Nutrition and Health Claims Maturity · Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006
Control over your claims, measured by theme and turned into a costed action plan.
10 themes, a 5-level scale. And the action that moves each level to the next.
The framework’s 10 themes, already written from L1 to L5. One company, one business unit, or 300 at once.
Nutrition and Health Claims Maturity · Compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006
10 themes, 5-level scale.
Nordhavn Industries
53 / 100
They measure their maturity with Datamensio
An example
This could be your situation.
Take one company as an example: three sites, three spreadsheets, no shared answer.
Nobody can consolidate.
Nordhavn Industries, 2,400 people in Hamburg, Lyon and Porto. A client asks where the group stands. Each site answers in its own spreadsheet, with its own scales.
Three weeks, a single base.
One Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 assessment launched across all three sites at once, from the managers’ interview notes. The framework was already written, its 10 themes and levels L1 to L5 too.
Two costs avoided before being committed.
A score of 53 out of 100, with the gap concentrated on three themes. The AI companion spotted that two actions duplicated those of another audit. The committee report took one sentence to request.
What it saved them
- 3sites measured on the same base, instead of three questionnaires to reconcile
- 2duplicate actions caught before the spend
- 1committee report, with no manual rework
These figures are an example. They could be yours.
The standard imposes processes. Datamensio says where you stand.
01
The framework is already written
Themes, questions and levels L1 to L5, all written. You do not start from an empty spreadsheet.
02
The score lands the same day
Online, by self-assessment link or in interview. Theme by theme, comparable over time.
03
The gap becomes a costed plan
Every step up carries its action. The AI prioritises on expected effect, not on the order of the standard.
04
Progress can be demonstrated
Campaign after campaign, against your target and against your own past. That is what your board asks for.
The maturity scale
One level, the next, and the action that links the two.
It is this mechanism, one level, the level above, and the action that links the two, that turns a finding into a trajectory.
Are the claim wordings used on your materials checked against authorised claims and their conditions of use?
- N1
No organised check. Wordings are proposed by marketing and used as is on materials.
- N2
A regulatory review exists for packaging, but it happens late and does not cover digital materials or country versions.
- N3
Each claim is linked to an authorised reference and its conditions of use before release, across all materials. Gaps are occasional.
- N4
The check is recorded by product and by channel, with the decision, the validated wording and the supporting evidence kept on file. Recipe changes trigger a review.
- N5
The set up is reviewed periodically against new authorisation regulations and inspection feedback, with a documented record of revisions and decisions shared across entities.
Action to move from L2 to L3
Draw up a charter of authorised claims by range, link each wording to its reference and conditions of use, and make its sign off mandatory at the product launch committee before any artwork or digital content is approved.
« With Datamensio, we meet our objectives far more efficiently. The ERDF inspection services and our supervising ministry particularly appreciated an approach that gives them reliable data. »
Director, CCI 94CCI Île-de-France
« We believe this is the most suitable solution to scale our transformation project and measure impact according to our needs. »
Maja SucekChief Operating Officer, Interreg Danube
Rarely on its own
Frameworks combine. Put several together to cover your business, or have the AI write yours.
Take your first measurement
What this framework covers
Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 applies to any nutrition or health claim appearing on the labelling, presentation or advertising of foodstuffs delivered to the final consumer. The principle is that of a positive list: only the nutrition claims listed in the annex and the health claims authorised on the Union register may be used, under the exact conditions of use attached to them. General rules also apply: truthfulness, understanding by the average consumer, available scientific substantiation, a ban on claims about preventing, treating or curing a disease, and specific rules on disease risk reduction claims and claims relating to children’s development.
In practice, the difficulty is not knowing the text but holding the decision chain that runs from marketing to the label. Who confirms that a visual, a slogan on a product page or a sponsored post amounts to a claim within the meaning of the regulation? Does the wording used match the authorised claim word for word, or is it a rewording whose equivalence has never been settled? Are the conditions of use, nutrient content, reference portion, mandatory accompanying statement, checked against the product’s actual values rather than the original recipe? Many organisations have a solid file and a fragile governance.
