The start of the new year is often used as a blank slate, a marker for consumers to make a change for the better. This change often comes in the form of new diets and routines, fuelled by what the latest influencer craze is.
Interest in health has continued to tick up after seeing its growth turbocharged throughout the pandemic – and with little sign of slowing down. In 2024, Savanta’s Q1 Grocery Eye Report found that almost half (49%) of shoppers claimed to be eating healthier food.
The trendy ‘must-have’ (or indeed ‘must-not’) ingredients and claims have shifted over time, but the allure of leveraging the latest fad has not.
Whilst the 80s were more focused on fat as the enemy, today it’s more about the addition of ingredients which have the perception to aid things like focus and improve muscle and gut health. And with such a lucrative market at their fingertips, it’s no wonder food and drink companies continue to explore these hot ticket arenas.
For example, Mordor Intelligence shows that the UK’s protein market size is estimated to reach $622m in 2025 and is expected to climb to $807.7m by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 5.36%.
The problem is that the rise of the Internet has given way to an explosion of brands and claims which, realistically, cannot all be substantiated. It has also given non-food experts a huge platform to push certain movements which may not be totally accurate or indeed what our own – very individual – bodies necessarily need.
Food innovations developer Ruth Dolby, who is the director at Food Science Fusion and co-founder of How Many Beans, has worked in the food and drink sector for 40 years and believes the risk of so-called ‘healthwashing’ is rampant.
Like all ‘washing’ titles in vogue, healthwashing refers to the practice of marketing a product as being more beneficial to health that it actually is.
“I have seen this trend growing in various guides and it worries me,” said Dolby. “Why does it worry me? Because as everyone eats food, too many think that makes them an expert. My plea is that even specialists stop and think.
“Just because one person has found a food or supplement that if they included or excluded it from their diet positively affects their health, it is not necessarily a [widespread] population solution – it may [just] be a jumping off point for research.
“A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.”
Health isn’t one size fits all
Claire Baseley, registered nutritionist, noted it is important to distinguish between claims which are unauthorised (e.g. product x relieves menopausal symptoms) and those which are legal but used in a misleading manner (e.g. product x is vitamin C rich).
“The problem is even legally compliant health claims can be misleading when applied to a food product that offers a relatively poor nutrition profile,” Baseley said.
“Even on a relatively nutritious food product, the use of health claims can be reductive, convincing consumers that one food is all that’s necessary to boost immune function or reduce the risk of disease, when we know that total dietary patterns and lifestyle are essential to the management of risk from non-communicable disease.”
A good example of this is vitamin D – whilst many people in the UK have vitamin D deficiencies and should probably be taking a supplement in the winter months, an overload of this supplement can actually cause harm.1 You’d have to be having an excessive amount of course, but it paints a picture of how individual we are and the importance of consulting a medical professional.
As Dolby told Food Manufacture: “Just because something is good for me, does not mean it’s good for you.”
Bethany Dean, managing director of Taylored Consultancy Ltd – a regulatory affairs consultancy business that supports the FMCG industry with a range of regulatory requirements including food supplements – shared similar thoughts.
“Consumers are purchasing products for their health, their overall wellbeing, that have never been required historically and it’s unclear if they are now,” Dean added.
She told Food Manufacture that while she appreciates the way consumers live today is extremely different to our ancestors, it seems to be common practice to take a cocktail of supplements a day or seek out certain foods with little reasoning other than ‘TikTok made me do it’.
“[They’re] purchasing foods from health stores that are meant to help with anxiety, stress, sleep etc., that come with a premium price tag and no concreate evidence that they help with these conditions,” she continued.
Trigger words
Professor Tim Spector, professor of epidemiology and co-founder of Zoe raised the issue of companies also adding trendy ingredients which jump out to consumers into products that, overall, aren’t particularly good for you.
“Health washing has increased steadily with many companies marketing food products with ‘health halos’ based on individual nutrient claims as opposed to health effects of the product itself. This often involves foods labelled as ‘source of vitamin D’, ‘low fat’, ‘natural’ or ‘sugar-free’ which may still be packed with artificial additives or refined sugars,” he contended.
“Whilst these buzzwords target health-conscious consumers, they frequently result in choices that are far from nutritious. The lack of stringent regulations allows this practice to thrive, making it crucial for both consumers and regulators to push for clearer, evidence-based information to combat misleading marketing and promote genuine health improvements.”
Using his own company as an example of best practice, Spector added: “As a science and nutrition company, ensuring the accuracy and truth of what we say is crucial, especially in a world so saturated with misinformation, particularly in the health and wellness space.
“Not enough companies actually put their products through rigorous testing. We put ZOE Daily30+ [a wholefood supplement available in Waitrose] through a randomised controlled trial (the gold standard in scientific research) before we launched it to the public.
