Listen to this article:

On ordinary packaged food, a repeat of nutrition information outside the table has a closed catalogue: energy, or energy together with fat, saturates, sugars and salt. Protein is not in that catalogue. On food for special medical purposes even that narrow Article 30(3) repeat is unavailable — Article 6(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/128 is a derogation from Article 30(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011: it removes the FIC option and mandates non-repetition; it is not producer discretion. The judgment of 9 October 2025 in Case C-315/24, Nestlé Sverige (ECLI:EU:C:2025:769), confirms that the same information expressed per portion or per consumption unit on the front of an FSMP pack is a prohibited repetition, not a “description of properties” under Article 5(2)(g).

Language versions. PL · EN · DE · FR · UKR.
Matrix of product category and what may be repeated outside the nutrition declaration
Figure 1. The repeat catalogue is not the same for every pack. Energy, or energy plus four nutrients — ordinary food and fortified food only. FSMP: prohibited. A supplement: a separate numerical declaration, not an FIC table repeat.

1. Ordinary packaged food. Article 30(3) does not admit protein

Article 30(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 lists the content of the mandatory nutrition declaration: energy value, fat, saturates, carbohydrate, sugars, protein and salt. That is the table. Paragraph 3 of that article opens only where the labelling of a prepacked food already provides that declaration, and it allows the following information to be repeated on the labelling:

  • the energy value; or
  • the energy value together with the amounts of fat, saturates, sugars and salt.

Protein and carbohydrate are not in that catalogue. Commission Notice 2018/C 196/01, point 3.3.6, calls this a repeat in the principal field of vision, commonly the front of pack, and names those two formats — nothing else. Point 3.3.9 of the same notice states that the voluntary repetition of the nutrition declaration does not allow the labelling of a single nutrient content. The information to be provided is either the energy value alone or the energy value together with the amounts of fat, saturates, sugars and salt. “X % fat” does not pass. Protein alone does not pass either.

The Article 30(3) repeat is not a second slot for any figure from the table. It is a narrow exception to the rule that the declaration is one. Article 32(2) requires the energy value and the amounts of nutrients referred to in Article 30(1) to (5) to be expressed per 100 g or per 100 ml. Article 33 allows those amounts to be expressed in addition per portion or per consumption unit, easily recognisable by the consumer, provided the portion or the unit is quantified on the label and the number of portions or units contained in the package is stated. The portion is indicated in close proximity to the nutrition declaration. That is a form of expression of the declaration, not a free badge on the front.

Article 32(5) is often misread here. It is not a licence to move “protein per portion” outside the table. Where information is given as a percentage of the reference intakes, Article 32(5) requires the additional statement, in close proximity: “Reference intake of an average adult (8 400 kJ/2 000 kcal)”. Expression per portion or per consumption unit, as an addition to the declaration, is Article 33. Article 33(2) allows — and only for the Article 30(3)(b) set, that is energy plus fat, saturates, sugars and salt — those nutrient amounts to be expressed per portion alone. The energy value is then expressed both per 100 g or per 100 ml and per portion. Protein is not in that set. A percentage of the reference intake, and the sentence in Article 32(5), do not carry protein onto the front of the pack.

The line. “Protein 26 g / 100 g” in the table, and beside it, in the same declaration, a column per quantified portion, is Articles 32 and 33. “26 g protein in the pack” on the front, outside the declaration, is a repeat of the Article 30(1) protein particular that Article 30(3) does not provide for.

2. FSMP. Article 6(2) of Regulation 2016/128 is absolute

Food for special medical purposes has its own compositional and information regime: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/128, made under Regulation (EU) No 609/2013. Article 6(2) provides, by way of derogation from Article 30(3) of Regulation 1169/2011, that the information included in the mandatory nutrition declaration for food for special medical purposes shall not be repeated on the labelling.

This is not a tightening the operator may design around, nor an option to elect. On ordinary food, Article 30(3) sets a closed catalogue: repeat energy, or energy and the four nutrients, or repeat nothing. On FSMP, Article 6(2) removes that FIC option: information included in the mandatory declaration shall not be repeated on the labelling. That is an absolute ban and mandatory non-repetition — not front-of-pack discretion.

