Health and Nutrition Claims: What are They and Why They Matter
Infant formula marketing describes formulas and ingredients with powerful statements like “brain-nourishing” or “supporting immune health”. These nutrition claims aren’t just powerful but also sly generalizations. Certainly, parents understand that formula marketing involves some hype. But breaking through that hype is tough, indeed it is a big reason that Formula Sense is needed.
In this article, I’ll help you start to break down marketing speak to better understand about the most common nutrition claim used in formula marketing — the structure function claim.
Source: Lancet Breastfeeding Series 2023, paper #2. “Figure 4. Artwork illustrative of actual packaging that make or imply claims about intelligence and intelligence quotient. Any resemblance to actual product packaging is coincidental.” Available by Creative Commons CC-BY license.
What are Nutrition Claims?
A nutrition claim is a statement that asserts that a food has a nutritional benefit or trait. Governments regulate claims that suggest a food has a particular beneficial feature.
In the United States, nutrition claims are known as structure/function claims, a term that is precise but unwieldy. The more straightforward ‘nutrition claim’ is used by the European Commission. Parents and providers may see both these terms used interchangeably in media. (I use both in this article.)
What are Structure Function Claims?
In the United States, nutrition claims are known as structure/function claims. These are statements that describe in plain language the relationship between a nutrient or ingredient and the normal structure or function of the human body. For example, there is a well-known nutrition claim:
At first blush , this looks simple, right? However, the role that nutrients play in the body is complex. They rarely have just one role and its role is wrapped up with other nutrients. The words describing a structure/function relationship end up being imprecise from a scientific standpoint.
Consider for example, vitamin C, a nutrient that has multiple biological roles in cells. Some of these cellular roles can be grouped together through their influence on immune system functioning. And here is where it gets a little tricky. Structure function claims may also describe the mechanism.
Therefore, this function claim is true:
But, this relationship is not unique!
Vitamins A, B12, D, thiamine, riboflavin, and niacin all play roles in maintaining the immune system. The minerals zinc and selenium are import too.
Structure/function claims are mental short-cuts that loosely describe a relationship. They are summaries, handy but imprecise, more like an impressionist painting than a photograph. Their goal is to simplify something that is biologically quiet complex. Certainly making concepts simpler is helpful! But there is a rotten flipside — their imprecision leaves them open to exaggeration and artful persuasion.
How can formula nutrition claims mislead parents?
Nutritional science is confusing and structure function claims are a big reason why. These claims come up not only in marketing, but also in news reports of the latest research.
Structure function claims are logically because context is missing. Context is essential for understanding nutritional science. Without a backdrop, assumptions are easy to make. Indeed, context is what trips most people up when trying to understand the latest nutrition headline or article.
Structure/function claims simplify something complex. Certainly, making a concept easier to understand has advantages. The downside is that their imprecision (lack of exactness) leaves them open to exaggeration and logical errors.
Take for example, this structure function claim example “Carrots help you see” Many parents have used that one (along with “spinach will make you strong”) to entice children to eat their vegetables.
Let’s unpack this relationship and examine the context. We’ll also look at how simplifying a message can lead to false assumptions.
The myth that carrots improve vision continues to today. I easily found this picture on iStock!
Structure Function Nutrition Claim Example
Carrots contain vitamin A, which is indeed important for normal vision. Vitamin A deficiency can cause vision problems, including night blindness or in its most severe form, irreversible blindness.
The relationship between vitamin A and vision is limited to a state of deficiency. The relationship ends when one eats enough vitamin A. While tempting, one cannot extend the relationship further.
Plus, many foods contain vitamin A! Carrots certainly are a convenient and tasty package for them, but it is not a exclusive one. There is a relationship, but it isn’t necessarily a strong one.
Nutrition claims are often logically challenging. Young children with undeveloped logic skills will sometimes think the reverse is also true - that eating more carrots can make one’s vision even better than it is. But this simply isn’t true. It is a logical error easy to make. Indeed, the Allied Forces tried to fool the Nazis with this myth in World War II!
