A claim on the front of a pack answers one narrow legal question. It isn't a verdict on the food. Two of the four claims here have an exact legal test. One has barely any. And one, multigrain, has no definition in the rules we checked, so it can mean almost anything the baker likes.
Below are the actual rules in the EU/UK, the US and India, then real packs read line by line. The pack figures come from label records on Open Food Facts, a public database built from pack photos, as read on 2 November 2026. Recipes change and records can lag, so treat them as worked examples and check the pack in your hand.
What each claim legally has to mean
| Claim | EU and UK | US (FDA) | India (FSSAI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| No added sugar | No added sugars or anything used for sweetness. If sugars occur naturally, must also say "contains naturally occurring sugars" | No sugars or sugar-containing ingredients added, the food it replaces normally has added sugar, and it must say if it's not low calorie | A recognised "non-addition of sugars" claim under regulation 6 |
| Low sugar | 5 g or less per 100 g; 2.5 g or less per 100 ml | No defined claim | 5 g per 100 g; 2.5 g per 100 ml |
| Sugar free | 0.5 g or less per 100 g or ml | Under 0.5 g per serving | 0.5 g per 100 g or ml |
| High fibre | 6 g per 100 g, or 3 g per 100 kcal | 20% of Daily Value (5.6 g) per reference serving | 6 g per 100 g, or 3 g per 100 kcal |
| High protein | 20% of the food's energy from protein ("source of": 12%) | 20% of Daily Value (10 g, adjusted for protein quality) per reference serving | 20% of RDA per 100 g; 10% per 100 ml or per 100 kcal |
| Multigrain | No nutrition-claim definition | No definition; FDA draft guidance defines only "whole grain" | No specific condition in the claim schedule we read |
| Natural | Only as a prefix when a food naturally meets a claim ("naturally high in fibre"); otherwise general rules on misleading labels | Long-standing policy, not a regulation: nothing artificial or synthetic that wouldn't normally be there | Single food, nothing added; mixtures may only say "made from natural ingredients" |
'No added sugar': true, and still plenty of sugar
Start with juice, which is where most people assume this claim lives. In the EU it can't appear on 100% fruit juice any more. Adding sugar to fruit juice was banned outright by a 2012 directive, so the "no added sugars" claim went too, with transition periods running out around 2015. It would be like advertising water as fat-free. A 2024 directive lets juice cartons instead say "fruit juices contain only naturally occurring sugars". In the US, the claim only works if the food it stands in for normally has added sugar, and the pack has to add that it's not a low-calorie food.
The sums matter more than the wording. Here's what the labels show, using 4 g of sugar to a teaspoon:
| Drink | Sugars per 100 ml | Serving | Sugar in serving |
|---|---|---|---|
| innocent apple juice (UK): apples and vitamin C | 9.5 g | 330 ml bottle | 31 g, about 8 tsp |
| Tropicana apple juice (US): from concentrate | 10.5 g | 10 fl oz (296 ml) bottle | 31 g, about 8 tsp |
| Real Fruit Power mixed fruit (India): water, 12% juice concentrate, then sugar | 13.1 g | 200 ml glass | 26 g, about 6½ tsp |
The apple juices have nothing added and the Indian drink lists sugar as its third ingredient. Your teeth and blood glucose won't see much difference between them. The NHS caps juice and smoothies at 150 ml a day, which at 9.5 g per 100 ml is 14 g, and sets a limit of 30 g of free sugars a day for adults. Finish the innocent bottle and you've used the whole lot. India's regulator has also gone after the neighbouring claim: in June 2024 FSSAI told companies to remove "100% fruit juice" from reconstituted juices.
The biscuit version
Take the sugar out of a biscuit and something has to fill the space. Compare two digestives, both per 100 g:
Sugar drops by 97%, which is a real change if you're watching glucose. Calories drop by 13%, which is far less than the phrase suggests. Isomalt and maltitol are polyols, and that's why EU packs with over 10% of them must carry the line "excessive consumption may produce laxative effects". Nobody puts that on the front.
'Multigrain': count the grains, then look for 'whole'
The word only tells you the number of grains. The FDA's 2006 draft guidance defines the term that does matter: whole grain means the bran, germ and endosperm are all there, in their natural proportions. Seven refined grains would still be seven grains. Ingredients are listed by weight, so the first line does most of the work.
| Loaf | First ingredients | Per slice | Fibre per slice | Fibre per 100 g |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Village Hearth Honey 7 Grain (US) | Enriched unbleached flour, water, whole wheat flour, grain blend | 28 g, 80 kcal | 2 g | 7.1 g |
| Wonder Soft Multigrain + Prebiotic (Australia) | Wheat flour, water, modified tapioca starch, wholegrain oats | 36 g, 74 kcal | 4.1 g | 11.4 g |
| Nature's Own Honey 7 Grain (US) | Whole wheat flour, water, enriched flour, wheat gluten, brown sugar, honey | 26 g, 70 kcal | 1 g | 3.8 g |
| Arnold 12 Grains and Seeds (US) | Whole wheat flour, water, whole grains, wheat gluten | 43 g, 110 kcal | 4 g | 9.3 g |
Look at what that table does to the easy assumption. The first two lead with refined flour, yet both clear the EU's 6 g high-fibre line, because fibre can be added back: oat fibre in one, wheat and soy fibre in the other. The third leads with whole wheat and has less fibre than either. So "whole grain first" and "high in fibre" are two separate questions, and a good loaf answers yes to both. Only the Arnold does here. It's also the biggest slice, so compare per 100 g before you compare per slice.