“It’s not enough to just claim something is healthy; it needs to be proven by real, evidence-based science. That’s how we ensure we’re actually delivering something that can make a tangible difference to people’s health.”
Zoe also conducted a randomised controlled trial on its membership model (a personalised nutrition programme) last year to test out the efficacy of its approach.
“This trial allowed us to gather real, reliable data and make sure that the claims we communicate to our members and consumers are grounded in science. We have also conducted several trials and published over 70 peer-reviewed papers in high impact journals that form the basis of the advice which we share with our members on topics such as sleep, eating rate and improving gut microbiome composition,” said Spector.
Dean agreed buzzwords were a big issue: “I get concerned consumers see ‘protein’ in big letters on the front of packs and assume they need the version of this or that product to get a high protein diet.”
For an authorised high protein claim, at least 20% of the energy value of the food must be provided by protein. So one gram of protein provides four calories / 17 kJ of energy.
If you ate a 146kcal two-biscuit serving of Weetabix Protein you would get 7.6g of protein. If you ate two eggs (approx. 108 calories), you’d get around 10.4g protein.2,3
While the egg provides more protein, convenience is key here too – with many consumers opting for the breakfast that is quicker to fix. To play devil’s advocate then, is it really down to the food brands to inform the public, or more an issue of a lack of consumer education around nutrition?
The influencer role
Baseley held similar sentiments to Dean, suggesting that often “the public want simple answers to complicated questions”.
She noted that the rise of podcasts and social media channels, alongside a “lack of fact checking” and “respect for qualifications”, is fuelling a frenzy of widespread misinformation.
Consumers find it “all too easy to be taken in by a charismatic, often attractive influencer, using hyperbole and black and white statements”, Baseley continued.
“The problem with monetising content such as podcasts and social media posts is that the more controversial the message, the more debate, the more attention, and [then] the more the algorithm will favour extreme views.
“Influencers should be accountable for claims they promote but they rarely are on social media platforms. The recent removal of fact checking facilities on Facebook and Instagram is another nail in the coffin for evidence-based nutrition.”
Silverman said that legally speaking, influencers are responsible for making sure the claims they’re making are correct. However, in practice, she noted they will generally “say whatever a brand tells them to say”.
“The ramifications for pushing out unsubstantiated claims on social media are mainly adverse publicity,” she added.
Meanwhile, podcasters are not regulated, with no onus on them to research or verify claims their guests make.
“Discussions on podcasts are often longer form and allow for nuance,” said Silverman. “It therefore isn’t possible to evidence every statement made by guests on podcasts – some of which may be their opinion rather than fact. However, a good podcast host should respect their listeners enough to do their research and asking probing questions of guests.”
Enforcing health and nutrition laws
Currently, the Trading Standards or Environmental Officers are responsible for enforcing the nutrition and health claims in Great Britain.
Claims must be taken from the authorised register and follow the requirements of the law.
Meanwhile, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is responsible for investigating claims made in food product marketing and advertising materials.
The issue that many of the experts raised during Food Manufacture’s investigation is that the law is overdue a reform and, like many sectors impacting food and drink, is struggling with a skills gap.
“The nutrition and health claims legislation has its flaws – it manages to be both too restrictive and too permissive – but it’s all we have,” said Baseley.
“The problem is that there are [too] few enforcement officers, [meaning] that many brands get away with misleading claims.”
And while the ASA tries to pick up problematic claims – which are either reported to it or identified by AI, the nature of online marketing is difficult to tame, as Iona Silverman, intellectual property and media partner at national law firm, Freeths, explained.
“The ASA can require a brand or influencer to take an ad featuring an unsubstantiated claim down, however the ASA takes several months to make its decisions by which time a social media post of ad campaign and come and gone,” Silverman noted.
It’s so unfair, everyone’s doing it!
The temptation to use emotive language to draw consumers in a crowded market is ever-appealing, especially when one’s competition might well be slapping strong claims onto their own packaging.
Basely agreed that bad actors do encourage other brands to use misleading claims, especially smaller brands which may not be aware of legislation or even “prepared to take the risk of enforcement action – particularly on online marketing materials which are easy to change quickly”.
Silverman also said it’s a FAQ she comes across: “I’m frequently asked by clients: why are you saying I can’t do this when my competitors are? Some brands will want to stick to the rules, but many will want to push boundaries of the claims they are making to match their competitors. I remind my clients that we don’t know if the ASA is currently investigating the claims made by their competitors, or it could be that their competitors can substantiate the claims they are making.
“It is certainly not the case that it is fine to make a claim just because someone else is making it.”
