The Investigative Desk reveals substantial use of false supplement health claims in the Netherlands

Almost half of 431 analyzed supplements on the Dutch market hold incorrect health claims or unlawful medical claims, according to The Investigative Desk. Their journalistic research focused on supplements that one of Europe’s ten largest food companies invested in. These claims pose consumer risks, such as ineffective purchases, health risks, or eroded trust in supplements or European regulation, they warn. 

Nutrition Insight discusses the research findings and implications with Irene van den Berg, an investigative journalist who is a member of The Investigative Desk collective. Van den Berg conducted the research with her colleague Mathilde de Jeu for the online platform Follow the Money and the Dutch TV program Radar. 

Initially, Van den Berg and De Jeu submitted a few health claims to the Keuringsraad, a self-regulation organization in the Netherlands that helps companies ensure their claims are allowed according to advertising rules for self-care products. 

“When we found out that many of these claims were false or misleading, we decided to investigate the issue more systematically,” says Van den Berg.

“We focused on the supplement industry because big food companies are increasingly making money from supplements that promise to solve problems like overweight, stress, and menopausal symptoms.”

In the next phase, the team submitted 431 products to the Keuringsraad, including the supplements’ health claims on packaging and sales channels. Nearly 200 products held incorrect or unlawful health claims. 

Assessing health claims

Van den Berg notes that the idea for the investigation arose during research for Follow the Money on food industry investments in medicinal products. 

“We noticed that the food industry, much like the tobacco industry, invests in solutions for health problems that it partly creates. This includes investments in weight loss products, food supplements, and medical foods for diabetics.” 

The Keuringsraad checked the health claims of the 431 supplements submitted. 

“Only 212 supplements got a ‘green label’ from the Keuringsraad, meaning their claims were acceptable,” details Van den Berg. “The checks focus on whether the claims follow EU advertising rules and match the official EU public register of approved health claims.”

She details that Nestlé was the “biggest offender, with 115 supplements and 18 medical claims that did not follow the rules.”

Until there is a final decision on botanical health claims, they are on hold and can still be used by companies in their marketing.“One of the surprising findings was the high percentage of non-compliant claims within the examined supplements; nearly half of the claims were found to be incorrect health claims or outright medical claims.” 

Additionally, Van den Berg says it was striking that major international companies like Nestlé were among the most significant offenders in making these claims. 

“For instance, a Solgar product (a Nestlé brand) made claims about promoting ‘mental resilience’ and contributing to the ‘normal functioning of the nervous system’ related to Tryptophan, which the Keuringsraad classified as medical claims.” 

“Upon being contacted, Solgar quickly removed the information about these claims from its website, suggesting a rapid response to scrutiny.” 

“On hold” botanical claims

The research also found supplements used claims for botanicals that are “on hold.” Van den Berg notes that claims on these ingredients, numbering 1,548, have been awaiting a decision from the European Commission since 2010. 

Until the Commission and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) determine whether these claims are authorized, businesses can technically still use them in marketing. Van den Berg notes this is a “significant loophole being exploited.” 

She cautions that the current system may mislead consumers, who often interpret these claims as endorsements of efficacy and safety. “This regulatory loophole allows companies to promote plant-based supplements with implied health benefits, thereby increasing their commercial appeal.” 

As the current legal framework does not prohibit their use, she says that many in the industry don’t consider the lack of scientific substantiation problematic. “Companies justify the use of ‘on hold’ claims for botanicals on the grounds that these claims are legally permitted while awaiting formal assessment by the European Commission.” 

The European Parliament urges EFSA and the European Commission to review botanical health claims and reject those that are assessed negatively.Others, like the Spanish botanical extract provider Euromed, respond by registering some of its products as traditional herbal medicinal products in Europe or focusing on branded ingredients supported by published studies demonstrating their health benefits. 

Meanwhile, Van den Berg stresses that a significant portion of on-hold botanical claims is expected not to withstand a full scientific review. “For this reason, certain industry associations are actively lobbying to accept these claims based on ‘traditional use,’ arguing that long-standing historical application should suffice instead of modern clinical evidence.”

Standardizing regulation

Van den Berg explains that the European Commission plays a central role in health claim regulations through the European Claims Regulation and the public EU register of approved health claims. 

“The sources highlight a critical issue where the Commission has been slow in finalizing the evaluation of ‘on hold’ botanical claims,” she reiterates. “Therefore, according to the sources, the European Commission’s crucial role should involve expediting and standardizing the process for evaluating and deciding upon health claims, particularly for botanicals. 

In a regulation passed last year, the European Parliament raised “significant legal concerns” about the continued uses of botanical claims, saying there is an “imperative need to address the ‘on-hold’ list of claims on botanicals by further evaluating these claims” for consumer protection. It calls on EFSA and the European Commission to review these claims and reject those that are assessed negatively. 

Van den Berg highlights that a faster and clearer process would prevent companies from using claims that lack definitive scientific approval. Thus, consumers would receive more reliable information, and claims would be consistent and scientifically sound across EU member states. 

Van den Berg says it is difficult to enforce regulations on foreign online sellers, potentially allowing them to circumvent EU rules more easily.Meanwhile, enforcing regulations on foreign online sellers is challenging, potentially allowing them to circumvent EU rules more easily. 

“Online platforms and foreign webshops appear to play a significant role in the distribution of supplements, including those with problematic claims,” continues Van den Berg. “Online sales of supplements have increased substantially, reportedly doubling since 2019. Examples include US brands sold online making questionable claims.”

Although rules from the Netherlands Foods and Consumer Product Safety Authority apply to all forms of communication, including websites, she explains that the responsibility for compliance rests with the entire supply chain, including the supplier. 

Consumer risks

Van den Berg warns that the continued use of unverified or incorrect claims presents several risks to consumers, based on her interviews with experts. 

“Consumers may assume that the claims are scientifically validated and officially approved, leading to misplaced trust,” she details. 

The claims may also lead to ineffective or unnecessary purchases if people spend sums on supplements whose health benefits are unproven.

She continues: “Some botanicals may be harmful or interact adversely with other medications. Without proper evaluation, consumers may unknowingly expose themselves to these dangers.”

Moreover, Van den Berg adds that using incorrect claims can erode regulatory credibility. “If many claims are ultimately rejected after years of permitted use, this may undermine public confidence in regulatory oversight and the supplement industry as a whole.”