The Labeling Mistake That Delays Every Brazil Supplement Launch

Por /
By Wagner Fernandes, Licensed Pharmacist (CRF-RO 4509) · Brazil Market Insights
Wagner Fernandes, Pharmacist
Wagner Fernandes · CRF-RO 4509Licensed Pharmacist, Brazil · Founder, FarmaCerto

The mistake, in one sentence

Brazil’s front-of-pack nutrition warning system, the black “ALTO EM…” (HIGH IN…) seals required on many packaged foods, is explicitly prohibited on dietary supplements under Annex XVI of IN 75/2020. Brands that assume supplements follow the same rule as general food labeling, or that simply translate a US label, frequently get this backwards, and it’s one of the most common causes of delay we see.

Is your label built for the wrong category?

General food labeling knowledge and supplement labeling knowledge are not the same claim in Brazil, sometimes they point in opposite directions. If your team researched Brazil’s front-of-pack rules but not the supplement-specific carve-outs, your label may already be non-compliant.

→ WhatsApp: Check My Label

Why this specific mistake happens so often

Brazil overhauled front-of-pack food labeling with RDC 429/2020 and its companion IN 75/2020, mandatory since October 9, 2022. The headline requirement: packaged foods exceeding defined limits for added sugar, saturated fat, or sodium must carry a black-and-white “HIGH IN” warning seal on the front of the package. This is now a well-known rule among teams researching Brazil.

The mistake happens when a team applies that same logic to a supplement. It’s a reasonable assumption, supplements are foods under Brazilian law in the broad sense, so surely the same front-of-pack rule applies. It doesn’t. IN 75/2020’s own Annex XVI lists dietary supplements among the products where front-of-pack nutritional warning declarations are specifically vedada, prohibited, not optional, not encouraged, prohibited.

⚠️ This cuts both ways, and both directions cause problemsA brand that adds a “HIGH IN SUGAR” warning to a supplement label because their compliance team assumed it was required has created a non-compliant label, the opposite problem from what they were trying to solve. We’ve seen this exact mistake delay a launch by weeks while the label was redesigned and reprinted.

Don’t find out during customs inspection

A relabeling delay after production is far more expensive than a review before it. If your team is finalizing a Brazilian label right now, this is the moment to double-check it, not after the batch is printed.

→ WhatsApp: Review My Label Before Printing

What actually governs a Brazilian supplement label

RequirementGoverning rule
General food front-of-pack warningsRDC 429/2020 + IN 75/2020, Annex XV (limits) and XVI (exclusions)
Supplement exclusion from front-of-pack warningsIN 75/2020, Annex XVI (explicit prohibition for supplements)
Supplement-specific Nutrient Reference Values (VDR)IN 75/2020, Annex VIII (separate from general population VDRs)
Permitted supplement claimsIN 28/2018 (specific claim list, separate from general food claims)
📋 The nuance that trips up even careful teams

Supplements get their own reference values, not the general ones

Annex VIII of IN 75/2020 defines Nutrient Reference Values (VDR) specifically for foods aimed at special populations and for dietary supplements, distinct from the general population VDRs most teams default to. Using the wrong VDR set produces a nutrition table that looks complete but calculates percentages incorrectly, a detail that can trigger a technical requirement (exigência) during ANVISA review.

The broader lesson: general food rules and supplement rules diverge often

This labeling mistake is a specific example of a pattern worth internalizing: Brazil’s food regulatory framework and its supplement-specific framework frequently diverge, sometimes in the exact opposite direction. A compliance approach built entirely around general food labeling knowledge, however thorough, will miss supplement-specific carve-outs like this one. The two frameworks need to be checked separately, every time.

From the pharmacy counterThe labels I see cause the most rework aren’t the ones with a banned ingredient, they’re the ones that borrowed a rule from the wrong category. A team does real diligence on Brazil’s food warning system, builds a compliant-looking label, and it’s compliant for the wrong product type. This is exactly why “we researched Brazilian labeling rules” and “we researched Brazilian supplement labeling rules” are not the same claim.

Not sure which rules apply to your label?

General food labeling knowledge doesn’t automatically transfer to supplements in Brazil, sometimes it points the opposite direction. Get a direct, current read on your specific product from a licensed pharmacist.

→ WhatsApp: Request an Initial Assessment → Email: wagner@farmacerto.com

Related Reading

Brazil’s $4.6 Billion Supplement Market Opportunity FDA vs ANVISA: 5 Critical Differences Which Supplement Ingredients Are Approved in Brazil?

Frequently Asked Questions

No. Annex XVI of IN 75/2020 explicitly prohibits front-of-pack nutritional warning labels on dietary supplements, the opposite of the rule for many regular packaged foods.
Most translate their US Supplement Facts panel directly, or apply Brazil’s general food labeling rules without realizing supplements follow separate, often opposite, requirements.
Supplements use their own Nutrient Reference Values (VDR) defined in Annex VIII of IN 75/2020, separate from general population VDRs.
Not necessarily. ANVISA’s guidance clarifies a product classified as high in a nutrient can’t claim to be reduced in it, even compared to a prior version or competitor.
RDC 240/2018 defines the specific criteria for nutritional labeling of dietary supplements, separate from the general food nutritional labeling rules under RDC 429/2020.
Only from ANVISA’s authorized claims list under Annex V of IN 28/2018, and only when the product meets the specific composition and labeling requirements tied to that exact claim. RDC 239/2018 governs the evaluation and approval process for functional and health property claims.
ANVISA’s own guidance addresses this directly: textual variations of authorized claims are restricted. A brand cannot freely reword an approved claim and assume it remains compliant; the approved wording and its exact composition requirements must be followed.
ANVISA’s official guidance confirms that supplement labeling rules extend to advertising pieces and informational materials, not just the physical package label. A compliant label paired with non-compliant marketing copy still creates regulatory risk.

References: ANVISA, Instrução Normativa (IN) No. 75, October 8, 2020, Annexes VIII and XVI. ANVISA, RDC No. 429, October 8, 2020. ANVISA, RDC No. 240/2018, nutritional labeling criteria specific to dietary supplements. ANVISA, RDC No. 239/2018, evaluation and approval of functional and health property claims. ANVISA, Instrução Normativa (IN) No. 28/2018, Annex V (authorized claims) and Annex VI (complementary labeling requirements). ANVISA, “Perguntas e Respostas: Suplementos Alimentares,” official guidance document, questions 96-99. ANVISA, “Perguntas e Respostas: Rotulagem Nutricional” official guidance. Fukuma Advogados & Consultores, regulatory analysis of IN 28/2018 amendments.

Descubra mais sobre FarmaCerto

Assine para receber nossas notícias mais recentes por e-mail.

Deixe um comentário

O seu endereço de e-mail não será publicado. Campos obrigatórios são marcados com *