How to Document Structure/Function and General-Wellbeing Label Claims

Treat the claim as attributed package language

Capture a claim verbatim, in quotation marks or a clearly attributed claim field, and identify whether it comes from the package, manufacturer website, advertisement, or retailer. Preserve qualifiers, tense, symbols, footnotes, and nearby graphics. MIHEN should write that the package states or the manufacturer describes, not repeat the wording in its own editorial voice. This distinction prevents a source claim from becoming an unsupported site assertion.

Claim fragments often appear across the front, side panel, asterisk note, and required or voluntary explanatory text. Archive the full panel sequence so a reviewer can see the complete message. Search snippets and marketplace bullet points may omit qualifications. If only a partial image is available, flag the claim context incomplete and do not reconstruct missing words from another variant or a generic brand page.

Classify wording without deciding its legal status

An editorial taxonomy can distinguish structure/function-style wording, general-wellbeing wording, nutrient-content language, process claims, ingredient descriptions, and other promotional statements. Classification supports navigation and review; it is not a final legal determination. Store the reason for the classification and the jurisdiction assumed, then link to official guidance. Ambiguous claims should enter a qualified-review queue rather than being labeled compliant or unlawful by an automated rule.

Context can change how wording is understood. Product name, imagery, testimonials, adjacent statements, and landing-page copy may contribute to the overall presentation. A label-only record should say which surfaces were reviewed and avoid conclusions about materials outside that set. Conversely, a web claim should not be presented as printed package language. Separating channel and version makes the evidence useful without overstating what was assessed.

Capture disclaimers and notification context separately

Where a package displays a disclaimer connected to a claim, transcribe the complete disclaimer, its symbol, placement, and relationship to the claim. Do not summarize it as disclaimer present if the public record can show the text. A missing disclaimer in an image crop is not proof that the full package omits it. Record visible, not visible in reviewed evidence, unreadable, or source conflict as distinct states.

Some frameworks include notification or substantiation responsibilities that are not observable from the label. Do not infer that a notification was or was not submitted, or that supporting material exists, merely because a statement appears on a package. If an official database or correspondence is available, cite it as a separate document with scope and date. MIHEN’s claim record should never imply regulator preapproval unless an authoritative source explicitly establishes that fact.

Avoid turning claim comparison into validation

A comparison table may align exact claim text, qualifier, disclaimer status, channel, package market, source date, and current-versus-archived status. It should not score how convincing a statement sounds, decide that one claim is stronger, or present repeated wording as confirmed performance. Frequency across sellers can simply reflect a shared product feed. Evidence for a claim, when reviewed at all, belongs in a separate documented assessment with qualified oversight.

Do not generate new composite claims from several package phrases. Combining a noun from one panel with a verb from another can produce language the responsible business never used. Likewise, translation should preserve attribution and receive native review before publication because small wording changes can broaden meaning. Until reviewed, keep the original-language claim and a clearly labeled working translation rather than indexing an automated paraphrase as fact.

Publish a visible editorial boundary

Each page should display the identified source, exact product variant, market, capture date, reviewed surfaces, and a short statement that inclusion records a claim rather than endorsing or validating it. Corrections should preserve earlier versions and explain whether the package changed or the transcription was fixed. Automated checks can detect missing attribution, quotation marks, disclaimer fields, and unreviewed translations before release.

This guide is deliberately limited to claim literacy. It does not diagnose a condition, assess individual circumstances, determine performance, recommend use, or make a regulatory ruling about a specific product. Readers can use the source map to inspect the current package and official guidance. A visible last-reviewed date and correction link make that verification practical, while a version identifier prevents an archived statement from appearing current. The evidence display should also expose whether the wording came from a complete panel, a crop, or an external page, because those sources provide different levels of context. Questions about the status of a particular statement belong with the responsible regulator or suitably qualified counsel, supported by the complete marketing context.

• Quote the complete claim and attribute it to the identified source.
• Preserve qualifiers, symbols, footnotes, imagery context, and panel location.
• Separate package, manufacturer-web, advertising, and retailer channels.
• Classify claims for editorial workflow without declaring legal status.
• Transcribe connected disclaimers and their visibility state.
• Do not infer notification, substantiation, or regulator preapproval from label text.
• Keep translations clearly labeled until native review is complete.
• Publish the product variant, market, source date, and scope boundary.