How can Formula Nutrition Claims Mislead Parents?
Formula nutrition claims can mislead parents by leaving out important context. Just as a magician’s sleight of hand distracts you from what they are really doing, marketers artfully use nutrition claims for persuasion.
Often a stronger relationship is implied than can be supported by science. The relationship is technically true, a company is violating any US labeling regulations. It is not actually misleading, only potentially misleading. Moreover, the First Amendment protects commercial speech.
Formula marketers also present the public with a set of complex set of “one-to-many relationships”. One ingredient is linked to many nutritional or biological functions, which is certainly accurate as shown in the example about vitamin C.
The reverse is also presented to parents, a single body function that is influenced by more than one ingredient. This relationship is also technically true.
These statements are true for any infant formula! Infant formula is highly regulated and contains the nutrients infants need to grow and thrive. Comparing formulas is like comparing kale to carrots, not kale to cupcakes.
What are the Most Common Structure Function Claims for Baby Formula?
Now that we’ve reviewed what nutrition claims are and how they can be misused, let’s return to a study about claims published in 2023, Health and Nutrition Claims for Infant Formula: International Cross Sectional Study. In this study researchers from 15 counties identified 31 different types of claims. In the United States, every infant formula made at least once claim. Typically, there were 4 nutrition claims per product.
Around the world, the most common type of claim fell in the category of “helps/supports development of brain and/or eyes and/or nervous system.” Over half of the 757 infant formula products assessed included a claim about the brain or nervous system. And this single claim was associated with 13 different ingredients. These relationships aren’t technically false. Many nutrients influence a body system.
The study team put together a network plot of the most common claims that illustrates the complexity presented to parents and professionals. Light purple labels are nutrition claims. Blue and purple labels are ingredients. The thickness of the lines connecting claims and ingredients show how frequently the claim is was found by the researchers. (I’ve slightly adapted their figure by making it horizontal and noted the most common claim)
Are these relationships between formula ingredients and biological function false? Probably not. There is at least some research to support these claims. BUT – research has not established that these are strong relationships or particularly unique to an ingredient
Context matters! A potential employer wants to talk to my closest colleagues to decide if they want to hire me, not the cashier I see occasionally in the check out line.
Why do Infant Formula Nutrition Claims Matter?
Formula companies wield nutrition structure function claims to sell not educate. The inherent vagueness of a structure/function claim leads easily to logical distortions and deceptions. Parents trying to make science-informed decisions can be duped by marketing that uses structure function claims.
As the WHO and UNICEF have pointed out, these scientific distortions also exploit parent anxieties and aspirations. Maternal feelings of guilt, anxiety, and feelings of failure are too common in the United States. Parents need authentic support, not misleading messages that thrive off shame.
Health providers understand that formula marketing influences feeding decisions and that is a good thing. The information used to make those decisions needs to not only be technically factual but also emotionally authentic.
Infant formula is highly a regulated product. All formulas contain the nutrients infants need to grow and thrive. There are subtle differences, but science hasn’t yet shown that one formula is better than another. They all nourish brains and strengthen immune systems. This is exciting news, because parents have a lot of freedom in choosing the product that is right for their family and situation.
Parents: If you want to learn more about infant formula ingredients, use the Formula Sense ingredient search
Health Providers: To learn more about infant formula without industry influence, sign up for a membership or contact me for continuing education.
References and Resources:
Marketing of commercial milk formula: a system to capture parents, communities, science, and policy. Lancet, 2023
Structure Function Claims, U.S. Food & Drug Administration
It’s time to stop infant formula marketing practices that endanger our children, Helen Clark and Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, BMJ 2022
The relationship between nutrition and the immune system, Front Nutr. 2022;9:1082500.
Vitamin A fact sheet NIH, Office of Dietary Supplements,
The Myth About Carrots and Vision Started to Foil Nazis by Ed Jong, The Atlantic
Health and nutrition claims for infant formula: international cross sectional survey, BMJ 2023; 380