Why can protein shakes say more about health benefits than blueberries?
Walk through any supermarket and you’ll notice something curious.
Protein shakes, meal replacement drinks and other products designed to deliver specific nutritional benefits can explain in detail how they support protein intake, immunity, energy and overall nutrition. Their messaging is often clear, direct and highly specific.
Yet blueberries, spinach, carrots, apples and other fresh produce, foods most people naturally associate with healthy eating, often say very little about their health benefits on-pack.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, of course.
These products are all operating within strict UK and EU health claims regulations, and those rules exist for a good reason. They help protect consumers from misleading or unsubstantiated claims, and I think most people in the industry would agree that we don't want a world where every fruit and vegetable is being promoted as the latest miracle food.
But it does create an interesting contrast in how health is communicated at shelf level.
Take meal replacement drinks as an example. They can legitimately explain that vitamin C contributes to the normal function of the immune system, iron contributes to normal cognitive function, or calcium contributes to the normal function of digestive enzymes. These are all authorised health claims, backed by regulation, and they help consumers understand exactly what those nutrients do.
Meanwhile, a punnet of blueberries, despite being a food that dietary guidelines consistently encourage us to eat more of, has far less freedom to communicate its nutritional value in such clear, functional terms.
Whole foods sit in a different space. Their value is generally understood at the level of an overall dietary pattern rather than through individual nutrients. Most dietary guidelines encourage us to eat more fruit and vegetables because of the role they play in supporting long-term health, fibre intake and a varied, plant-rich diet. But that’s much harder to communicate through simple on-pack messaging.
For growers, retailers and fresh produce businesses, this creates an interesting commercial challenge too. As food budgets come under increasing pressure and shoppers are presented with increasingly confident health messaging from products designed to deliver specific nutritional benefits, communicating the value of fresh produce has arguably never been more important.
Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a criticism of those products. I use them myself, and they clearly have an important place, particularly given the convenience they bring!
It just makes me wonder whether we’re fully aligned between public health messaging, nutrition science and what is actually allowed to be communicated at the point of sale.
Speaking with growers, technical teams, commercial professionals and retailers across the fresh produce industry, it’s clear this is a topic viewed differently depending on where you sit.
Perhaps the bigger question isn’t whether the regulations are wrong, but whether they still reflect the way we now think about healthy eating.
Should fresh produce businesses have a little more freedom to communicate established, evidence-based dietary guidance more clearly? Or do the current rules still strike the right balance in protecting consumers and maintaining trust?
I’d genuinely be interested to hear perspectives from growers, retailers, technical, nutrition, marketing and anyone else working across the food industry.
