What’s the Difference Between “No Known Health Benefits” and “Detrimental to Your Health”?

In today’s food environment, the language on packaging can be as influential as the ingredients inside. A product labeled as having “no known health benefits” may seem innocuous. But in a system where ultra-processed foods are routinely marketed as “natural,” “clean,” or “plant-based,” the absence of proven benefit often conceals the presence of measurable harm.

This isn’t a semantic issue. For people managing chronic diseases, whether diabetes, cardiovascular conditions, autoimmune disorders, or obesity, this distinction is central to how we make decisions, prescribe treatment, and design policy. And it raises a deeper question: what happens when the food system speaks a different language than the healthcare system?

“The absence of proven benefit often conceals the presence of measurable harm.”

Food as Medicine: A Legal and Policy Blind Spot

For millions of people living with chronic conditions, food is not just fuel. It’s part of the treatment plan. Yet the legal and regulatory systems that govern food labelling, marketing, and access are not designed with these individuals in mind.

There is no EU-wide legal recognition of the right to therapeutic nutrition. This creates a structural vulnerability:

• Health equity: People with chronic conditions face barriers to accessing medically appropriate food.
• Consumer protection: Misleading food labels undermine informed decision-making.
• Public procurement: Institutions like hospitals and schools are not consistently required to provide nutritionally appropriate meals.

This policy vacuum leaves individuals exposed to a food environment shaped more by marketing than by medicine.

“There is no EU-wide legal recognition of the right to therapeutic nutrition.”

Regulatory Asymmetry: Food Claims vs. Medical Standards

Medicines in the EU must demonstrate efficacy and safety through rigorous trials. Food products, even those making health claims, are subject to a lower evidentiary threshold. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviews some claims, but many reach the market with vague or loosely substantiated messaging.

This regulatory asymmetry allows products with no proven health benefit to be marketed as beneficial; and in some cases, enables the promotion of products with known health risks as neutral or even health-enhancing.

“The food people are advised to eat is not held to the same standard as the medication they are prescribed.”

Greenwashing in Food Marketing: Five Tactics That Mislead

A 2024 systematic review identified five dominant greenwashing tactics in the food and beverage industry:

1. Vague or Undefined Claims: Terms like “natural,” “clean,” or “eco-friendly” lack legal definitions and imply health benefits without scientific validation.
2. Selective Disclosure: Brands highlight one favourable attribute (e.g. “high in fibre”) while omitting critical information such as high sugar content or ultra-processing.
3. Deceptive Visual Design: Packaging uses green tones, nature imagery, or minimalist aesthetics to signal healthfulness, regardless of nutritional quality.
4. Unverified Certifications: Products display self-created or misused eco-labels that mimic legitimate standards, creating a false sense of oversight.
5. Overstated Health or Environmental Claims: Claims like “immune-boosting” or “climate-friendly” are often based on weak or irrelevant evidence, with no requirement for independent review.

These tactics distort consumer understanding and disproportionately affect individuals who depend on accurate information to manage chronic disease.

“Greenwashing isn’t just misleading. It’s a systemic distortion of health information.”

A Case in Point: GLP-1 Therapy and the Need for Nutritional Clarity

The rise of GLP-1 receptor agonists, such as semaglutide and tirzepatide, has transformed obesity care. These medications improve glycemic control, reduce adipose tissue dysfunction, and support weight loss. But they are not standalone solutions.

A 2025 consensus advisory from leading health organizations emphasises that nutrition therapy is essential to support GLP-1 treatment. Priorities include:

• Minimally processed, nutrient-dense diets
• Adequate protein intake to preserve lean mass
• Prevention of micronutrient deficiencies
• Management of gastrointestinal side effects

Despite this, no formal EU dietary guidelines currently exist to accompany GLP-1 therapy. Patients are left to navigate a food system where ultra-processed products are often marketed as healthy, despite undermining the very outcomes these medications aim to achieve.

This is not merely a clinical oversight. It is a policy failure that compromises the effectiveness of one of the most promising tools in chronic disease management.

“Therapeutic nutrition is essential to GLP-1 success, but the food environment is working against it.”

The Missed Opportunity: Withdrawal of the Green Claims Directive

The EU’s Green Claims Directive, proposed in 2023, was designed to require companies to substantiate environmental and health-related claims with scientific evidence. It would have banned vague labels and misleading eco-branding.

Its withdrawal in June 2025, under political pressure, represents a significant setback. Without this directive, there is no unified mechanism to prevent greenwashing or to protect consumers, particularly those managing chronic conditions, from misleading food environments.

“The withdrawal of the Green Claims Directive leaves consumers unprotected in a marketplace of misinformation.”

Reframing the Question: From Semantics to Systems

What is the difference between “no known health benefits” and “detrimental to your health”?

In regulatory terms, the former implies a lack of evidence for benefit; the latter implies evidence of harm. In practice, especially in food marketing, this distinction is often blurred: intentionally. Products with no proven benefit are routinely marketed as beneficial. Products with known risks are presented as benign.

For people who use food as medicine, this ambiguity is not a matter of interpretation. It is a structural failure that undermines health, autonomy, and trust.

“When food is part of the treatment plan, ambiguity is not harmless. It’s a barrier to care.”