One sentence in Article 6 is not a door for a protein badge. The indication of the amount of sodium shall appear together with the other minerals and may be repeated next to the indication of the salt content, in the form “Salt: X g (of which sodium: Y mg)”. That is a layout of the declaration itself, not a permission to lift energy or protein onto the front of the pack.

Article 7 of the same delegated regulation is equally short: nutrition and health claims shall not be made on food for special medical purposes. Separate from the ban on repetition, a nutrition or health claim on FSMP is prohibited as a rule.

Article 5(2)(g) requires a description of the properties and/or characteristics that make the product useful in relation to the disease, disorder or medical condition for the dietary management of which the product is intended, relating in particular, as the case may be, to the special processing and formulation, the nutrients which have been increased, reduced, eliminated or otherwise modified, and the rationale for the use of the product. That is additional mandatory information about the intended use. It is not a licence to copy the figures from the nutrition declaration elsewhere and in another unit. That distinction is the subject of the judgment in C-315/24.

3. C-315/24, Nestlé Sverige. 9 October 2025, ECLI:EU:C:2025:769

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 October 2025 in Case C-315/24, Nestlé Sverige AB v Miljönämnden i Helsingborgs kommun, ECLI:EU:C:2025:769, CELEX 62024CJ0315. The request for a preliminary ruling was made by the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen. The case concerned the interpretation of Articles 5(2)(g) and 6(2) of Regulation 2016/128. The Court answered the questions referred. It did not fix an administrative fine — no such figure appears in the operative part, and none should be added.

The operative part, as published in English (CELEX 62024CJ0315; the same sentence is quoted by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in its notice after the ruling):

Operative part. Article 5(2)(g) and Article 6(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/128 must be interpreted as meaning that the indication of the energy value and the amount of various nutrients, expressed per portion or per consumption unit, on the front of the packaging of food for special medical purposes, whereas the mandatory nutrition declaration on the back of that packaging contains a statement of those same elements per 100 g or per 100 ml, does not constitute a “description of the properties and/or characteristics” of a product, within the meaning of Article 5(2)(g) of that delegated regulation, but is a repetition of the information in that mandatory nutrition declaration, which is prohibited by Article 6(2) of that delegated regulation.

The referring court’s second question was wider as to the unit: whether Article 6(2) precludes the indication, in a description under Article 5(2)(g), of information on the energy value and the amounts of nutrients if that information is expressed otherwise than per 100 g or per 100 ml. The Court’s operative part decides the configuration put to it: the front of the pack, the same elements, expression per portion or per consumption unit, the declaration on the back per 100 g or per 100 ml. The operative part does not use the words “per pack”. The reason is nonetheless the same: identity of the information (energy and nutrients), not the unit, is what makes the indication a repetition. Expression per pack is another unit of the same information. It does not follow that the Court wrote “per pack” in the operative part. It follows that a change of unit does not take the indication outside Article 6(2).

In the national proceedings, the Environmental Committee of the Municipality of Helsingborg ordered the company to remove the information from the packaging of the Resource, Novasource, Isosource, Peptamen and Infasource series — so records the translation of the judgment of the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen of 15 December 2025 in case 3025-22, which cites C-315/24 (EU:C:2025:769). Those are documented series from the Swedish proceedings, not a product list ruled on by the Court. After the judgment, the FSAI told food businesses that repetition of nutrition information on the label of FSMP is not permitted, and in that notice it also mentions front-of-pack style circles and other forms. That is the authority’s reading, not a second judgment. No fine number appears in that material.

The Opinion of Advocate General Norkus of 8 May 2025 (CELEX 62024CC0315) is earlier. The binding text is the operative part of the judgment of 9 October 2025.