If you want a number to aim for, our fibre gap article shows how bread fits into a 30-gram day. UK and EU flour wording catches people too: "wheat flour" with calcium, iron, niacin and thiamin listed after it is ordinary fortified white flour. Look for "wholemeal" instead.
'Natural': the claim to mostly ignore
In the US, the FDA asked the public what "natural" should mean, closed that comment period on 10 May 2016, and has still not defined the word by regulation. Its old policy only says nothing artificial or synthetic has been added that you wouldn't expect in the food. It doesn't address pesticides or processing, and it doesn't speak to health at all. Plenty of ingredient lists show why that's a weak promise: the Clif bar below lists "natural flavors" alongside cane syrup, cane sugar and brown rice syrup.
India's rule is the strictest of the three on paper. A single food from a natural source with nothing added may be called natural, while a mixture may only say "made from natural ingredients". India also has a rule about brand names: where a word such as natural, fresh, pure, real or genuine in a brand name could mislead, the label must carry a disclaimer saying "this is only a brand name or trade mark and does not represent its true nature". That line is worth hunting for. In May 2025 FSSAI went further and warned companies off unverified "100% natural" and "100% pure" claims.
'High protein': work out the share of energy
Here the EU test is simple enough to do in the aisle. Multiply the grams of protein by 4, then divide by the calories. At 20% or more, the food can say high protein. Three real bars:
| Bar | Per bar | Protein | Sugars | Protein share of energy | First ingredients |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature Valley Protein Peanut & Chocolate | 40 g, 195 kcal | 10.2 g | 6.8 g | 21% | Peanuts, soy protein, oligofructose, glucose syrup |
| Clif Builders Chocolatey Peanut Butter | 68 g, 290 kcal | 20 g | 17 g | 28% | Soy protein isolate, cane syrup, cane sugar, brown rice syrup |
| Barebells Caramel Cashew | 55 g, 200 kcal | 19.8 g | 1.5 g | 40% | Milk proteins, glycerol, collagen, maltitol and sucralose |
Worked through for the Nature Valley bar: 10.2 × 4 = 41 kcal from protein, and 41 ÷ 195 = 21%. It clears the line by one point, mainly because peanuts carry a lot of fat calories. The Clif bar has 17 g of sugars, more than 4 teaspoons, and still passes. On the Canadian pack of this flavour the ingredients begin with "Sugars (cane syrup, cane sugar, brown rice syrup)", because Canada groups sugars together. Very different first impression. Barebells passes on protein and also carries "no added sugar", so it's the two claims stacked, with sweetness from polyols and sucralose.
The rules also don't test equally. A US "high protein" claim needs 10 g per reference serving after adjusting for protein quality, so a bar relying on collagen, which scores zero on that measure, can't simply count those grams. India's test goes per 100 g: with ICMR's 54 g reference for a sedentary man, 20% works out to about 11 g per 100 g by our sums, and the breads above sit close to that. So the same word on a pack is a tougher promise in one country than another.
Against plain food
| Food (USDA values) | Calories | Protein | Protein share of energy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 170 g plain non-fat Greek yogurt | 100 kcal | 17 g | 69% |
| 2 large eggs | 143 kcal | 12.6 g | 35% |
| 1 cup (198 g) cooked lentils or dal | 230 kcal | 18 g | 31% |
None of these carry a claim, and all of them beat two of the bars on share of energy. A bar can still earn its place in a gym bag on a travel day. It just doesn't need the halo. How much you need overall is a separate question, which we go through in protein after 40.
The 60-second pack routine
1. Read the claim as a narrow sentence. What exactly does it promise, and what does it leave out?
2. Look at the first three ingredients. Look for "whole" on grains, and count the sugars under all their names.
3. Compare per 100 g or 100 ml, not per serving, so that slice size can't flatter a pack.
4. Do the one sum that matters for this food. Total sugars for a drink. Fibre for a loaf. Protein × 4 ÷ calories for a bar.
5. Compare like with like. Two breads, or two bars. Not a bar against broccoli.
Front-of-pack scores try to answer a different question from these claims, and our front-of-pack labels guide covers Nutri-Score, traffic lights and the FDA's "healthy" rule.
A claim can be perfectly legal and still leave out most of what you wanted to know. Let it send you to the back of the pack.
Managing blood sugar, weight or a family's lunchboxes? Dr. Triveni can go through the foods you actually buy with you, and turn the labels into meals in a virtual consultation.
Book a consultationThis article is general label-reading information, not legal or medical advice. Rules and recipes change, so check the current pack and your local regulator when a claim matters for a medical diet. Brands are named only as worked examples; we have no link to any of them.
Sources
Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and the European Commission's list of nutrition claims. Directive 2012/12/EU and Directive (EU) 2024/1438 on fruit juices. Regulation (EU) 1169/2011, Annex III, for the polyol warning. US 21 CFR 101.60 on sugar claims and 21 CFR 101.54 on "high" and "good source". FDA, Use of the term natural on food labeling and draft guidance on whole grain label statements (2006).
FSSAI, Advertising and Claims Amendment Regulations 2019 direction with the Schedule I thresholds; a summary of the 2018 'natural' conditions; press reports of the June 2024 "100% fruit juice" direction and the May 2025 advisory on "100%" claims. NHS, sugar in your diet. Pack figures: Open Food Facts records linked in the tables, read 2 November 2026. Food values: USDA FoodData Central.
