How We Evaluate Health Claims

If you pick up a supplement and read the back of the pack, you will encounter health claims. Some are tightly regulated. Others are marketing language dressed as science. The difference between the two is not always obvious, and that opacity serves the supplement industry more than it serves you.

You deserve to know how a company decides what it can and cannot say about its products. Not because transparency is fashionable, but because the alternative is asking you to trust on faith. Faith is not an evidence standard.

Why Supplement Health Claims Need a Classification System

The supplement industry has a credibility problem. Too many companies make vague, emotive claims ("boosts immunity," "detoxifies the body," "supports cellular health") that sound scientific but have no regulatory backing. When you see these on a label, there is usually no consequence for the company if the claim cannot be substantiated.

The enforcement gap is wide. That makes it every manufacturer's responsibility to hold itself to a standard that does not depend on whether anyone is checking. That is why we classify every substantive claim into one of five categories, each with a different evidence requirement. The classification determines what goes on a page and what gets removed.

The Five Evidence Levels Behind Supplement Health Claims

Every factual claim across our articles and product pages falls into one of these levels. The level determines how we treat it, how we cite it, and how much weight you should give it.

Level 1: Established nutrition science. These are uncontested facts. "Fish oil contains EPA and DHA." "ALA must be converted by the body before it functions as a long-chain omega-3." No citations needed because the facts are not in dispute. You can verify them in any nutrition textbook.

Ingredient-Level and Product-Specific Evidence

Species or ingredient-level evidence is the second category. Claims about specific organisms or compounds, verifiable from published research but more specific than general nutrition facts. "Nannochloropsis has a high proportion of EPA relative to its total fatty acid content" is an ingredient-level claim. We cite sources for these when the claim is load-bearing or could be contested.

Level 3: Product-specific information. Claims about our own products: what they contain, how we formulated them, where they are grown. "We grow our phytoplankton in closed photobioreactors" is product-specific. You should hold the company accountable for the accuracy of every such statement.

EFSA-Authorised Claims and Editorial Assessment

EFSA-authorised health claims form the fourth level. These are the only health claims that have survived regulatory scrutiny in the EU and UK. They are authorised under Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 and carry specific intake conditions. "DHA contributes to the maintenance of normal brain function" is authorised at 250 mg daily.

We cite these with their regulation reference and intake conditions every time, because an authorised claim without its conditions is misleading.

Level 5: Editorial assessment. Judgements based on reviewed evidence, explicitly framed as interpretation rather than established fact. "In our assessment, closed-system cultivation produces a meaningfully different purity profile than open-pond methods" is editorial. We use this framing so you can see where the evidence ends and our interpretation begins.

What This Evidence Classification System Catches in Practice

Classifying claims is not bureaucratic tidiness. It catches statements that would otherwise slip through as accepted wisdom when they are nothing of the sort.

Consider chlorella. The most common marketing claim you encounter elsewhere is "detoxification." There is preliminary research on chlorella's capacity to bind certain metals in laboratory and animal studies. But no EFSA-authorised health claim exists for chlorella as a detoxification agent. Under our system, that claim gets classified, evaluated, and either framed honestly or removed. We chose to address it directly in our chlorella content rather than quietly repeat it.

Or consider "omega-3 reduces inflammation," which sounds like settled science. It is not an authorised health claim. The biochemical pathways involving EPA and eicosanoids are established nutrition science. But the leap from "involved in inflammatory response pathways" to "reduces inflammation" is a marketing leap, not an evidence-based one. The classification system flags that distinction before it reaches you.

Supplement Health Claims Phytality Refuses to Make

A list of refused claims may be more useful to you than a list of permitted ones. These are common supplement marketing statements that we do not make, because they lack authorised health claim backing for our ingredients:

• "Boosts the immune system" (no authorised immune claim for microalgae or omega-3 at standard doses)
• "Detoxifies the body" (no authorised detox claim for chlorella or any microalgae)
• "Reduces the risk of chronic disease" (no authorised disease-risk-reduction claim for these ingredients)
• "Anti-ageing" (no authorised ageing-related claim)
• "Improves cognitive performance" (DHA contributes to normal brain function, which is different from "improves" it)

These omissions are deliberate. Vaguer language could imply these benefits without technically making an unauthorised claim. Many companies do exactly that. The line between "implies" and "states" is thinner than the industry pretends, and you should not have to guess which side a company is standing on.

The Limits of an Internal Evidence Framework

No framework eliminates commercial bias. Phytality is a supplement company with a financial interest in you buying its products. No evidence classification system changes that structural fact.

What the Framework Does and Does Not Solve

What the framework does is make the basis of every claim visible to you, so you can evaluate them on their merits rather than taking a company's word for it. If an EFSA-authorised claim is cited, you can look up the regulation yourself. If something is labelled editorial assessment, you know it is interpretation, not settled science. If product-specific facts are described, you can ask for substantiation.

The specific omega-3 claims authorised under EU and GB regulation, with intake levels and conditions, are detailed in the companion article on EFSA and GB-authorised claims for omega-3.

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

From the Phytality range

ULTANA Phytoplankton From £42.97

Fermented Chlorella From £18.95

Clean Omega-3 DHA £42.95

View all products →