18 mai 2025

Reading and understanding a nutrition label

The short version

Food labelling in Switzerland is governed by the Federal Department of Home Affairs Ordinance on Food Information (FIO, SR 817.022.16), not by EU law. Since the revision that took effect on 1 February 2024, seven values are mandatory in the nutrition table: energy, fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate, sugars, protein and salt. Fibre, vitamins and minerals are not mandatory. They appear only if the manufacturer chooses to declare them.

The table must always be expressed per 100 g or per 100 ml. Per-portion figures are optional and sit alongside the per-100 g format rather than replacing it. The per-100 g column is the one that lets you compare two products, and it is legally guaranteed to be there.

Claims such as “high in protein” or “source of fibre” are not free-form marketing. Annex 13 of the FIO sets a numerical threshold for each one, and any claim not on that list is simply prohibited. “High in protein” means at least 20 per cent of the product’s energy comes from protein. Nothing more, nothing less.

Two provisions matter especially if you eat vegetarian. Article 40 gives “vegetarian” and “vegan” a legal definition on a Swiss package, and Annex 6 lists the fourteen allergen categories that must always be flagged in the ingredient list.

What the label is required to tell you

Most label-reading guides written in English quote EU regulation. In Switzerland the operative text is the FIO, backed by the Foodstuffs and Utility Articles Ordinance. The two bodies of law resemble each other, because Switzerland adopted much of the EU food information regulation wholesale, but the differences exist and some are worth knowing.

Article 3 of the FIO lists what a prepacked food must carry: the specific designation, the ingredient list, allergenic ingredients, the best-before or use-by date, any special storage conditions, the name and address of the responsible party, the country of production, the batch and the nutrition declaration.

The nutrition table itself is covered by Articles 21 to 28. Article 22 fixes its minimum content:

energy, given in both kJ and kcal;
fat;
saturated fat;
carbohydrate;
sugars;
protein;
salt.

Annex 11 prescribes the order. That is why every table looks the same regardless of the retailer, and that uniformity works in your favour: comparison becomes mechanical.

What is not mandatory

Article 23 places monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat, polyols, starch, fibre, vitamins and minerals in the optional category. Almost every consumer guide misses this distinction, and it has direct practical consequences.

A bag of lentils or a wholemeal loaf may show no fibre figure at all despite containing plenty. A tofu may not show its calcium. A missing line tells you nothing about the actual content. It tells you only that the manufacturer chose not to declare it, or could not.

For vitamins and minerals the constraint is tighter still. Annex 10 states they may only be declared when present in a significant amount: at least 15 per cent of the nutrient reference value per 100 g, 7.5 per cent per 100 ml for drinks, or 15 per cent per portion if the pack holds a single portion. Among the adult reference values in Annex 10 are 14 mg for iron, 800 mg for calcium, 2.5 µg for vitamin B12, 10 mg for zinc and 80 mg for vitamin C.

In practice, a plant drink can only mention vitamin B12 if it supplies at least 0.19 µg per 100 ml. A solid food can only advertise iron above 2.1 mg per 100 g.

Products with no table at all

Annex 9 lists the foods exempt from the nutrition declaration, and the list explains a great many blank labels: unprocessed single-ingredient products, herbs and spices, salt, teas and infusions with nothing added but flavourings, vinegars, gelatine, yeasts, chewing gum, packaging whose largest face measures under 25 cm², craft-made foods supplied directly by the producer, foods sold loose, and alcoholic drinks above 1.2 per cent by volume.

The obligation returns the moment one of these carries a nutrition or health claim, a gluten or lactose statement, or has been fortified.

Reading the table without being led astray

Always compare per 100 g

Article 27 is unambiguous: energy and nutrient content must be expressed per 100 g or per 100 ml. Article 28 additionally permits a per-portion expression, provided the portion is quantified and the number of portions in the pack is stated.

Highlighting a three-biscuit serving is therefore not deception in itself, but it is framing. The legally binding figure, the one that supports comparison, remains the per-100 g column. Make a habit of finding it, especially when the front of the pack proudly announces “only 99 kcal”.

The 2,000 kcal reference is not a recommendation

Many labels show a percentage of reference intake, alongside the wording required by Article 27 paragraph 4: “Reference intake of an average adult (8400 kJ/2000 kcal)”. That figure is a labelling convention, not personal nutrition advice.

Annex 10 part B sets the reference intakes used for the calculation: 8400 kJ / 2000 kcal of energy, 70 g total fat, 20 g saturated fat, 260 g carbohydrate, 90 g sugars, 50 g protein and 6 g salt. These values exist to normalise percentages on packaging. They account for neither your age, nor your build, nor your activity, nor pregnancy or illness. Your real energy requirement may sit well above or well below.

