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​ 

August 10, 2026
On June 17, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026 on Nutritional Information on Processed Food Labels. The new regulation, which revokes three previous nutrition labeling regulations, introduces several notable changes affecting food and beverage manufacturers, importers, and distributors. These changes range from updated nutrient reference values and serving-size requirements to the introduction of the Nutri-Level front-of-pack labeling system for certain beverage products. Businesses operating in Indonesia should carefully review these developments and assess their products’ compliance with the new requirements during the transition period. Implementation of the Nutri-Level Labeling System To implement the recently issued decree on Nutri-Level labeling, BPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026 stipulates the requirements to implement the Nutri-Level labeling system on the front-of-pack. Under the new framework, ready-to-drink beverages, powdered beverages, and liquid or solid concentrates are required to display Nutri-Level labeling on the front label of their packaging. The Nutri-Level labeling system classifies products into color-coded levels A through D based on their sugar, sodium, and total fat content. The applicable Nutri-Level is determined based on the lowest level measured in the assessment of sugar, sodium, and total fat content. For products classified as level C or D, the Nutri-Level label must be accompanied by information on the relevant sugar, sodium, and total fat content per 100 ml of the ready-to-consume product. Products classified as level A or B may either display only the Nutri-Level designation or display the Nutri-Level together with the relevant nutritional information per 100 ml. Minimum Vitamin and Mineral Content Required for Declaration BPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026 introduces a stricter threshold for the declaration of vitamins and minerals in the nutritional value information section (ING). Vitamins or minerals may only be declared if they are present at a
August 10, 2026
The drug registration process in Vietnam will be simplified, particularly for foreign applicants, following the recent issuance by Vietnam’s Ministry of Health (MOH) of a new circular that is expected to reduce administrative hurdles. Circular No. 32/2026/TT-BYT on the registration of drugs and medicinal ingredients (Circular 32) was issued on July 29, 2026, and will take effect on October 1, 2026, replacing Circular No. 12/2025/TT-BYT. Key provisions of the new circular are discussed below. Five-Year Data Exclusivity and Five-Month Public Disclosure Framework Circular 32 updates data protection guidelines by explicitly referencing Article 128 of the amended Intellectual Property Law, which sets out that new drugs supported by clinical trial data submitted for the first time will be granted a five-year data exclusivity period from the date of the initial marketing authorization (MA) approval. Subsequent applications that rely on the originator’s protected data will not be eligible for approval from the date of submission of the originator’s registration dossier until five years after the first MA is granted. Furthermore, in accordance with the new regulations, the regulatory authority must publicly disclose information on subsequent applications five months before the granting of MA, providing originator companies with an opportunity to exercise and enforce their intellectual property rights. Simplified Requirements for Foreign Legal Documents Circular 32 expands the circumstances under which legal documents issued by foreign authorities are exempt from consular legalization and authenticity verification requirements. Specifically, such documents may be exempt if the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV) is able to verify their authenticity directly through official electronic means, including written confirmation or email correspondence sent directly to the MOH by the competent foreign authority, or publicly accessible English-language databases maintained by recognized foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, the new circular permits the submission of electronic notarized copies of legal documents
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
July 24, 2026
For businesses in Thailand’s regulated industries, the problem of “too many licenses” is one of the most familiar hurdles to getting a product to market. Take a simple example: importing the materials necessary to sell teriyaki chicken skewers. To legally do this, a business may need approvals from several different agencies—separate permits for the chicken (Department of Livestock Development), the dipping sauce (Thai FDA), the wooden skewers (Department of Forestry), and other ingredients, each under a different authority. This kind of overlap is often cited to argue for a “regulatory guillotine”—a systematic review to cut outdated or duplicative rules that slow investment and business activity. The Facilitation of Licensing and Public Service Consideration Act B.E. 2569 (2026) (Licensing Facilitation Act 2026) is Thailand’s most significant response yet to that concern. This article looks at the Facilitation Act 2026 through a life sciences and regulatory affairs lens—what it may mean for the manufacturers, importers, and distributors of food, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and similar products who routinely deal with several regulators to bring a single product to market. The Super License: One Approval Standing in for Many The reform with the clearest potential for regulated-product businesses is the law’s “super license” mechanism, referred to as a “main license” in the statute. Once a business obtains the main license for a regulated activity, it is automatically deemed to hold all related sublicenses issued by other agencies for that same activity, provided the activity has been designated as eligible in the Government Gazette. The Licensing Facilitation Act 2026 also creates a central application center, allowing applicants to submit a single application and pay all relevant fees at one point of contact, with the center routing the application to each agency through a shared information system. The potential benefits of this for businesses