‍A guide to functional tea and coffee health claims: the EU and GB rules on caffeine and botanicals, how formulation shapes the claims you can make, and regulatory differences across key international markets like the USA, Japan, China and Brazil.

Tea and coffee have always been closely linked to mood; from the energising morning americano that gets you going, to the calming chamomile tea that winds you down before bed. The association between a hot drink and a felt effect is centuries old.

Now, that link is becoming more explicit with the rise of functional tea and coffee products. The global functional coffee market is valued at around $4.98 billion in 2026 and is forecast to reach $8.5 billion by 2031. Adaptogenic teas, mushroom coffees and nootropic blends have moved from wellness shops onto supermarket shelves, claiming to help people with focus, relaxation and immune support.

The difficulty is that the moment a hot beverage starts being a product that makes a health or wellness promise, it enters one of the most tightly policed areas of food law. 

This guide to functional beverage health claims sets out what brands can and cannot say in Great Britain and the European Union, how formulation choices impact the claims available to you, and how the rules differ once you sell into the USA, Latin America and Asia.

GB and EU functional health claims

The foundational rule across both the EU and the UK is Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. It has been applied in the EU since July 2007 and was retained in UK law after Brexit. Since then, Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) has run its own GB Nutrition and Health Claims Register, while Northern Ireland stays aligned with EU rules under the Windsor Framework.

Its purpose is to ensure that any claim made on a food's labelling, presentation or advertising is accurate and based on scientific evidence, prohibiting claims that could mislead consumers.

Only claims that have been assessed and authorised may be used, and they must be backed by accepted scientific data. For an ingredient supplier or beverage developer, the reality is that the EU regime has produced a little over 300 authorised health claims, and the standard set by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is demanding. 

‍Nutrition claims vs health claims

‍Nutrition claims describe what a food contains, e.g. “source of fibre,” “low sugar,” “high in vitamin C.” 

‍Health claims describe what a food does, i.e. its relationship to a function of the body or to health. These divide further into:

• Article 13(1): general function claims based on generally accepted science (for example, a vitamin and its role in normal immune function)
  
  
• Article 13(5): claims based on newly developed or proprietary scientific evidence
  
  
• Article 14: claims around the reduction of disease risk, plus claims about children's development and health

‍Read more on EU/UK health and nutrition claims.

‍Botanical health claims 

Functional tea formulations lean heavily on botanicals such as ginseng, chamomile, ashwagandha and lemon balm, but this can be a regulatory grey area. 

When EFSA worked through the original mass of submitted claims, botanicals were carved out. Of 4,637 claims submitted, 1,548 claims on botanicals were placed on hold by the Commission pending further consideration. More than a decade on, that backlog remains largely unresolved. 

EU and GB positions on botanical health claims now differ. In the EU, the Court of Justice confirmed that health claims relating to botanical substances cannot currently be used to promote a food, until the Commission completes its evaluation and adds them to the authorised lists, unless the specific claim is covered by a transitional regime. This prohibition applies regardless of how long the Commission's assessment has been delayed. It’s a stricter position than many brands assume, and it tightened the rules considerably in 2025.

In Great Britain, ASA guidance states that on-hold claims may still be used in advertising provided the wording carries the same meaning as the claim on the on-hold list, and the claim is substantiated by evidence. That substantiation burden falls on the advertiser.

A botanical claim you can defend in GB advertising may not be usable in the EU, so treat the two markets separately rather than assuming a single European position. Individual member states can add their own requirements. Belgium, for example, operates a mandatory notification system for foods containing plants and botanical preparations. Brands must submit a dossier to the federal health authority (FPS Health) and obtain a NUT registration number before the product can be sold there. 

Read more on the regulation of botanical extracts. 

‍Medicinal boundaries

Foods — functional hot beverages included — may not claim to prevent, treat or cure disease. That territory belongs exclusively to licensed medicines. 

European regulations also forbid claims that refer to changes in bodily functions in ways that could give rise to or exploit fear in the consumer. For example, a tea that “supports relaxation” is making a health claim. A tea that “treats anxiety” or “cures insomnia” crosses into unlicensed medicinal claims; a serious compliance breach.

‍Can you make a caffeine health claim? 

Intuitively, “caffeine helps you stay alert” feels like a safe statement. But legally, in the EU and GB, it is not an authorised health claim.

EFSA has issued positive scientific opinions on caffeine and alertness, concentration and endurance performance. However, authorisation also requires the European Commission and member states to vote the claims into law. 

That political stage failed, as the claims were rejected following a veto by the European Parliament. Parliament's reasoning was that allowing “alertness” and "concentration" claims for caffeine would mean they could appear on sugary energy drinks as well as coffee, which risks encouraging caffeine consumption among children and adolescents.

The UK enforces this too. In 2022, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled against a caffeine drink whose ad said caffeine “enhances cognition, mental endurance and mood.” 

‍How formulation choices shape the health claims available to you

What goes into the cup, and in what quantity, determines which claims are open to you. The benefit you want to advertise should therefore inform the formulation from the start. Here are a few principles to follow.

‍Attach claims to the nutrient or ingredient, not the product

The ASA is explicit: marketers must make the claim in relation to the relevant nutrient or food for which it has been authorised, rather than for the product as a whole. Replacing the authorised nutrient with the product name is unacceptable.

