In short
In the European Union, a supplement cannot say whatever it likes. Health claims are governed by law: only claims that regulators have assessed and authorised may be made, and none may claim to treat or cure disease. Vitamins and minerals have a clear authorised list. Many botanicals sit in a grey zone where claims are pending and cannot be stated as fact. This is why LAYER ZERO describes what studies show for its botanicals rather than promising outcomes, and reserves firm claims for where they are authorised.
The reason honest supplement copy sounds careful is not timidity. It is the law, and it is a good discipline. Here is how the rules actually work.
01Why claims are regulated
European law treats a health claim, any statement that a food or its ingredient benefits health, as something that must be true and proven before it is made. The framework, Regulation 1924/2006, exists to stop unsupported promises. Two lines are absolute: a food supplement may not claim to prevent, treat or cure any disease, and it may not make a health claim that has not been authorised. Everything else follows from those two rules.
Definition · Health claim
Any statement that says or implies a relationship between a food, or one of its constituents, and health. Under EU law these may only be used if they appear on the authorised list, and never to claim treatment of disease.
02Authorised claims
For vitamins and minerals, the picture is clear. A dedicated list, Regulation 432/2012, sets out the exact wordings that may be used, such as that a nutrient contributes to normal energy metabolism, to the normal function of the nervous system, or to the reduction of tiredness and fatigue.1 These are the firmest statements a supplement can make, because a regulator has already weighed the evidence and approved the wording. They describe a contribution to normal function, not a cure and not a transformation.
03The botanical grey zone
Botanicals are more complicated. When the claims regulation was applied, a large number of health claims for plant extracts were put on hold rather than approved or rejected, and they remain in that pending state.2 The practical result is that for most herbs, a firm health claim cannot lawfully be stated as established fact. Sometimes regulators have gone further and declined a specific claim outright: citicoline, for instance, did not receive an authorised memory claim on assessment, even as its 12 week randomised trial evidence stands; the claim register and the literature are different instruments. Honest copy has to respect all of this.
04How we read it
Description, not promise
The honest way through the grey zone is to describe what the research shows, carefully and with its grade, rather than to assert an outcome the law has not authorised. Saying that studies associate an ingredient with a benefit is a description of evidence; saying the product delivers that benefit would be a claim. The distinction is not a loophole, it is the point: it keeps the reader informed without overstating what is known.
05Why this shapes the Library
This is the reason the whole Library reads the way it does. For vitamins and minerals, we state the authorised roles plainly. For botanicals, we report what the literature shows and grade it, and we flag where a claim was not authorised. The care in the language is not marketing softness; it is the difference between an honest evidence base and an unlawful promise, and the brand is built on the former.
In the system
Every ingredient page in the Library follows this rule: authorised claims where they exist, described evidence everywhere else. For the micronutrients that carry authorised claims, see vitamins and minerals. To place your own layers, the protocol builder takes about three minutes. Build your protocol →
Sources
Next in this thread
Vitamins and mineralsThe one place the system makes claims regulators have formally authorised.→How we handle evidence. This page describes the EU regulatory framework as it stands; it is educational and is not legal or medical advice.