4. Food supplements. A numerical declaration is not a repeat of the table

A food supplement does not fall inside Section 3 of Regulation 1169/2011. Article 29(1)(a) excludes from that section foods falling within Directive 2002/46/EC. Commission Notice 2018/C 196/01, point 3.7, confirms that the nutrition-declaration rules of that regulation do not apply to food supplements. Supplements are not listed in Annex V to Regulation 1169/2011 either — the exclusion runs through Article 29, not through that annex. Where a nutrition or health claim is made on a supplement, the nutrition information is still provided in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 2002/46/EC, not by the Article 30 table (the notice, point 3.7.2, referring to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and Articles 29 and 49 of Regulation 1169/2011).

Directive 2002/46/EC, Article 8(1) and (2): the amount of the nutrients or substances with a nutritional or physiological effect present in the product shall be declared on the labelling in numerical form; those amounts shall be those per portion of the product as recommended for daily consumption. Article 6(2) of that directive: the labelling, presentation and advertising must not attribute to food supplements the property of preventing, treating or curing a human disease, or refer to such properties. The same ban on attributing disease properties sits in Article 7(3) of Regulation 1169/2011.

The Polish implementing measure is the Regulation of the Minister of Health of 9 October 2007 on the composition and labelling of food supplements, consolidated text announced on 23 December 2022, Journal of Laws of 2023, item 79. Paragraph 5(1): the provisions of Regulation No 1169/2011 apply to the labelling of food supplements, subject to paragraphs 2 to 7. Paragraph 3: the content of vitamins and minerals and of other substances with a nutritional or other physiological effect present in the food supplement shall be declared on the labelling in numerical form. Paragraph 4: those contents shall be given per daily portion of the product recommended for consumption by the manufacturer.

“L-carnitine 500 mg per daily portion” on a supplement in which L-carnitine is a substance with a nutritional or physiological effect is that declaration under paragraph 5(3) and (4) and under Article 8 of the Directive. It is not an Article 30(3) repeat of the nutrition table, because the supplement regime does not require that table and Section 3 of the FIC does not cover it. The condition remains: the indication must not be a nutrition or health claim, must not mislead, and must not attribute medicinal properties.

Article 27(5) of the Polish Act of 25 August 2006 on food and nutrition safety is not the ban on presenting a supplement as a medicinal product. Paragraph 5 prohibits information stating or suggesting that a balanced and varied diet cannot provide sufficient quantities of nutrients. The ban on medicinal properties is Article 6(2) of Directive 2002/46/EC and Article 7(3) of Regulation 1169/2011; the definition of a food supplement in Article 3(3)(39) of the Act excludes products having the properties of a medicinal product within the meaning of pharmaceutical law.

Protein, where it is the substance that characterises the supplement, is declared numerically per daily portion — that is the Article 8 and paragraph 5 duty, not a badge “in the pack”. If the operator, despite the exclusion from Section 3, prints a table in the Article 30 layout and then repeats protein alone on the front, Article 30(3) does not authorise that badge: protein is not in the repeat catalogue. Printing a table does not create a licence that paragraph 3 does not contain.

5. Fortified foods. Article 7 of Regulation 1925/2006

Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006, Article 7, as amended by Regulation 1169/2011. Paragraph 3: nutrition labelling of products to which vitamins and minerals have been added and which are covered by that regulation shall be compulsory. The information to be provided shall consist of that specified in Article 30(1) of Regulation 1169/2011 and of the total amounts present of the vitamins and minerals when added to the food.

There is no sentence here equivalent to Article 6(2) of Regulation 2016/128. The Article 30(3) repeat catalogue remains: energy, or energy together with fat, saturates, sugars and salt. Added vitamins and minerals form part of the mandatory content of the declaration by Article 7(3) of Regulation 1925/2006, but they are not in the Article 30(3) repeat catalogue. Point 3.3.9 of the Commission notice closes a single nutrient as a form of voluntary repetition. Lifting “vitamin D 15 µg” onto the front is not a repeat authorised by Article 30(3).

Article 7(2): the labelling, presentation and advertising of foods to which vitamins and minerals have been added shall not mislead or deceive the consumer as to the nutritional merit of a food that may result from the addition of these nutrients. Paragraph 4: the labelling may bear a statement indicating such addition under the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. Paragraph 1 prohibits any mention stating or implying that a balanced and varied diet cannot provide appropriate quantities of nutrients. Paragraph 5: the article applies without prejudice to other provisions of food law applicable to specified categories of foods.