One detail deserves flagging because it causes lasting confusion. The labelling reference for salt is 6 g, whereas the World Health Organization advises adults to stay under 5 g of salt a day, equivalent to less than 2,000 mg of sodium. A product showing “25 per cent of the reference intake for salt” therefore already accounts for around 30 per cent of the WHO limit. The WHO puts average global intake at 4,278 mg of sodium a day in 2021, more than double its own recommendation, and links excess sodium to roughly 1.7 million deaths a year.

Annex 12 explains how the kilocalories are arrived at, using fixed conversion factors: 4 kcal/g for carbohydrate and protein, 9 kcal/g for fat, 2.4 kcal/g for polyols, 2 kcal/g for fibre, 7 kcal/g for alcohol and 0 kcal/g for erythritol. These are not measured product by product. They are calculation conventions.

Turning grams into a judgement

The table hands you grams, not a verdict. The NHS publishes simple thresholds that make those grams legible for a solid food, per 100 g:

Nutrient	High	Low
Fat	more than 17.5 g	3 g or less
Saturated fat	more than 5 g	1.5 g or less
Total sugars	more than 22.5 g	5 g or less
Salt	more than 1.5 g	0.3 g or less

These come from the UK and underpin the traffic-light colour coding seen on British packs. They carry no legal weight in Switzerland, but they are an honest and memorable reading aid. Different criteria apply to drinks.

On the wider framework, the WHO advises limiting free sugars to under 10 per cent of daily energy intake, around 50 g for someone eating 2,000 kcal, with further benefit expected below 5 per cent. It also caps saturated fat at 10 per cent of energy and trans fat of any origin at 1 per cent.

A clarification on sugars is needed here. The “of which sugars” line adds up every mono- and disaccharide present, whether added or naturally occurring. A plain yoghurt therefore shows sugars without a single gram having been added: that is lactose. The WHO’s concept of free sugars, by contrast, excludes the lactose in milk and the sugars in whole fruit, but includes honey, syrups and fruit juices. The nutrition table does not draw that line. Only the ingredient list lets you reconstruct it.

Salt is calculated, not measured

Annex 1 of the FIO defines salt as sodium multiplied by 2.5. The salt line on a Swiss table is therefore a conversion, not a weighing of table salt. A food naturally rich in sodium can show salt without any having been added, and Article 24 in fact allows a statement next to the table clarifying that the salt content is due solely to naturally present sodium.

Claims: a closed list, not an argument

This is probably the least known and most useful point. Article 29 paragraph 3 states the rule: nutrition claims are permitted only if they appear in Annex 13. This is not an indicative list but an exhaustive one. A phrase dreamt up by a marketing department has no place on a Swiss package.

The thresholds most worth committing to memory, as Annex 13 sets them:

Source of protein: at least 12 per cent of total energy comes from protein.
High in protein: at least 20 per cent of total energy.
Source of fibre: at least 3 g per 100 g, or 1.5 g per 100 kcal.
High in fibre: at least 6 g per 100 g, or 3 g per 100 kcal.
Low fat: no more than 3 g per 100 g for solids, 1.5 g per 100 ml for liquids, 1.8 g per 100 ml for semi-skimmed milk.
Fat free: no more than 0.5 g per 100 g or 100 ml. Wordings of the “X% fat free” type are expressly banned.
Low sugars: no more than 5 g per 100 g for solids, 2.5 g per 100 ml for liquids.
Sugar free: no more than 0.5 g per 100 g or 100 ml.
Low sodium or low salt: no more than 0.12 g of sodium or the salt equivalent per 100 g or 100 ml.
Low energy: no more than 40 kcal per 100 g for solids, 20 kcal per 100 ml for liquids.
Reduced energy or reduced in a nutrient: a cut of at least 30 per cent against a comparable product, with special rules for sodium where a 25 per cent difference suffices.
Source of or high in a vitamin or mineral: respectively the significant amount from Annex 10, and twice that amount.

The protein threshold is worth pausing on, because it changes how plant products read. The criterion is a share of energy, not a count of grams. A lean, low-calorie food clears 20 per cent easily, while a fatty product boasting plenty of protein may fail. We take that trap apart in our piece on deciphering high-protein labels.

”No added sugar” and the words that are not claims

Point 19 of Annex 13 is precise. “No added sugars” requires the absence of added mono- and disaccharides and of any other food used for its sweetening properties. And where sugars occur naturally, the label must additionally carry the statement “contains naturally occurring sugars”. Shoppers routinely overlook that requirement, even though it exists precisely to head off the misunderstanding.

A word like “natural”, conversely, appears nowhere in Annex 13. It is therefore not a regulated nutrition claim with a numerical threshold: it is a commercial argument, constrained only by the general ban on misleading consumers. The same goes for “artisanal”, “authentic” or “traditional recipe”. When a word feels flattering but vague, check whether it maps to a legal definition. Often it does not.

