutrition Labeling).

An order of the Thai FDA No. 403/2551 (2008), “Consideration for Granting Permission to Make Health Claims for Probiotics in Food Products,” states that health claims are authorized for such products if they are backed with scientific evidence sufficient for the permission to use these types of claims. For other products, such as weight control products and other products falling into the Specially Controlled Food category, the process is similar, but might be more cumbersome.

Additionally, the first regulation specially targeting health claims has recently been implemented, and health claims for probiotics were clarified in the Notification of the MoPH regarding “Use of Probiotics in Food” dated June 27, 2011. A health claim means “a displaying of a picture, photograph, invented mark, mark, trademark, or any statement on the label which is related to the food, food components, or nutrients concerned with health, either directly or indirectly.”

Thus, it is interesting to observe that Thailand currently has, in practice, a recognized, strict approach toward health claims on food products. But contrary to the EU, Thailand still accepts most health claims for probiotic products if they are supported by scientific journals. Although a draft of the Notification on the Advertisement of Food will soon be published in the Government Gazette, there does not yet seem to be a move toward narrowing the types of claims  acceptable for food products. A notification regarding “Health Claims and Warnings” and an announcement regarding “Scientific Substantiation of Health Claims” are also in the early stages of the drafting process.

Malaysia Experience

The Malaysian Food Act of 1983, supported by the Food Regulation of 1985, amended in 2005 to encompass health and nutrition claims, is the main source of legislation in Malaysia covering health claims. Within ASEAN, Malaysia is the only country that makes nutrition labeling a requirement. A Guide to Nutrition Labeling and Claims has also been issued to assist companies in their advertisement process in Malaysia. Malaysia follows the Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for Use of Nutrition and Health Claims more closely than many other countries.

As in most ASEAN countries, nutrient claims and, more specifically, content claims, comparative claims, and nutrient function claims, are acceptable. There are no specific regulations on prebiotics and probiotics in Malaysia. Ingredients are permitted for use in health supplements and conventional food, but approval is required beforehand. Thus, prebiotics and probiotics claims are acceptable if such claims fall into the authorized claims by the Ministry of Health (e.g., “Bifidobacteria lactis helps foster a beneficial intestinal environment and may help to reduce the incidence of diarrhea”). The requirements for submitting a claim involve submitting sufficient scientific evidence (which includes five clinical trial approvals from other recognized countries), as well as ensuring that the claim is comprehensible for consumers.

Singapore Experience

The Singapore Food Regulations, supported by the Guide to Food Labeling and Advertisements, implement the scope of acceptability of health claims in Singapore. Under article 9 of the Food Regulations, false or misleading statements, words, brands, pictures, or marks purporting to indicate the nature, stability, quantity, strength, purity, composition, weight, origin, age, effects, or proportion of the food or any ingredients are not allowed to be used on food labels and advertisements, unless otherwise specified. Singapore also prohibits the use of:

  • Claims for therapeutic or prophylactic action.
  • Claims which could be interpreted as advice of a medical nature from any person.
  • Claims that a food will prevent, alleviate, or cure any disease or condition affecting the human body.
  • Claims that health or an improved physical condition may be achieved by consuming any food.

One particularity of Singapore is that risk-related claims are acceptable; similarly, in the EU, a list of acceptable nutrient function claims has been implemented. In order to obtain approval, a company would have to establish, among other requirements, that essential nutrients with established recommended intakes are of nutritional importance, and that the claim is sufficiently generally accepted by the scientific community and is understandable to consumers.

The Guide to Food Labeling and Advertisements also includes the acceptability of the claim, “prebiotics promote the growth of good Bifidus bacteria to help maintain a healthy digestive system.” Thus, like in Thailand, claims on probiotics and prebiotics are acceptable. Companies can also state that a product “helps to suppress/fight against harmful bacteria in the digestive system, thereby helping to maintain a healthy digestive system.”

Future Expectations

Clearly, ASEAN companies are faced with a challenge if each country in which they are planning to sell their products requires different analysis and/or proof of their claims.

The Codex Alimentarius (prepared jointly by the United Nations and the World Health Organization) and the World Trade Organization, among others, are working toward harmonizing the rules. ASEAN countries have prepared a set of guiding principles for food control systems, which include the Common Guidelines for the Labeling of Prepackaged Foodstuffs.

Another step toward harmonization was taken recently. In early September 2012, the ASEAN countries announced that they have agreed in principle to impose uniform standards in regard to health claims. The objective is to implement these regulations by 2015, but a draft is not yet available.

As these regulations begin to develop, companies in the food industry should approach the relevant government agencies and try to participate in the drafting of the new standards. One of the significant points of discussion will be to ensure the complete harmonization of claims for prebiotics and probiotics products. It is important for the industry to learn the lessons of the EU Regulation and to work closely with regulators to ensure that the harmonized rules have a reasonable degree of continuity with the currently accepted interpretations.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of