…But it’s not hurting anyone, right?
Everyone wants to protect their health and the impact of ‘healthwashing’ can have serious consequences, ranging from lost trust to more serious medical issues.
“The cost of inaction is the cost to individuals’ health as well as increased pressure on the NHS when the unsubstantiated remedies fail to work,” contended Silverman.
Dolby gave an example of how big the impact can be on health if legalisation is not followed: “While Food Science Fusion was working with LSBU, we met with a company who were launching products with too high level of chia seeds [legal levels differ depending on the product substrate] and if consumed at too high a dosage chia seeds can cause raised blood pressure and in some vulnerable groups can cause internal blockage in the intestines or bowel that can only be corrected with surgery.
“As they had got to the stage of ready to launch in their own label with a health food chain store, they considered my advice as unwarranted. Their position was that the science was incorrect and that their customer [the chain store buyer] was willing to give it shelf space and they had applied to the Food Standards Agency for a derivation. They believed that the application being under review alone gave them the right to launch. It did not then and would not today.”
Presently, Dolby is worried about the growing number of antigens and nootropics emerging on the market: “When searching the literature there are very few studies on dosages, especially the upper limits and side effects.
“The number of products positioned as ‘health supporting’ to calm the mind and enable more concentration at work is growing. It started in the fringe markets and has now been launched in M&S in multi-form sub-brand.”
Whilst we’re seeing brain food and gut health launches galore in large retailers, the processes to get a listing are generally robust enough to prevent unauthorised claims. So the concern for Dolby lies more in the start-ups that are selling and trading online.
“Product imported and sold online are very difficult to police and are picked up reactively rather than proactively,” she explained.
An evolving space
Speaking in more depth with Spector around the backlash Zoe saw last year regarding personalised nutrition’s efficacy, he highlighted the accusations as lacking credibility and pointed out that the space is one that is constantly evolving and improving.
“We already personalise our recommendations based on blood sugar responses, blood fat responses and gut microbiome scores. The accusations in some of these media outlets are frequently made by individuals who are not experts in nutrition science and offer a biased personal view of our work,” he argued.
“The vast majority of our members see an improvement in their health based on our scientifically derived recommendations, and that’s what matters most to us. However, personalised nutrition is a relatively new and rapidly developing field, and we don’t pretend otherwise. With that said, ZOE Membership is continually evolving in step with the latest advances in nutrition science.
“ZOE is better today than it was yesterday, and that’s the way it will continue. In our METHOD randomised controlled trial, we found that following ZOE is associated with improvements in markers of health. Can we improve upon what we offer now and become even more personalised? Yes, of course, and that’s part of our mission. As such, we continue to publish research in top-tier journals, and fold these fresh insights into our Membership.”
Where do we go from here?
The experts Food Manufacture spoke to were in agreement that change is needed.
“This is a topic that regulators should be taking seriously. Regulators need greater powers to levy sanctions that will have a deterrent effect,” said Silverman.
“To balance progress with ethical and legal constraints, the UK’s framework for health claims on food and supplements needs urgent reform,” added Spector. “Currently, manufacturers can market ultra-processed foods (UPFs) as ‘healthy’ by adding ingredients with approved health claims, despite their unproven beneficial health effects and potentially unhealthy nutrient profile. Meanwhile, many companies offering high quality products or services are often unable to advertise because the government-approved health claim list is limited and outdated – as we have experienced with our own ZOE Daily30+.
“The list of approved claims, particularly around gut and digestive health, has not evolved in line with scientific advancements, making it slow and difficult to introduce new claims. This discourages investment in research, as companies have little incentive to prove the health benefits of their products through evidence-based trials.
“While stronger enforcement of misleading health claims is necessary, we also need a legal framework that supports innovation and research, and aligns with current scientific knowledge. For one thing, we need a regulatory framework that enables health claims that are relevant to product health outcomes, rather than being attached to individual micronutrient claims that don’t prove anything about the overall supplement or product’s potential benefits.”
For Dean, we probably won’t ever completely fix the issue but she believes we can make the gamble less appealing: “There will always be brands that push the boundaries and succeed without being stopped, but if the penalties are higher, fines are in place, and brands are prevented from selling, that will make people think twice.”
This article was published in our exclusive Business Leaders' Forum newsletter which pulls together a raft of relevant news for leaders. By signing up you’ll also receive a heads-up for exclusive deep-dives like the above.
The Business Leaders' Forum is a community of industry voices that join together at least once a year to discuss topical issues facing the sector. To be eligible, you must work in the F&B manufacturing sector in a leadership/managerial position.
Sign up here ahead of our next meeting on 26 June 2025.
February 2025’s Business Leaders’ Forum was proudly sponsored by Aptean.