Two points of context come up systematically. First, the generic functional health claims described as "on hold": some, particularly on botanicals, remain usable under conditions and under the operator’s responsibility, which is not the same as an authorisation. Second, the nutrient profiles provided for in the regulation, which have never been adopted at Union level: their absence does not open up a free space, it simply shifts scrutiny towards truthfulness, wording compliance and consistency with Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on food information to consumers. A frequent confusion, finally: an authorised claim does not exempt from a product specific substantiation file when the matrix or bioavailability differs.
A compliance audit settles a yes or no question on a given label, on a given date. The maturity assessment answers a different question: what level of control has the set up reached, and what specific action moves it to the next level. A compliant claim reached through a last minute proofread and a compliant claim resulting from a documented validation chain are not at the same level, even if the outcome looks identical on the day. The assessment prepares for official inspection and client audits, it does not issue any certificate.
In Datamensio, the framework is ready to use and adaptable. The AI adjusts the themes, questions and levels to your brand portfolio and product categories, or builds a version from your own procedures, claims charters and substantiation files.
Reference standard: Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006
The themes assessed
Claims governance
Internal policy on the use of claims, roles and responsibilities between regulatory, marketing and scientific teams, validation chain, arbitration of disputed cases.
Qualification and inventory
Inventory of claims used by product and by channel, distinction between nutrition claims, health claims and plain nutrition information, treatment of visuals and implicit statements.
Nutrition claims
Match with the list in the annex, compliance with conditions of use, content thresholds, reference portions, comparative claims and reference products used.
Authorised health claims
Use of the Union register, wording and rewordings, mandatory accompanying statements, quantity of food to be consumed, audiences the claim is not addressed to.
On hold claims and special cases
Tracking of generic claims on hold, botanical claims, disease risk reduction, children’s development and health, trademarks with a claim like character.
Scientific substantiation
Building and keeping files, relevance of data to the product matrix, monitoring of scientific opinions, ability to produce supporting evidence on request.
Control over channels and communication
Validation of packaging, websites, product sheets, social media, influencers and sales force materials, checking of translations and country versions.
Consistency with consumer information
Consistency with the nutrition declaration, actual product values, analytical tolerances, updating claims after a recipe or supplier change.
Regulatory monitoring and changes
Tracking authorisation and refusal regulations, updating internal charters, taking national specifics into account, transition periods and stock clearance.
Internal controls and continuous improvement
Self checks on labels and materials, handling of non conformities, feedback from official inspections and clients, comparison over time and across entities.
A short version of the framework is available for the online self-assessment.
Frequently asked questions
Does this assessment amount to certification or a compliance attestation?
No. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 is directly applicable and enforced by competent authorities, with no body certifying the use of claims. The assessment measures the maturity of your set up and prepares you for official inspection or a retailer client audit.
How is this different from a labelling compliance audit?
An audit examines labels and concludes on a gap or a compliance, on a given date. The assessment places the set up on a progressive scale: governance, qualification, substantiation, control over materials. The two are complementary, the assessment explains why the gaps keep recurring.
How long does the assessment take?
The short version takes 20 to 30 minutes for a regulatory manager to complete. The full version, run collaboratively with marketing, nutrition and quality, usually spans one to two weeks, most of the time going into gathering supporting evidence.
How are on hold claims handled, particularly on botanicals?
The framework isolates them in a dedicated theme, since their use falls under the operator’s responsibility rather than an authorisation. The assessment evaluates how well the decision is documented, the quality of the supporting file and monitoring of each claim’s status.
Can the framework be adapted to our portfolio?
Yes. You can change the questions and levels, add your own themes or start from a blank base. The AI can also build a version from your claims charters and internal procedures. You retain full control over the framework.
Can several brands or countries be compared?
Yes. The same framework can be rolled out across several business units, with a score per theme and a benchmark across entities and against previous assessments. The AI groups gaps into a cross entity roadmap, which avoids duplicating the same actions in every subsidiary.
Do respondents need scientific expertise?
The questions are about management practices, not about evaluating clinical data. A regulatory or quality manager can answer them. Questions on substantiation can be assigned to a scientific contact in collaborative mode.
Where is the data hosted?
In France, with OVH, backed up with Scaleway. No transfer outside the European Union. The AI models used can be selected, including from European providers.