Nutrient Content Claims
Implied Nutrient Content Claims
Nutrient Content Claims on a food subject to B.01.404
Acceptability of claims not prescribed in regulations
B.01.502 (1) - Implied Nutrient Content Claims
Are claims such as:
- "non-hydrogenated"
- "cooked in non-hydrogenated oil"
- "Omega -3"
- "energy bar"
- "demi-sel/semi-salted butter"
- "fibre cereal" etc.
...considered to be implied claims and therefore prohibited?
Yes these are implied claims and, if made on their own, are prohibited by B.01.502 (1). These implied claims cannot appear anywhere on the label or on an advertisement unless they immediately precede or follow the claim as set out in table B.01.513. All of the criteria for the claim in the table following B.01.513 must also be met.
One of the intentions of the nutrient content claim regulations was to create consistent messages for the consumer with respect to nutrient content. However, B.01.511 provides for other words, numbers, signs or symbols to precede or follow the statements or claims in the table following B.01.513, providing these additional words or symbols do not change the nature of the claim. B.01.511 does not specify the size and prominence of these words etc. compared to the claims in the table.
Therefore, implied claims will be accepted when they immediately precede or follow a claim set out in the table following B.01.513 and meet all the criteria of B.01.511 in that they:
- do not modify the nature of the claim. Words such as "ultra", "very", "extra", "plus", "at least", "less than" are considered to modify the nature of the claim.
- are not accompanied by a brand name, unless the product has been especially processed or modified to meet the requirements of the claim, and
- if the food has not been specially processed or modified to meet the claim, the statement/claim shall characterize all similar foods and not only the specific food.
Examples of acceptable implied claims (when all above requirements are met)
| Implied Claim | Immediately Preceded or Followed By: |
|---|---|
| Omega-3 | source of omega-3 polyunsaturates |
| non-hydrogenated | free of trans fatty acids |
| no tropical oils* | free of saturated fatty acids |
| energy shake | source of energy |
| fibre bar | source of fibre |
| semi-salted | lightly salted or reduced in sodium |
| made with soy protein (see details below) | source of protein |
| 25 % less oil | 25% less fat (reduced in fat or lower in fat claims, item 13 or 14 of table following B.01.513) |
* Tropical oils include: coconut oil, palm oil, palm kernel oil and cocoa butter.
Other implied claims will be evaluated individually to assess whether they change the nature of the prescribed nutrient content claim.
Non-hydrogenated
Q1. Are claims such as "non-hydrogenated", "cooked in non-hydrogenated oil", "made with non-hydrogenated vegetable oils", etc. considered to be implied claims and therefore prohibited ?
See above. Given the current media and consumer information available surrounding "non-hydrogenated" and the link with trans fat levels, the non-hydrogenated claim is considered an implied "free of trans fatty acids" claim and is therefore prohibited by B.01.502 (1) FDR unless made in accordance with B.01.511.
Source of Omega-3
Q1. Is the claim "source of omega-3" and similar claims that drop the "polyunsaturates" part of the claim acceptable?
Health Canada has indicated they are considering an amendment to the regulations to allow "source of omega-3", "contains omega-3" and "provides omega-3" as synonyms for the other omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid claims. CFIA will base its enforcement priorities accordingly. The same applies to "source of omega-6". However, "omega-3" on its own is not an acceptable claim (see above regarding implied claims (B.01.502 and B.01.511).
Made with Soy Protein - B.01.502 and B.01.305
Q1. Is it acceptable to make the claim "made with soy protein"?
Section B.01.305 prohibits statements about protein content unless the food meets the source of protein claim requirements. Therefore, if the food meets the conditions set out in item 8 of the table following section B.01.513 for the "source of protein" claim, then "made with soy protein" would be acceptable.
Comparative Claims
Similar Reference Food for Comparative Claims (e.g. reduced trans fat)
Q1. Can a product that has been reformulated to reduce the trans fat content use the pre-reformulated product as the similar reference food if the similar reference food will be phased out or no longer sold? If so, for how long can it be referenced after being phased out?
Yes, a reformulated product may use the claim "reduced in trans fatty acids" as compared to the pre-reformulated product as the similar reference food, if the food, label and advertisement meet all of the conditions set out for the nutrient content claim (see item 23 in the table following B.01.513 in the Food and Drug Regulations). This claim would be acceptable on a food for a one (1) year period (from the production date) after the similar reference food has been phased out. This claim can be made in advertising (e.g. television, radio, print, etc.) only for one year as well. After the one year period, the claim would not be acceptable given that the similar reference food is no longer available. Other more appropriate claims such as "Lower in trans fatty acids" or "Free of trans fatty acids" should be used, provided the food meets the conditions set out in the table following section B.01.513, FDR.
The "reduced in trans" comparative claim should normally be against the manufacturer's regular product since in order to decrease the trans content, the food would have to be reformulated with a different source of fat and/or oil. In general the market leader for the product's category should be used, however a competitor's product that meets the definition of a similar reference food could also be used.
