What Supplement Brands Must Disclose About Allergens in the EU vs the US

What Supplement Brands Must Disclose About Allergens in the EU vs the US

The same supplement can carry a different allergen warning depending on where it is sold. The European Union and the United States run different allergen rules, and a buyer who assumes one market's label tells the whole story can miss something important. The differences are worth knowing — especially if you, or someone you buy for, has a food allergy.

In the EU, fourteen allergens must be declared, and they must be emphasised in the ingredients list — usually in bold type — so they stand out from the rest. The list covers gluten-containing cereals, crustaceans, eggs, fish, peanuts, soybeans, milk, tree nuts, celery, mustard, sesame, sulphur dioxide and sulphites, lupin and molluscs. The emphasis rule is the point: an allergic buyer should be able to spot the risk without reading every line twice.

In the US, the rule works differently. Federal law requires a "Contains" statement for nine major food allergens — milk, eggs, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, soybeans, and sesame, which was added in 2023. The statement must name the allergen plainly, but there is no EU-style requirement to bold it inside the ingredients list. A US label can therefore be compliant while being harder to scan quickly.

The voluntary warnings differ too. "May contain" statements about cross-contact — traces of an allergen from shared equipment — are voluntary in both markets, and brands use them inconsistently. One brand will flag every shared line; another will say nothing. The absence of a "may contain" note is not proof that cross-contact cannot happen. It only proves the brand chose not to warn about it.

What does this mean in practice? First, read the label of the exact product in your market, not a review or a listing from another country. A product sold in both the EU and the US may carry different warnings on each version. Second, if you have a serious allergy, contact the brand and ask directly about cross-contact and shared equipment — the answer, or the refusal to answer, is itself useful information. Third, treat the allergen statement as a floor, not a ceiling: a compliant label is the minimum, and a brand that volunteers more detail is showing you how it thinks about safety.

This is also where independent reviews earn their keep. A review that reads the label, checks the dose against research, examines testing disclosure and states its limits gives you a second pair of eyes on the same questions. The Supplement Rating publishes evidence-led reviews that do exactly that — and its label-checking guide covers the five checks that matter most before you buy. A botanical eye-health review shows the method in practice: label first, dose second, evidence third, verdict last.

Allergen rules differ between markets, but buyer diligence does not. The label in front of you, read carefully and checked against the brand's own answers, is still the best protection available.