The cleanest route is often to fortify your beverage with a nutrient that already carries an authorised claim, then attribute the benefit to that nutrient, e.g. “contains zinc, which contributes to the normal function of the immune system.”

‍Mind the word “normal”

Authorised claims are worded carefully around maintaining “normal” function. Upgrading normal to “improved,” “boosted” or “enhanced” changes the meaning and is treated as an exaggeration. Flexibility of wording is allowed only to aid consumer understanding, not to inflate the benefit.

‍Watch implied claims, including visuals and brand names

A product name, an on-pack image or a marketing photograph can itself constitute a health claim. Under the Regulation, a trade mark or brand name that could be construed as a health claim may be used only when it is accompanied by a related authorised claim.

‍Functional beverage claims outside Europe: USA, Latin America and Asia

European functional coffee and tea brands expanding abroad should avoid assuming one region’s regulatory framework maps onto another. 

“The mistake we see most often is brands treating a health claim as something you translate at the end, once the product already exists. A claim that's perfectly legal on a coffee in the USA can be an unauthorised — or even medicinal — claim on the same product in the EU, or an ingredient that's fine in one market may not be approved in the next. We always tell brands to work backwards from the claim and the target markets before they lock their formulation. It's far more effective to design for compliance than to reformulate or relabel products after launch.”

Dave Hoogakker, Director and Founder, Hooley Brown

‍United States: FDA includes structure/function claims 

Per the FDA, there are three categories defined by statute or regulation: health claims, nutrient content claims, and structure/function claims.

Structure/function claims such as “supports alertness” or “helps maintain digestive health,” describe an effect on the body without claiming to treat disease. For conventional foods and drinks, the FDA expects these claims to derive from the food's nutritive value, while dietary supplements have broader scope.

The upshot for brands is that a “supports focus” coffee that would need an authorised claim (and likely would not get one) in the EU can often be used in the USA, provided you hold substantiation for the specific ingredient and effect and stay away from disease language. 

‍Japan: FOSHU, FNFC and FFC 

Japan effectively invented functional-food regulation and runs one of the most developed systems anywhere, overseen by the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA), across three relevant tiers.

• FOSHU (Foods for Specified Health Uses) is the benchmark, requiring product-by-product government approval through a demanding CAA evaluation with mandatory human clinical trials.
  
  
• FNFC (Foods with Nutrient Function Claims) covers standardised claims for established nutrients, usable without individual approval.
  
  
• FFC (Foods with Function Claims) is a faster, cheaper notification route that lets companies display a product's specific health benefit and an associated area of the body on packaging.

The FFC route drives most innovation as the government does not pre-approve efficacy by product. Businesses must still submit the required safety and effectiveness information to the CAA before marketing. The supporting evidence — clinical trials or systematic reviews — is then published openly on the CAA website, putting the scientific dossier on public view. 

For a tea or coffee brand, Japan can be more accommodating than the EU, provided the evidence is sound enough to withstand public scrutiny.

‍Asia outside Japan: a fragmented picture

China operates its own pre-market “health food” (blue hat) registration and filing system that is demanding and slow. The blue-hat route applies to products that make approved health-function claims; a product sold as a general food cannot make those claims. Other markets in the Asia-Pacific region run everything from Codex-aligned systems to lighter-touch regimes. Localisation, rather than verbatim translation, is the safest approach.

‍Latin America: Brazil and ANVISA authorisation

Brazil runs a pre-market regularisation system through ANVISA, the national health surveillance agency. Under the 2024 framework, products are handled by risk: foods that carry functional or health-property claims require prior marketing authorisation from ANVISA before sale, a stricter route than the simple notification applied to lower-risk products. 

ANVISA divides claims into functional claims and health claims, each grounded in scientific evidence. Wording is fixed: ANVISA issues a list of authorised allegations for each ingredient, and once approved those allegations are mandatory, must use the approved wording, and cannot be altered. 

‍A compliance checklist for functional tea and coffee brands

• Decide on the claim before you finalise the recipe. Identify the authorised claim you want to promote, confirm the ingredient and dose it requires, then formulate to hit that dose per serving as consumed.

• Favour fortification over contested botanicals. Vitamins and minerals carry a deep bank of authorised claims in the EU and GB and translate reasonably well across markets. Botanicals have consumer appeal but face the tightest restrictions.

• Treat caffeine claims with particular caution. Alertness and concentration claims are not available in the EU or GB, and the claim substantiation burden falls on your business.

• Hold your brand name and imagery to the same standard as written claims. Implied claims count; if the name promises a benefit, you need an authorised claim to support it.

• Never cross the medicinal line. “Treats,” “cures” and “prevents” are pharmaceutical language and trigger the most serious enforcement.

• Localise for each export market and write registration timelines into launch plans. Different processes and evidence standards add to the length and cost of expanding your product reach. 

Need help with your functional product health claims? Hooley Brown gives food and drink brands the regulatory and labelling expertise to launch with clarity, in any market. Book a free discovery call. 

This article was published in August 2026. Regulations can change. Always verify current requirements and seek professional advice for your specific situation.