Since 2020, Article 42a has allowed a temporary statement about a recipe change. A manufacturer may flag that it has cut added sugars or salt, provided the reduction is at least 5 per cent, is not offset by ingredients with a sweet or salty taste, focuses on the change in taste rather than the size of the reduction, and runs for no more than a year.

Health claims are locked down harder

Article 31 restricts health claims to those listed in Annex 14. Anything else requires authorisation from the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office, based on generally accepted scientific evidence. Health claims on alcoholic drinks above 1.2 per cent by volume are prohibited outright.

Where a health claim is used, Article 34 requires the label to state how much of the food is needed to achieve the claimed effect, to note the importance of a varied diet, and where relevant to warn people who should avoid the product. A health promise arriving without those elements is a red flag.

The ingredient list carries more than the table

For a vegetarian diet, the ingredient list is frequently more informative than the nutrition table. Article 8 governs it: every ingredient is named by its specific designation, in descending order of weight, with the mass percentage at the time of processing being decisive.

That wording has a practical consequence. The order reflects weight at the point of use, not necessarily in the finished product. For foods that lose water during cooking, Annex 7 lays down specific recalculation rules.

A second consequence is more slippery. Because each ingredient is listed separately, a product containing sugar, glucose syrup, dextrose and concentrated grape juice will show those four sources at four different ranks, each lower than if they had been summed. The descending-order rule is honest, but the naive reading that “sugar is only fifth” can mislead. Here the nutrition table, with its “of which sugars” line, is the better judge.

Generic categories

Annex 5 permits certain groupings. Refined vegetable oils may appear as “vegetable oils” followed by the specific origins, optionally with “in variable proportions”. Cheese used as an ingredient in another product may be designated simply “cheese” where the product name does not refer to a specific type. Additives and enzymes are named by their functional category followed by their name or E number: “colour (E 120)”, “emulsifier (soya lecithin)”, “thickener (xanthan gum)”.

That last rule explains why additives so often look impenetrable when they are in fact highly codified. We unpick the most disputed ones in our articles on controversial additives in meat alternatives and on the additives in commercial meat substitutes.

Allergens

Annex 6 lists fourteen categories that must always be declared: gluten-containing cereals, crustaceans, eggs, fish, peanuts, soya, milk, tree nuts, celery, mustard, sesame seeds, sulphur dioxide and sulphites above 10 mg/kg, lupin and molluscs.

Article 11 requires those ingredients to stand out visually within the list, through typeface, style, background colour or any other suitable means. The bold text you see on packaging is not a typographic flourish. It is a legal requirement.

The most useful provision concerns traces. Article 11 paragraph 5 requires an allergen that arrived in the product unintentionally to be declared above specific thresholds: 10 mg of SO₂ per kilo for sulphites, 200 mg of gluten per kilo, 10 g of peanut oil per kilo for vegetable oils and fats, 1 g per kilo for lactose and 1 g per kilo in all other cases. Below those thresholds, paragraph 7 makes declaration optional. A “may contain traces of” statement is therefore useful information when present, but its absence does not guarantee that no allergen is there.

Cheese may carry no ingredient list at all

This is the FIO’s most counter-intuitive provision for a vegetarian reader. Article 9 paragraph 1 letter d exempts cheese, butter, and fermented milk and cream from the ingredient list, provided they contain only milk components, the enzymes and microbial cultures needed for production, and the necessary salt.

A hard cheese on a self-service shelf may therefore lawfully carry no ingredient list. The origin of the rennet, animal or microbial, is then stated nowhere. The familiar advice to “check whether it says microbial rennet” only works if the manufacturer chose to say so, which many increasingly do, but not because this article compels them. Where it matters, the only reliable routes are the producer’s consumer service or a voluntary “vegetarian” statement. Plant-based alternatives, by contrast, always carry a full list.

Four statements outside the table that say a lot

Debate about labels almost always circles the nutrition figures. Yet some of the most revealing mandatory particulars sit elsewhere on the pack.

Best-before and use-by are not the same thing

Article 13 requires a best-before date as the default. For microbiologically highly perishable foods that may present an immediate danger to human health after a short period, a use-by date replaces it.

The difference is substantial, and Annex 1 spells it out. The best-before date is the date until which a food retains its specific properties when stored correctly. The use-by date is the date by which a food must be consumed; after it, the food may no longer be supplied to consumers as such. The wordings differ accordingly.

Annex 8 also sets how precise the date must be. Below three months of shelf life, day and month suffice; between three and eighteen months, month and year; above eighteen months, the year alone. And a whole set of foods needs no best-before date at all: fresh untreated fruit and vegetables including potatoes, wines and spirits at 10 per cent by volume or above, bakery goods normally eaten within twenty-four hours, vinegar, edible salt, solid sugars and chewing gum. There is a notable exception within that exception: sprouted seeds and similar products such as pulse sprouts do not qualify and do need a date.

