Red Lines in Food Advertising and Labeling Claims: What You Cannot Say

The red lines on wording in food advertising and labeling are the compliance step most easily overlooked before an imported food goes on sale in Taiwan. Under Article 28 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation (食品安全衛生管理法, “the Act”), any wording in labeling, promotion or advertising that is false, exaggerated, misleading or that involves medical efficacy is without exception subject to the penalty provisions, whether it appears on the package, on an e-commerce page or in a social media post. The key points below are organized one by one: the limits on health claims, the principles for determining exaggerated or misleading claims, common violation patterns, and the gatekeeping responsibility the importer bears.

1. Legal Basis and Penalties

• Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the Act: the labeling, promotion or advertising of food shall not be false, exaggerated or misleading.
• Paragraph 2: it shall not involve medical efficacy.
• A violation carries an administrative fine of not less than NT$40,000 and not more than NT$4,000,000. Where the circumstances are serious, the authority may order manufacture and sale to be halted, and may confiscate and destroy the products.
• Acting on this authorization, the Ministry of Health and Welfare (衛生福利部) issued the Criteria for Determining Whether the Labeling, Promotion or Advertising of Food and Related Products Is False, Exaggerated, Misleading or Involves Medical Efficacy (食品及相關產品標示宣傳廣告涉及不實誇張易生誤解或醫療效能認定準則), 2019 (ROC 108) version, which serves as the front-line basis for determination.
• The scope of application covers package labeling, sticker text, e-commerce product descriptions, advertising copy, social media posts, flyers, live streams and even oral promotion; the same standard applies online and offline.

2. Limits on Health Claims: The Line Between General Food and Health Food

• General food may not claim to have “health-care efficacy” (保健功效). Only products that have obtained Health Food (健康食品) certification from the Ministry of Health and Welfare — commonly known as the “little green man” mark — may make claims, and only within the 13 statutory health-care efficacy categories.
• The 13 health-care efficacy categories: liver protection, blood lipid regulation, blood sugar regulation, gastrointestinal function improvement, bone health, immune regulation, delaying aging, anti-fatigue, promoting iron absorption and utilization, blood pressure regulation, dental health, body weight regulation, and assisting in the adjustment of an allergic constitution.
• Before certification is obtained, the wording above may not be used correspondingly even where the ingredient does have supporting research. Common missteps include wording that maps directly onto Health Food efficacy categories, such as “regulates blood sugar”, “regulates blood pressure” and “protects the liver”.
• A second category of expressions that may clearly be used lawfully consists of the model sentences that meet the content threshold and expressly state the physiological function of a specific nutrient, such as, for vitamin D, “helps the growth and development of bones and teeth”. These likewise may not be applied at will to products that do not reach the threshold.

3. Standards for Determining Exaggerated or Misleading Claims

The Determination Criteria divide violations into two main types, and the assessment looks not only at individual wording but also at the overall presentation:

• Involving medical efficacy (the most serious): any wording that involves preventing, improving, alleviating, diagnosing or treating a disease is prohibited without exception, for example “lowers blood pressure”, “cures insomnia” or “prevents anemia”. Organ-related terms drawn from the efficacy of Chinese medicinal materials also fall into this category, such as tonifying the kidney (補腎), strengthening the spleen (健脾), soothing the liver (疏肝) and invigorating the blood to remove stasis (活血化瘀). Citing the document reference number of a government agency is likewise a violation.
• Involving exaggeration or misleading content: any claim that a product can maintain or change the organs, tissues, physiology or appearance of the human body is a violation, for example “strengthens resistance”, “nourishes the brain”, “scavenges free radicals”, “eliminates toxins”, “weight loss / body shaping / slimming”, “whitens the skin” and “delays aging”. Even where these do not refer directly to a disease, they remain prohibited as exaggerated or misleading.
• The overall-impression principle: even where the individual wording is taken from the lawful model sentences, such as “adjusts the constitution” or “helps you fall asleep”, the presentation may still be found in violation if the text and images taken as a whole lead consumers to associate the product with medical efficacy.

4. Common Violation Patterns and Types of Import Cases

English claims from the original manufacturer are common on imported food, and once translated literally or freely they easily cross the red lines. The comparisons most often seen in practice are as follows:

• “supports immune health / 增強免疫力” → violation (equivalent to “strengthens resistance”).
• “promotes weight loss / 助減肥” → violation.
• “anti-aging / 抗老化” → violation (preventing aging, delaying aging and improving wrinkles are all listed as violating examples).
• “detox / 排毒” → violation (“eliminates toxins” is expressly listed as a violating example).
• “blood sugar support / 控血糖” → violation (falls within the scope of disease treatment).
• “antioxidant / 強力抗氧化” → borderline case. “Scavenges free radicals” may not be claimed; the model sentence “has an antioxidant effect” may be used instead where the content threshold is met.
• “improves gut health / 改善腸道” → borderline case. “Helps maintain the function of the digestive tract” may be used; “improves intestinal disease” may not be claimed.
• “High protein / 高蛋白” → a general food that does not meet the content threshold may not make this claim outright.

5. The Importer’s Gatekeeping Responsibility

• Wording on the original manufacturer’s packaging is covered as well: even if the violating wording is printed on the original outer packaging, it remains subject to Article 28 of the Act as long as the product circulates within Taiwan. If the applied Chinese-language sticker carries over or translates violating wording, responsibility rests with the importer.
• E-commerce descriptions and physical labeling are held to the same standard: product titles, descriptions and storefront copy on marketplaces and self-hosted online stores are subject to the same set of rules as package labeling, and a different channel does not create room for leniency.
• Translation is where the risk is amplified: once the original manufacturer’s English claim is translated literally, the Chinese rendering may still constitute a violating claim in Taiwan even where the original is lawful in its source market. Each sentence should be checked against the Determination Criteria before translation.
• Suggested self-check points: whether disease-related wording appears; whether misleading terms such as “nourishes the brain”, “detox” or “slimming” appear; whether Chinese-medicine organ terms appear; whether nutrient function model sentences meet the content threshold; and whether the e-commerce copy is looser than the package labeling.

The above summarizes the key points of Article 28 of the Act and the Determination Criteria. For actual cases, it is still recommended that each sentence be checked against the latest announced version.

---

This article is a general summary of information, not legal advice. For actual applications, the latest announcement of the Taiwan FDA (衛生福利部食品藥物管理署) shall prevail.