Note: The food carrying the claim "reduced in trans fatty acids" must be processed, formulated, reformulated or otherwise modified, without increasing the content of saturated fatty acids, so that it contains at least 25% less trans fatty acids, based on the reference amount of the food and similar reference food (or based on 100 g for prepackaged meals). The similar reference food cannot meet the conditions for the "low in saturated fatty acids" claim (see item 19, table following section B.01.513, FDR). As well, specific labelling and advertising conditions must be met when stating the claim.
Comparison - "A Lot Less (Naming the Nutrient)"
Q1. Under what conditions can the claim "a lot less (naming the nutrient)" be used?
"A lot less" is not an acceptable comparative claim, only those comparative claims listed in the table following B.01.513 are acceptable. For vitamin and mineral claims, see 7.25 in the Guide. Modifiers such as "a lot" that change the meaning of a nutrient content claim may not precede or follow that claim (B.01.511). For more information, see Table 7-2 of the Guide. (updated 2006)
Comparisons Across Food Groups
Q1. Can foods be compared, with respect to nutrition claims, when they are not in the same food group in Canada's Food Guide?
Only those comparative claims listed in the table following B.01.513 may be used on food labels or in advertising. The tables (both in the Food and Drug Regulations and in the Guide) set out both the food conditions which must be met when making comparative claims (see column 2) and the labelling and advertising conditions (see column 3). In general, comparative claims must:
- involve similar foods, or foods of the same food group depending on the type of claim;
- clearly identify the foods being compared and the differences between them; and
- be based on differences which are both nutritionally and analytically significant.
Generally, comparisons with respect to nutrition claims are restricted to foods which are in the same food group (e.g. tofu sausage may be compared with regular sausage made with meat) or foods which are compared to a similar reference food (e.g. skim milk compared to whole milk).
More information on comparative claims and foods which may be compared can be found in section 7.9 of the Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising.(updated 2006)
B.01.503(3) Type Size and Prominence
Size and prominence of English and French claims
Q1. Now claims that are made in English must also be made in French (B.01.501) and vice-versa. However, is the claim in one language required to be in the same size and prominence as the claim in the other language?
No. The requirements for all of the words, numbers, signs and symbols of a claim to be the same size and prominence [B.01.503 (3)], are for the individual words of a given claim specified in one language in quotes in the table following B.01.513.
Size and Prominence of Multiple Claims
Q1. If more than one nutrient content claims is made, do they all have to be in the same size and prominence?
No. The requirements for all of the words, signs and symbols of a claim to be the same size and prominence [B.01.503 (3)], are for the individual words of a given claim and not of all the claims shown on a label or in an advertisement.
Note that certain claims must be accompanied by mandatory information required under Column 3 of the table following B.01.513, the size and prominence requirements for this information is detailed in B.01.504.
B.01.503(1) - Small stickers on non-packaged produce
Q1. Non-packaged produce may have a small sticker attached, which could include a nutrient-content claim (e.g. a banana with a small round sticker with a nutrient-content claim). Where may the accompanying information that is required (i.e. the energy value or the amount of the nutrient that is the subject of the claim) be supplied (poster, sticker or elsewhere)?
The accompanying information for the claim appearing on a sticker label must appear on the sticker. For example, if there is a "source of potassium" statement on the sticker, the amount of potassium per serving of stated size must also be on the sticker. If the same claim was not on the sticker but on the in-store poster, then the mg of potassium per serving of stated size would have to be on the in-store poster.
B.01.504 - Prominence of information in claims
Q1. When a product claim is "light" and the supporting statement is "x% less fat per (serving of stated size) than our regular (product name)", are these two statements required to be of the same prominence? If so, does the "same prominence" mean in the same type height, font, colour, bolding, and may the word light have a box around it?
A box around the word light is viewed as intervening material and is not permitted. While "light" could be smaller and less prominent than the supporting information, it may not be larger or more prominent.
It is B.01.503(3) that requires that all information in the claim (set out in column 4 of the Table following B.01.513) "shall be in the same size and prominence" (e.g., Both words in "extra lean" must be the same font, height, colour and bolding). B.01.504(a) requires the information required by column 3 to be adjacent to the claim, without intervening material and (b) requires the information to be "at least the same size and prominence" of the most prominent Light claim.
B.01.511 - Type Size Requirements for Characters Before or After Claim
Q1. Do the additional words, numbers, signs or symbols which may precede or follow a claim referred to under B.01.511 have to appear in the same size and prominence as the nutrient content claim that they are linked to?
B.01.511 provides for other words, numbers, signs or symbols to precede or follow the statements or claims in the table following B.01.513 and
does not specify the size and prominence of these words etc. compared to the claims in the table. However, it is
encouraged that this information be of the same size and prominence.
Note: See B.01.502(1).
Nutrient content claims on a food subject to B.01.404
Q1. When a food is sold for further manufacturing, and provides the nutrition information per 100 g or ml, may it have a nutrient content claim such as trans fat free?
