Protein claims have become one of the most common marketing tools in the food industry. “Protein bars”, “high protein” yogurts, bread labeled as a “source of protein” or snacks “rich in protein” are present in almost every category. However, every time a protein‑related claim appears on the label or in advertising, the manufacturer is entering a strictly regulated area of nutrition claims. At that point it is no longer just a matter of creative marketing, but of correctly applying the legislation.
This article focuses on two key legal categories: “source of protein” and “high in protein” / “rich in protein”. We will explain what exactly the rulebook says, what the requirement that a certain share of “energy value” must come from protein means in practice, how to calculate it and what the most common mistakes by manufacturers are.
Legal framework for protein claims
Nutrition claims related to protein are regulated by a rulebook that follows the logic of the EU Regulation on nutrition and health claims. The core principle is straightforward: a claim is permitted only if clearly defined quantitative conditions are met. There is no room for “approximately”, “almost” or “by feel”. If analytical data and the calculated energy value do not support the claim, it is legally not allowed, regardless of the fact that the product may “in practice” be rich in protein compared to standard market products.
For the manufacturer this means that, before using any protein claim, solid documentation has to be in place: the recipe, laboratory analyses, an accurately calculated nutrition table and an internal record describing how compliance with the conditions for the claim has been verified.
What “source of protein” means under the rulebook
The rulebook explicitly states:
“A claim that a food is a source of protein, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where at least 12 % of the energy value of the food is provided by protein.”
The key elements of this wording are “at least 12%” and “energy value”. In other words, what is assessed is not just the percentage of protein per gram of product, but the share of energy that comes from protein in the total energy value of the product. Since energy from protein, fat and carbohydrates is calculated using standard energy factors, a value of 4 kcal per 1 g of protein is used for protein.
In practice, to confirm that a product is a “source of protein”, the exact protein content is first determined (by analysis or on the basis of verified raw‑material specifications), the energy contribution of protein is then calculated, and this contribution is compared with the total energy value. If the resulting share is equal to or greater than 12%, the product may bear the claim “source of protein” or claims with a similar meaning.
What “high in protein” / “rich in protein” means under the rulebook
For a stronger claim, the regulation sets a stricter condition:
“A claim that a food is high in protein, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where at least 20 % of the energy value of the food is provided by protein.”
Here the logic does not change, but the threshold rises from 12% to 20% of energy from protein. In practical terms, this means that many products that meet the condition for a “source of protein” will still fall below the criteria for being “high in protein”. Manufacturers must carefully choose which claim they will use and whether the formulation really supports the stronger claim.
All expressions that a consumer can interpret as “high protein”, “a lot of protein”, “protein product” and similar fall into this group and must meet the condition of 20% of energy coming from protein.
Why the criterion is based on energy, not just protein percentage
Using the share of energy, rather than a simple percentage of protein in the product mass, has a clear rationale. A product with a relatively small proportion of protein but very low overall energy can reach a significant percentage of its energy from protein, while a product with a high share of fat or sugar may have more grams of protein but a lower energy share contributed by protein.
For technologists and R&D teams this means that simply increasing protein in the recipe does not guarantee compliance, if the product still has a high share of fat or sugar at the same time. It is often necessary to reduce energy from other sources in parallel so that the share of protein in total energy exceeds the 12% or 20% threshold.
How to calculate in practice whether a product meets the condition
In manufacturing, one usually starts from nutritional values per 100 g of product: grams of protein, carbohydrates and fat. Based on these values, energy from each component is calculated using standard factors. Total energy is then obtained by summing up, and the share of energy coming from protein is calculated.
If this share is above 12%, the product can carry the claim “source of protein”. If it is above 20%, the claim “high in protein” or any statement with the same meaning can be used. This calculation must be documented and linked to real, laboratory‑confirmed values, not only to theoretical calculations based on the recipe, especially for products involving heat treatment, fermentation or drying.
Specifics for different product categories
Different food categories behave very differently with respect to protein claims. Bakery products (bread, rolls) require targeted addition of protein ingredients such as vital gluten, soy or dairy proteins in order to reach the desired share.
Confectionery, ice creams and desserts usually have a high share of sugar and fat, so to achieve a “high protein” claim the recipe must be significantly reformulated: lowering energy from sugar and fat, increasing protein content and at the same time maintaining acceptable texture and taste. Beverages with protein claims also have to take into account energy contribution from sweeteners and fat (if present), because even relatively small amounts of fat can reduce the percentage of energy from protein below the threshold.
Impact of protein ingredient choice on claim compliance
The type and concentration of the protein ingredient directly affects the feasibility of using protein claims. Protein concentrates and isolates, such as WPC 80, soy isolate or pea protein concentrate, allow higher protein content to be achieved at a lower dosage, which makes it easier to reach the 12% or 20% of energy from protein thresholds.
At the same time, these ingredients affect texture, viscosity, emulsion stability, foaming and taste. Technologists have to find a balance between meeting the legal criterion for the claim and maintaining the sensory quality of the product. Excessive protein increase may lead to an overly dense texture, a floury mouthfeel, bitter or “beany” notes in plant proteins, or coagulation in beverages.
Be careful with marketing terminology and translations
The rulebook is not limited only to the precise expressions “source of protein” and “high in protein”. It is clearly stated that the conditions also apply to any statement likely to have the same meaning for the consumer. This includes English terms on the pack such as “protein rich”, “high protein”, “protein boost”, as well as creative local variants.
For manufacturers this means that the legal threshold cannot be avoided by “softening” or “camouflaging” the claim with a different wording. When the average consumer gets the impression that a product is a “protein product” or “particularly rich in protein”, it is legally treated as a claim that must meet the conditions of 12% or 20% of energy from protein, depending on the intensity of the message.
Risks of non‑compliant protein claims
Non‑compliant protein claims can lead to several types of problems. First, they constitute misleading of consumers, which the inspection authorities take very seriously. Second, any discrepancy between the nutrition table and declared claims and the actual composition of the product may result in orders to correct the label, product withdrawals, financial penalties and damage to consumer trust.
For companies producing private‑label products for retail chains, the risk is even higher, because customers often demand contractual penalties in case of regulatory non‑compliance. In international business, inaccurate protein claims can block market entry in countries with stricter controls or lead to shipments being returned.
Practical recommendations for manufacturers
To use protein claims safely, it is advisable for the manufacturer to introduce an internal procedure: first, define the target claim (“source of protein” or “high in protein”), then during the formulation development phase calculate the expected energy value and the share of energy from protein, afterwards verify this analytically at pilot and industrial scale, and finally document that the product consistently meets the criterion throughout its shelf life.
It is also important to closely connect R&D, quality and marketing. The marketing team should not propose or use protein claims without prior confirmation from technologists and the legal department that all legal conditions are met. Any change of supplier of protein raw materials, change in concentration or switch to another type of protein (e.g. from dairy to plant‑based) must trigger a renewed check of compliance with the conditions for the claim.
Conclusion
Protein claims are a powerful tool for product positioning, but at the same time they are very clearly defined from a regulatory standpoint. “Source of protein” requires at least 12% of the energy value to come from protein, while “high in protein” and similar statements require at least 20%. Without accurate energy calculations and reliable analytical data, the manufacturer risks entering a zone of legal non‑compliance.
The key to success is a disciplined approach: understanding exactly what the rulebook says, calculating energy correctly, choosing appropriate protein ingredients and documenting compliance. When these conditions are met, protein claims become a legitimate competitive advantage rather than a regulatory risk.