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​ 

May 11, 2026
Vietnam’s legal framework governing chemicals has undergone significant reform, with the Law on Chemicals No. 69/2025/QH15 (Law on Chemicals 2025) taking effect on January 1, 2026. Together with a comprehensive set of implementing instruments issued in January 2026, including three decrees (No. 24/2026/ND‑CP, No. 25/2026/ND‑CP, and No. 26/2026/ND‑CP) and two circulars (No. 01/2026/TT‑BCT and No. 02/2026/TT‑BCT), the Law on Chemicals 2025 has significantly reshaped chemical registration and management requirements. Determining What Constitutes a “New Chemical” Among the most notable changes introduced under the Law on Chemicals 2025 are the rules governing the registration and management of new chemicals, which must be registered with the authority before being placed on the Vietnam market. Although the concept of new chemical registration was first introduced under the Law on Chemicals 2007, the corresponding registration mechanism has remained largely dormant in practice. Under the Law on Chemicals 2025, a “new chemical” is defined as a substance that is not yet included in Vietnam’s National Chemical Inventory and the list of foreign chemical inventories recognized by the competent Vietnamese authority (List of Foreign Chemicals). On a literal reading, the definition in the new law may suggest that a substance qualifies as a new chemical only if it is absent from both lists. Accordingly, a chemical present in either list should be treated as an existing chemical without the registration burden. However, a different interpretation emerges from Decree 26, which specifically requires registration of “new chemicals” even where such substances already appear in the List of Foreign Chemicals. This implies that inclusion in a recognized foreign inventory does not automatically exempt a substance from new chemical registration in Vietnam. This inconsistency between the statutory definition in the Law on Chemicals 2025 and the implementing provisions of Decree 26 creates significant interpretative and compliance challenges. At
April 29, 2026
Effective June 22, 2026, Thai Industrial Standards (TIS) for food contact paper and cooking paper will be enforced as mandatory for sale in the Thai market. This move has important implications for product licensing and tightens hygiene, labeling, and chemical-safety requirements for food-contact and cooking paper products. Thailand is strengthening its regulatory framework for paper-based culinary materials against a backdrop of accelerating global commitments to ESG and sustainability, as such materials—particularly those derived from natural or recycled fibers—have emerged as key alternatives to plastics in food preparation, cooking, and packaging applications. As a result, regulators worldwide are tightening controls to ensure that sustainability initiatives do not compromise consumer safety, particularly regarding the potential migration of chemical substances into food. Regulatory Framework: Voluntary vs. Mandatory Standards Standards under the TIS regime are generally classified into two categories. Voluntary standards allow manufacturers or importers to apply for a product license and affix the TIS mark to demonstrate product quality and build consumer confidence, but compliance is not legally required. Mandatory standards, by contrast, require manufacturers and importers to obtain a product license and affix the TIS mark before placing products on the Thai market, and noncompliant products cannot be legally sold. Previously, the TIS standards for food contact paper (TIS 2948-2562) and cooking paper (TIS 3438-2022) fell under the voluntary standard regime, meaning that obtaining a TIS license and displaying the TIS mark was optional. However, due to the increasing use of paper in food preparation and cooking, the Thai Industrial Standards Institute has determined that upgrading these standards to mandatory status is necessary to enhance consumer safety. As a result, all paper intended for food contact or cooking purposes must now obtain a TIS product license prior to sale in Thailand. Scope of the Standards The primary distinction between the
April 22, 2026
A new decree in Vietnam brings significant implementation clarity to the country’s existing extended producer responsibility (EPR) legal framework. An EPR mechanism was first codified in Vietnam in the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection amid ongoing challenges surrounding the collection and treatment of product and packaging waste. The mechanism was progressively detailed through Decree No. 08/2022/ND‑CP and its successive amendments, but the regulatory framework remained insufficiently developed, notably in terms of support mechanisms for waste collection, recycling, and treatment. The newly launched regulations in Decree No. 110/2026/ND-CP (Decree 110), issued on April 1, 2026, and taking effect on May 25, 2026, stipulate fully and clearly the responsibility of manufacturers and importers to recycle products and packaging and to treat waste. Some key provisions of Decree 110 for manufacturers, importers, and related stakeholders are presented below. Subjects of EPR The Law on Environmental Protection assigns responsibility to manufacturers and importers for product and packaging recycling (under Article 54) or waste collection and treatment (under Article 55), depending on the type of products and packaging they produce or import. Decree 110 elaborates on these EPR provisions by specifying the responsible entities and listing out the types of products and packaging subject to recycling and waste treatment responsibilities. Decree 110 clarifies the responsible entities in special cases, such as when products under the same brand are made by multiple manufacturers, when there is a contract manufacturing or entrusted import relationship, and when the manufacturer or importer is part of a corporate group. Notably, exemptions may be applied in some scenarios, such as for manufacturers and importers of products and packaging exclusively for export, temporary import and re-export, or research and testing purposes, as well as for entities with annual revenue from related products not exceeding VND 30 billion. Recycling Responsibilities Decree 110
March 30, 2026
In response to an emerging crisis on food safety, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 46/2026/ND-CP (Decree 46) on January 26, 2026, and Resolution No. 66.13/2026/NQ-CP (Resolution 66.13) on January 27, 2026, setting out a number of substantive changes to the procedure and strict requirements for the declaration, registration, and importation of food products. Both instruments took effect upon issuance. However, shortly after they entered into force, food businesses encountered significant implementation challenges, particularly with respect to state inspection procedures at the customs clearance stage for imported products. In response, the government issued Resolution No. 09/2026/NQ-CP (Resolution 09) on February 4, 2026, temporarily suspending Decree 46 and Resolution 66.13 until a new effective date of April 16, 2026. Continued Suspension of Implementation of Decree 46 and Resolution 66.13 After considering feedback gathered by the Ministry of Health from food businesses and other stakeholders during the suspension period, the Vietnam Government Office issued a notice on March 20, 2026, agreeing to extend the suspension until the issuance of an amended Law on Food Safety and its guiding decree. Following this notice, on March 22, 2026, the Ministry of Health prepared a draft resolution to implement the notice and replace Resolution 09. Under the draft resolution, the effectiveness of Decree 46 and Resolution No. 66.13 would continue to be suspended until the amended Law on Food Safety takes effect, except for the provisions under Resolution 66.13 allowing flexibility in documents evidencing product efficacy, which would take effect on April 16, 2026, and remain effective until the Law on Food Safety is replaced (but not later than February 28, 2027). Accordingly, for products subject to the registration declaration procedure, such as health supplements, efficacy may be substantiated by either (i) scientific evidence supporting the declared function and effects of the product