Food supplement advertising is subject to strict EU rules. Under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation, NHCR), health claims – statements that state, suggest or imply a relationship between a food, or one of its constituents, and health – must generally be authorised and comply with the applicable conditions of use.

On 17 September 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered two complementary judgments, Vista-Life Pharma (C-721/24) and Kyberg Pharma (C-657/24). They clarify when information about taking a supplement amounts to a health claim and how mandatory accompanying information must be worded and presented.

The cases

Vista-Life concerned advertisements in medical journals for two food supplements. The marketing of a vitamin D product highlighted the advantages of daily administration and sublingual intake, including more stable vitamin D levels. Advertising for a second product containing plant sterols referred to cholesterol reduction. The Brussels Court of Appeal sought guidance on three aspects of the NHCR.

Kyberg Pharma concerned a printed advertisement for a glucomannan-based weight-loss supplement. Although the product packaging contained the information required by Article 10(2) NHCR, including the importance of a varied and balanced diet and a healthy lifestyle, the advertisement did not. The German Federal Court of Justice asked whether that information had to be reproduced in the advertisement.

Instructions on taking a supplement may themselves be health claims

In Vista-Life, the Court confirmed that statements about the frequency or method of administration fall within the concept of a health claim where they are presented as contributing to a beneficial health effect or to preventing or reducing adverse health effects. A statement about daily versus occasional intake, or sublingual administration, cannot escape the NHCR merely because it is framed as a practical instruction if its presentation implies a health benefit.

Conversely, a purely neutral instruction on how to use a product is not automatically a health claim. The decisive question is the overall message conveyed to consumers, not whether the statement formally refers to the ingredient, dosage or method of administration. Where that message amounts to a health claim, the NHCR authorisation and use requirements must be met.

Mandatory risk statements: meaning rather than identical wording

Article 14(2) NHCR requires an additional statement when a reduction of disease risk claim is used. It must communicate that the disease concerned has multiple risk factors and that changing one of them may or may not have a beneficial effect.

The CJEU held in Vista-Life that the Regulation does not require a verbatim reproduction of its wording. Alternative formulations are permitted, provided both points are conveyed accurately, clearly and in a way consumers can readily understand. Merely stating that elevated cholesterol is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease does not, by itself, communicate both required elements. It remains for the national court to assess the specific wording.

Must the information also appear in print advertising?

On this point, both judgments favour a distinction between product labelling and advertising. In Kyberg Pharma, the Court held that a written advertisement is not itself “labelling” within the meaning of Article 10(2) NHCR. If the information required by that provision is already included in the product’s labelling, it need not also appear in a printed advertisement.

In Vista-Life, the Court reached the corresponding conclusion for the additional statement required by Article 14(2) NHCR in connection with reduction of disease risk claims: written advertising need not repeat it where it already appears on the product packaging. The Court emphasised the role of labelling in providing consumers with information when deciding whether to purchase a product.

What about online sales?

An important distinction must be made between advertising and distance selling. While the CJEU has clarified that mandatory statements under the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation need not be repeated in written advertising where they are included in the product labelling, Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 requires mandatory food information to be available before the conclusion of a distance-selling contract. Since the definition of mandatory food information also encompasses information required under other EU legislation, this obligation can be understood to extend to the statements required under Articles 10(2) and 14(2) of the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation. The precise interaction between these provisions was, however, not addressed by the CJEU in the two judgments.

Practical implications

The judgments offer welcome flexibility in the design of printed campaigns and in the wording of the Article 14(2) statement, without relaxing the substantive requirements for health claims. Businesses should check that all mandatory information is correctly included on product labelling, that any alternative risk statement faithfully conveys both required elements, and that messages about dosage or administration do not imply unauthorised health benefits. This applies also to advertising directed at healthcare professionals, as the CJEU previously confirmed in Innova Vital (C-19/15).

Taken together, Vista-Life and Kyberg Pharma draw a useful distinction: claims that imply health benefits remain subject to strict scrutiny, while the mandatory accompanying information need not be unnecessarily duplicated in written advertising when it is already provided through compliant labelling.