6. “26 g protein in the pack” — four categories

Label example 26 g protein in the pack across four product categories
Figure 2. A hypothetical label wording, not a product name from the shelf. The same phrase falls differently in each category.

The wordings below are label examples, not SKUs and not products whose names have been verified here.

Ordinary packaged food

“26 g protein in the pack” on the front, where the Article 30(1) declaration is present, is not a repeat permitted by Article 30(3). Nor is it per-portion expression inside the declaration under Article 33: there is no proximity to the declaration, the unit is the pack, and the nutrient is not in the set that may be repeated. Separately, if the wording states, suggests or implies that the food has particular beneficial nutritional properties because of its protein, it is a nutrition claim within Article 2(2)(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. Nutrition claims are allowed only if they are listed in the Annex and comply with the conditions of that regulation (Article 8). The Annex: “source of protein” — at least 12 % of the energy value of the food is provided by protein; “high protein” — at least 20 %. The bare line “26 g protein in the pack” is not automatically the wording “high protein”. That does not lift Article 30(3). Making a claim does not open the front to a protein figure outside the repeat catalogue; the amount of the nutrient for which the claim is made is given in the nutrition information, not as a badge the catalogue does not contain.

FSMP

The same wording is a repetition of information included in the mandatory declaration, prohibited by Article 6(2) of Regulation 2016/128. Article 5(2)(g) does not turn that figure into a description of properties — so the Court held in C-315/24 for an indication per portion or per consumption unit on the front. Expression “in the pack” is another unit of the same information; the operative part names portion and consumption unit, and the reason of the judgment covers a change of unit. If the wording is a nutrition or health claim, Article 7 of Regulation 2016/128 stands against it as well.

Food supplement

Where protein is the substance that characterises the product, or a substance with a nutritional or physiological effect present in the supplement, the numerical declaration is the duty in paragraph 5(3) and (4) of the 2007 regulation and in Article 8 of Directive 2002/46/EC — per recommended daily portion, not “in the pack” as the form of that duty. “L-carnitine 500 mg per daily portion” can be that declaration. “26 g protein in the pack” is not that form. Protein printed as a nutrient of a nutrition table and repeated outside it still does not fit Article 30(3). The numerical declaration is not a claim and must not suggest medicinal properties.

Fortified food

A repeat of energy, or of energy plus fat, saturates, sugars and salt, remains possible under Article 30(3). “26 g protein in the pack” does not repeat the Article 30(1) protein particular in a way paragraph 3 provides for. The amounts of added vitamins and minerals are given in the declaration under Article 7(3) of Regulation 1925/2006; lifting them onto the front is not authorised by Article 30(3). A statement of addition — only under Regulation 1924/2006 (Article 7(4) of Regulation 1925/2006), and without misleading as to the nutritional merit that may result from the addition (paragraph 2).

7. Checklist before print

  1. The legal category, not the marketing name. Ordinary food, FSMP, supplement, fortified food — four duties, not one front layout.
  2. Whether the pack carries the Article 30(1) declaration. If it does, only energy, or energy and the four nutrients, may be repeated outside it. Protein falls out.
  3. A portion in the table is not a badge. Article 33 and the reference-intake statement (Article 32(5)) stay with the declaration.
  4. FSMP. Article 6(2) — absolute ban and mandatory non-repetition (derogation from Article 30(3), not a choice). Article 5(2)(g) describes the intended use; it does not copy figures. Article 7 closes claims. C-315/24, 9 October 2025.
  5. Supplement. Article 29(1)(a) of the FIC, Article 8 of Directive 2002/46/EC, and paragraph 5 of the Polish text in Journal of Laws 2023 item 79. The figure for the characterising substance, per daily portion. Article 27(5) of the Polish Act is the ban on suggesting that the diet cannot provide nutrients, not the “medicine” ban — that is in the Directive and in Article 7(3) of the FIC.
  6. Fortified food. Article 7(3) of Regulation 1925/2006 adds the amounts of added vitamins and minerals to the declaration. It does not add them to the repeat catalogue.
  7. A claim is a separate act. The Annex to Regulation 1924/2006, including “source of protein” (12 %) and “high protein” (20 % of the energy value). It does not open Article 30(3) to protein.