The provisions in the Food and Drug Regulations to allow nutrient content claims such as "trans fat free" were intended to apply specifically to products sold to consumers at the retail level that were applying a Nutrition Facts table as required by B.01.401. However, there is no prohibition from making such a claim on foods for further manufacture, providing the amount of the nutrient that is the subject of the claim per a reasonable serving of stated size is given in addition to the declarations per 100 g or mL and the product meets the criteria set out for the claim. There should also be some link between the amount declared per serving size and the claim, such as an asterisk beside the trans declaration per serving relating it to a trans fat free claim.
It is important that manufacturers be aware, however, that the final product must be assessed independently for compliance with any given claim, i.e. having an ingredient that meets the claim criteria doesn't mean that the final product will. Variation in the amount of the ingredient used or the effect of other ingredients in the final food may impact on the final food meeting the criteria for the claim.
Acceptability of claims not prescribed in regulations
Q1. What nutrient claims can be made other than those that are prescribed by the regulations?
As stated in B.01.502, no claim that characterizes the energy value or the amount of a nutrient contained in a food can be made except as provided for by the regulations. The regulations allow for specific nutrient content claims for energy and nutrients, such as "source of protein", "low in fat", and "more fibre" (B.01.513 and table to B.01.513); five diet-related health claims (B.01.603 and the table to B.01.603), biological role claims (the effect of a nutrient or energy, B.01.311), quantitative statements (B.01.301), and vitamin and mineral claims for source levels at 5% RDI or more (D.01.004 and D.02.002). Vitamin and mineral, including potassium, claims follow the guidelines in the Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising.
The table following B.01.513 and following B.01.603 provide specific wording for the claims. The wording cannot be changed and no words may be placed within the wording of the claims, (B.01.511).
Claims can be joined by means of a conjunction or punctuation, for different subjects in the table following B.01.513, when the criteria for the claims are met (B.01.512). For example, a permitted energy claim could be conjoined with a vitamin or mineral claim. For example, a permitted claim would be: "source of energy and contains 5 essential nutrients", when the 5 essential nutrients are vitamins and minerals with RDIs. (December 2004)
Q2. What words, symbols, signs, numbers, etc can be placed before or after a nutrient content claim?
Under the following conditions, words, symbols, numbers or signs may be placed before or after a nutrient content claim:
- the nature or meaning or intent of the claim is not changed
- the additional information is not false, misleading, or likely to create an erroneous impression
B.01.511 of the Food and Drug Regulations states that the words "very", "ultra", and "extra" and all other words, numbers, signs, or symbols that modify the nature of a statement or claims shall not precede or follow the statement or claim.
Other examples of words that may change the nature of the claim are: "lots", "more", "some", "at least", "approximately", "extreme", "hardly", "maximum", "plus" and "instant".
Section 7.6 of the Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising provides additional guidance and examples of unacceptable and acceptable claim wording. (December 2004)
"Lactose Free" Claims
Q1. What are the criteria for "lactose free" or "reduced in lactose" products?
Claims relating to the presence or absence of lactose in a product are not prohibited under the new regulations [see Section B.01.502(2)(d), FDR] however, there are no criteria set out in the regulations for these statements. The CFIA uses the following guidelines for lactose claims.
Lactose free means that there is no detectable lactose in the food using an acceptable analytical method.
Lactose reduced may be used to describe a product that has been reduced significantly in lactose. A significant reduction is considered to be a 25% reduction or more.
"Low Gluten" Claim
Q1. Is the claim "low gluten" acceptable for foods with less than 200 p.p.m. of gluten?
This claim is not acceptable on foods sold in Canada because it is considered to be misleading. People with celiac disease may be led to believe that a food with less than 200 p.p.m. gluten is safe to consume, while medical advice recommends a gluten-free diet.
"No Salt Added" Claim and a Significant Contribution of Salt via an Ingredient
Q1. If sodium or salt is not one of the ingredients, but rather is a component of an ingredient, can the food have a "no salt added" claim?
A food cannot have a "no salt added" claim if sodium or salt is one of the ingredients or is a component of an ingredient. [Food and Drug Regulations, Item 35 of the table following B.01.513]. (Headquarters/Aug/2004) (updated 2006)
Vitamin and Mineral Claims [D.01.004 and D.02.002, FDR]
Q1. Do the compositional criteria for the vitamin and mineral claims in the Guide (table 7-14) have to be met per serving of stated size AND per reference amount for vitamins and minerals or per serving of stated size only?
Currently, the compositional criteria for vitamin and mineral claims are per serving of stated size only (D.01.004 and D.02.002). The CFIA will communicate information regarding any amendments to the regulations in this regard as they occur.
Q2. What compositional and labelling requirements does the claim "a valuable source of (naming the vitamin or mineral nutrient)..." trigger?
The claim "a valuable source of..." is considered a synonym for the vitamin and mineral claims "an excellent source of..." or "very high in...". Details on compositional and labelling requirements can be found in Table 7-14 of the Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising.
- Date modified: