16/01/2026
I recently completed a scoping review for a company comparing three different ingredients and their effect on the same health outcome.
Once the evidence was collated and assessed, it became clear that two of the ingredients didnât have a sufficient evidence base to support a self-substantiated general level health claim under the Food Standards Code, while one ingredient clearly did.
That distinction mattered.
It meant the business didnât waste time or budget investing in full systematic reviews for all three ingredients. Instead, they could focus resources on the one pathway that actually stacked up.
From there, we completed a full Schedule 6âcompliant systematic review for the selected ingredient, supporting a health claim that:
â aligned with regulatory expectations
â differentiated the product in a competitive market
â and highlighted where competitor claims were likely being overstated
This is the value of doing evidence triage early.
Not all ingredients can support the same claims, and choosing the right one first can save significant cost, time, and rework.
Want to chat about how we can do this for you?
Comment 'CALL' and letâs chat.