Questions that come up

May protein alone be repeated on the front of ordinary packaged food?

No, where the labelling provides the mandatory declaration in Article 30(1). Article 30(3) allows a repeat of the energy value, or of the energy value together with the amounts of fat, saturates, sugars and salt. Protein is not in that catalogue. Commission Notice 2018/C 196/01, point 3.3.9, also excludes a single-nutrient indication.

Does Article 32(5) allow protein per portion to be moved to the front?

No. Article 32(5) concerns the statement of the reference intake of an average adult where percentages are given. Expression per portion inside or next to the declaration is Article 33. That is not a front-of-pack repeat outside the Article 30(3) catalogue.

What does C-315/24 hold for FSMP?

Judgment of 9 October 2025, ECLI:EU:C:2025:769. Article 6(2) of Regulation 2016/128 is a derogation from Article 30(3) FIC: it removes the repeat option and mandates non-repetition — not producer discretion. The indication of the energy value and the amounts of nutrients, expressed per portion or per consumption unit, on the front of FSMP packaging, where the declaration of those same elements on the back is per 100 g or per 100 ml, is not a description under Article 5(2)(g). It is a prohibited repetition. The operative part does not use “per pack”; a change of unit does not take the indication outside the ban.

Is “L-carnitine 500 mg per daily portion” on a supplement a prohibited repeat?

Not by force of Article 30(3). It can be the mandatory numerical declaration of a substance with a nutritional or physiological effect, per daily portion, under paragraph 5(3) and (4) of the 2007 regulation and Article 8 of Directive 2002/46/EC — provided it is not a claim, does not mislead, and does not attribute medicinal properties.

On a fortified food, may the amount of an added vitamin be repeated outside the table?

Article 30(3) does not authorise that. The amount of the added vitamin or mineral belongs in the declaration under Article 7(3) of Regulation 1925/2006. What may be repeated is energy, or energy and the four nutrients in the catalogue. A statement of addition — only in accordance with Regulation 1924/2006.

Educational material, not legal advice. Before printing a label, check the current consolidated text of Regulations 1169/2011, 2016/128, 1925/2006 and 1924/2006, the consolidated text of the Polish regulation of 9 October 2007, and whether the product is in law an FSMP, a food supplement or a fortified food, rather than only so named in a creative brief.

Primary sources

  1. Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 — Articles 7(3), 29(1)(a), 30(1) and (3), 32 and 33. ELI: eli/reg/2011/1169/oj.
  2. Commission Notice 2018/C 196/01 — points 3.3.6, 3.3.9 and 3.7 to 3.7.2.
  3. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/128 — Articles 5(2)(g), 6(2) and 7; sodium next to salt as a layout of the declaration.
  4. Judgment of 9 October 2025, C-315/24, Nestlé Sverige — ECLI:EU:C:2025:769. Opinion of Advocate General Norkus of 8 May 2025: 62024CC0315.
  5. Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen, case 3025-22, judgment of 15 December 2025 — the Resource, Novasource, Isosource, Peptamen and Infasource series in the national proceedings; citation of C-315/24 (EU:C:2025:769).
  6. Food Safety Authority of Ireland — notice after C-315/24. An authority’s reading, not the operative part and not a fine.
  7. Directive 2002/46/EC — Articles 6(2) and 8.
  8. Polish Regulation of the Minister of Health of 9 October 2007 — consolidated text, Journal of Laws 2023 item 79, paragraph 5(1), (3) and (4). Act of 25 August 2006 — Article 3(3)(39) and Article 27(5).
  9. Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 — Article 7(1) to (5), including paragraph 3 as amended by Regulation 1169/2011.
  10. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Article 2(2)(4), Articles 7 and 8, Annex: source of protein (12 %), high protein (20 % of the energy value).