Rising consumer demand for healthier products combined with intensifying scrutiny of better-for-you claims in 2025 by an advertising watchdog and industry competitors is raising the bar for how and when food and beverage companies can safely promote functional benefits, clean labels and nutrient content claims.
The BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division last year delivered on its promise to examine more closely better-for-you and related explicit and implied health claims that could mislead consumers, many of whom are willing to pay more for products they perceive to be healthier or use them more often.
Last year, NAD weighed in on at least four food and beverage cases brought by competitors alleging a lack of support for better-for-you, functional, clean label, nutrient content and implied or explicit health claims.
While such cases are not new to NAD, the cases published in 2025 show the division is refining its interpretation about what qualifies as better-for-you claims, how consumers interpret them and the standard for support necessary to ensure consumers are not deceived unfairly.
‘Better-for-you’ and functional claims in the crosshairs
Cases brought against Ingenuity Brands and Ryze Superfoods suggest that while the basic standard of support for better-for-you claims for foods and beverages remains “competent and reliable scientific evidence,” the bar may differ depending on the specificity of the claim.
Likewise, the standard may be a harder reach as “reasonable consumers” become more sophisticated in their understanding of nutrition and health.
For example, in a case brought against Ingenuity Brands, NAD found the company provided a “reasonable basis” for claims its Brainiac Brain Squeezers Applesauce “supports immunity” and that its Brainiac snacks “help close the brain nutrition gap.”
It also found the company’s reliance on World Health Organization recommendations supported a specific claim that only 20% of children receive the recommended daily intake of omega-3s, which it characterized as “the most important building blocks of the brain.”
However, NAD drew the line at the claim the product “promotes brain health” because the amount of DHA in the applesauce was less than the amount tested in studies submitted as support by the company.
NAD also examined similar express and implied claims made by Ryze Superfoods that its Mushroom Coffee provides “healthier digestion, better immune support” and “better sleep,” and that its Mushroom Matcha offered appetite-suppressing benefits similar to GLP-1 agonists without the side effects.
In both cases, the companies discontinued the contested claims – underscoring the need for competent and reliable evidence to support functional and performance benefit claims.
Takeaways from the case suggest that if a food is marketed for what it does, versus just what it is, advertisers should expect increased scrutiny and be prepared to meet a higher standard of proof. The cases also suggest potential future scrutiny of cognitive, mood and energy claims tied to foods and of adaptogen beverages more broadly.
Implied claims are a grey zone
The NAD cases published last year also suggest that sufficient support for implied health claims is just as important as for express claims.
Food and beverage brands often try to sidestep tight regulations for making health claims for foods and beverages by relying on vague words, like “memory,” “focus” or “clarity,” or design elements that suggest a health benefit but do not make an outright statement.
But NAD considers advertising holistically – looking at design elements, front-of-pack cues and category shorthand. If a reasonable consumer would have an impression of a benefit from the whole presentation, then companies need to support that impression as a claim.
For example, in the case against Ingenuity, NAD determined that callouts for “memory,” “clarity,” “focus” and “vision” on the company’s BrainPack Daily Adult Gummy Vitamins suggested the product would improve cognitive performance measurably – which it also determined the company could not support.
On the flip side, in a case brought against Kendal Nutricare Limited for its Kendamil infant formula products, the National Advertising Review Board (an appellate advertising body of BBB National Programs), determined a claim “whole milk fats are similar to those found in breast milk, with naturally occurring MFGM supporting cognitive development” did not imply the naturally occurring MFGM in Kendamil formulas is comparable to an amount show to benefit neurodevelopment.
To understand where the line is, companies need to review copy and the overall packaging design. They may also benefit from bringing together creative, legal and regulatory experts earlier in the development process.
‘Clean’ ingredients could become flashpoint
NAD’s cases in 2025 also suggest that ‘clean’ ingredient and label claims could mislead consumers or be difficult to defend – especially as there are not specific or commonly agreed definitions for the terms.
In the case against Ingenuity, NAD recommended the company discontinue the claim “clean ingredients” on its applesauce and argued that such claims need to be “properly supported and qualified to make clear the basis for the assertion that the product’s ingredients are ‘clean.’”
The case against Kendal could show how the intent of “clean” claims can be safely made with more specific language. For example, the company says it uses “organic ingredients” to replace “palm oil, soy and corn syrups.” The NARB determined this specific description to be truthful and not misleading.
Comparative nutritional claims must be precise and verifiable
In general, the more specific a claim is the more likely a company can defend it, but advertisers still need sufficient substantiation.
In case brought against Ole Mexican Foods, NAD recommended the company discontinue sodium content claims for its La Banderita brand flour tortillas because it did not provide substantiation for the claim.
Next steps
Going forward, implied and express health claims – including better-for-you and functional benefit claims – will likely trigger additional scrutiny as consumers increasingly connect their diet and health and seek products that support the latter.
With this in mind, marketers should:
- Audit functional and implied health claims;
- Reassess clean ingredient narratives and potentially replace them with more specific language;
- Ensure sufficient substantiation for a “reasonable consumer;”
- Understand that the bar for a “reasonable consumer” may increase alongside increased awareness and education; and
- Review marketing – including packaging – holistically.
