Claims and Evidence Matrix

If you have ever read a supplement label and wondered whether the claims on it were independently verified or written by the marketing department, this page is for you. Every claim on this website falls into one of five categories, each with a different evidence requirement and a different level of confidence you should place in it. You can check any statement we make against this rubric.

The Phytality Claims and Evidence Classification System

Five tiers, running from things nobody disputes to things we label as our opinion. Each has its own way of being checked, and the check is the point. A claim you cannot verify is not a weaker version of one you can. It is a different kind of statement. Where a tier asks you to trust us rather than read a document, we say so.

The tiers do not rank how impressive a claim sounds. Some of the most confident wording on supplement packaging sits on the bottom rung or falls off the ladder entirely, while a batch result on a certificate is genuinely useful and sits in the tier that leans hardest on the manufacturer's honesty.

The full methodology is described in our evidence evaluation article. This page presents the same framework as a practical reference you can use to evaluate any supplement claim, not just ours.

Level 1 and Level 2: From Established Science to Species-Specific Evidence

Level 1: Established Nutrition Science

What it covers: uncontested facts that appear in nutrition textbooks. "Fish oil contains EPA and DHA." "Chlorophyll is the pigment responsible for photosynthesis." Sources are not cited because these are not in dispute.

Your confidence level: high. These are the equivalent of "water is wet" in nutrition. If you need to verify, any university textbook will confirm them.

Level 2: Ingredient-Level Evidence

What sits here: claims about specific organisms, verifiable from published compositional studies. "Nannochloropsis has a high proportion of EPA relative to its total fatty acid content." "Chlorella is roughly 50 to 60 per cent protein by dry weight." Sources are cited when the claim is load-bearing.

How far to trust it: high, provided the source is published research rather than a manufacturer's marketing material. Many supplement brands present species-level claims as though they were textbook certainties. They are not. They require specific data from specific studies.

Level 3 and Level 4: Product Claims and EFSA-Authorised Health Claims

Level 3: Product-Specific Information

What this tier holds: statements about our own product that trace back to a document. "ULTANA batch 250526 measured 6.45 g EPA per 100 g, which is 129 mg in the 2 g daily serving." "On that certificate, the four heavy metals were tested by an external laboratory and everything else was tested in house." Notice how narrow those sentences are.

They name a batch rather than the product in general, and they say which figures came from an outside lab. We hold three master batch certificates rather than a run of them, so we cannot honestly tell you what is typical across batches we have not tested. A certificate of analysis turns a tier-three claim from a promise into a document.

How much to trust it: as far as the paperwork goes and no further. Ask for the certificate. If a seller will not show you one, or shows you one for a batch other than the tub in your hand, you have learned something.

The cultivation and processing claims live in this tier too, and they are the hardest of all to audit from outside. That is why we try to keep ours to what a document can carry.

Level 4: EFSA-Authorised Health Claims

What qualifies: claims that have survived independent scientific assessment by EFSA under Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012. "EPA and DHA contribute to the normal function of the heart" at 250mg combined daily. "DHA contributes to the maintenance of normal brain function" at 250mg DHA daily.

We always cite the regulation and the intake condition, because a claim without its condition is incomplete. "EPA and DHA support heart health" without the 250mg qualifier is a different statement, and a less honest one.

Where this leaves you: the highest confidence available for a consumer health claim. These are the only claims independently verified against the evidence by a regulatory body.

Level 5: Editorial Assessment and What Gets Refused

Level 5: Editorial Assessment

What belongs here: reasoned views based on the evidence we have reviewed, declared explicitly as assessments rather than facts. "In our assessment, closed-system cultivation produces a meaningfully different purity profile than open-pond methods." "We think the detox claim is irresponsible given the current evidence."

How much weight to give it: moderate. Weigh the reasoning, check whether it aligns with independent sources, and form your own view. We have expertise and a commercial interest. Both should inform how you read these.

Claims That Get Refused

If a claim cannot be classified at any of these five levels, we do not make it. "Boosts immunity," "detoxifies the body," "reverses ageing," and "cellular regeneration" all fail this test for algae ingredients. The claims are popular. The evidence is not there. The reasoning is covered in our articles on overstated claims and why we refuse the detox claim.

How to Use This Matrix When Evaluating Any Algae Supplement

Take the tub in your hand and read the front of it out loud. Nearly every phrase there is doing one of two jobs: repeating an approved form of words, or borrowing the shape of one. "Contributes to normal brain function" is the approved wording, and it comes with a dose condition attached.

"Supports brain function" is the borrowed shape. The missing condition is the whole difference between them, and once you have heard it you cannot unhear it at the till.

Then turn the tub round and count the numbers. A number is the cheapest thing to check and the most expensive thing to fake, which is why thin products carry so few of them.

If the back gives you milligrams of the active per serving, you can weigh it against 250 mg in ten seconds and know whether the tub does what the front implies. If it gives you a proprietary blend weight and a species name, you cannot, and the omission is your answer.

The middle of the ladder is where this gets genuinely hard, because a company can be entirely truthful and still leave you nowhere. Batch figures, growing conditions and processing methods matter most for purity and are the least auditable from outside.

Our answer is to give you the batch number and say which lines an outside laboratory tested. It is a smaller claim than the industry norm, and it is the only one we can put a document behind.

Claims and Evidence Matrix FAQs

Why are EFSA-authorised claims the highest confidence level?

Because an independent regulatory body assessed the supporting data and approved the wording. Every other tier relies on published literature or the seller's honesty. The EFSA tier is the only one where external verification exists before a statement reaches you.

What should I do if a supplement brand makes claims that do not fit this matrix?

Ask the company which tier their statement belongs to. If it sits somewhere between a compositional finding and a regulatory approval without being either, the evidence behind it is likely thinner than the wording suggests. An inability to classify a statement is itself a warning sign.

How can I tell the difference between a fact and an editorial assessment on a supplement website?

Look for framing language. Factual statements cite sources or are verifiable from standard references. Opinions should be introduced with phrases like "in our assessment" or labelled as the company's position. If a sentence reads as certainty but carries no citation and no regulatory backing, it may be a judgement dressed as a finding.

Does Phytality ever make claims above Level 4?

No. The regulatory tier is our ceiling for health-related statements. Anything beyond that is labelled as an editorial position. We will not make a health statement that the regulator has not approved, regardless of how promising the preliminary research looks.

Can I use this matrix to evaluate non-algae supplements?

Yes. The five tiers apply across the supplement industry. The specific approved wording differs by nutrient, but the logic is the same: textbook knowledge, ingredient-specific research, checkable manufacturer information, regulator-approved wording, and declared opinion. If a seller's promises do not map cleanly onto any of those, scrutinise the evidence behind them.

This article is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Consult your GP or a qualified healthcare professional before starting any supplement.

Methodology and Disclosure

The five-level classification reflects Phytality's internal evidence governance framework. EFSA health claims cite Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012. The nutrition and health claims regulatory framework cites Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA guidance on claim applications cites EFSA Journal 2016.

Vendor disclosure: Phytality is the publisher of this article and the manufacturer of the products whose claims this matrix classifies. We have a commercial interest in our evidence standards being understood as rigorous. The matrix is designed to work for any supplement brand, not just ours.