The quantity of a named ingredient

Article 12 requires the quantity of an ingredient to be stated when that ingredient appears in the specific designation, is generally associated with it by consumers, is emphasised on the label through words, pictures or graphics, or is essential to distinguish the food from products it might be confused with.

That is why a tomato soup carries a percentage next to the tomato and a nut chocolate one next to the nuts. This figure is often more informative than any nutrition line, because it shows how much of the headline ingredient is actually in there. Under Annex 7, the percentage relates to the moment of use, with special rules for foods that lose water during cooking.

Country of production and origin of ingredients

Article 15 defines when a food counts as produced in a country: when it was wholly obtained there, or when it underwent processing there judged sufficient to give it its characteristic properties or a new specific designation. Products of the plant kingdom count as wholly obtained where they are harvested.

A “produced in Switzerland” therefore says something about where processing happened, not necessarily about where the raw materials came from. Article 16 closes that gap only partly: the origin of a basic product must be stated when its share reaches at least 50 per cent by mass and the presentation of the product suggests an origin that is not true. Where the origin statement is voluntary, a wider geographical area such as “EU” or “South America” may be given in place of the country.

Substituted components must be flagged

This provision in Annex 2 is unusually useful in practice. Where components or ingredients that consumers would normally expect have been replaced by others, the labelling must carry, in addition to the ingredient list, a clear indication of the substitute, placed immediately next to the product name and in a type size whose x-height is at least 75 per cent of that of the product name.

That is how certain products end up flagging that a milk fat has been replaced by vegetable fat. Annex 2 also requires an indication of physical state or special treatment, such as “defrosted”, “irradiated” or “smoked”, where omitting it could mislead.

”Vegetarian” and “vegan” have a legal definition

This is the element most label-reading guides skip, and it is decisive. Article 40 of the FIO sets the conditions for using these terms in Switzerland:

“Vegetarian”, “ovo-lacto-vegetarian”: no ingredients and no processing aids of animal origin, except milk and milk components such as lactose, eggs and egg components, bee products such as honey or beeswax, and wool grease or lanolin obtained from living sheep.
“Ovo-vegetarian”: the same rules, minus milk.
“Lacto-vegetarian”: the same rules, minus eggs.
“Vegan”: no ingredients and no processing aids of animal origin, with no exceptions.

Two points deserve emphasis. First, the definition covers processing aids, meaning substances used during manufacture that do not necessarily end up in the finished product and would therefore never appear in the ingredient list. The word “vegetarian” gives you a guarantee that reading the ingredients cannot.

Second, paragraph 2 sets out an exception: a product made from ingredients manufactured using animal processing aids may still carry the vegetarian designation if it has been separated and purified from the animal protein components of those aids.

These statements remain voluntary. Their absence does not mean a product contains animal material, but their presence is a legally defined commitment. For a quick purchase it is the most reliable shortcut available. If the distinction between the two diets interests you, we covered it in vegan or vegetarian: what are the nutritional differences.

What to look for when the statement is missing

Where no vegetarian designation appears, a handful of names warrant attention: gelatine, rennet where the origin is unstated, whey, fat or oil qualified as “animal” as Annex 5 requires, the colour E 120, and L-cysteine (E 920), an amino acid permitted by the Swiss additives ordinance as a flour treatment agent.

On those two additives, precision matters. E 120 is carmine, a red colour derived from the cochineal insect. In Switzerland it appears under its functional category followed by the name or E number, so it is identifiable. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration requires carmine and cochineal extract to be named explicitly on the label, as an exception to the general rule that lets colours be grouped under “artificial colours”, because of possible allergic reactions.

L-cysteine (E 920) is a different case, and one that is often misreported. It can be produced by microbial fermentation, by chemical synthesis, or by hydrolysis of keratinous material. The regulation governs its purity and dosage, not its source, and the label will not tell you which route was used. Asserting that L-cysteine is necessarily animal-derived is inaccurate; concluding that it is necessarily plant-derived is equally so. If the point matters to you, only the manufacturer can answer.

Nutri-Score in Switzerland: what it does and does not do

Nutri-Score is a voluntary front-of-pack nutrition label using an A to E scale. In Switzerland, the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office administers its use: a company must register its brand with the office before applying the logo. According to the office’s own tally as at 30 June 2026, 103 producers and retailers had committed, covering 182 brands and more than 5,700 products.

The office is explicit about two limits. Nutri-Score is not a dietary recommendation and does not replace the Swiss nutrition recommendations. And it only supports comparison within a single category: muesli against muesli, lasagne against lasagne. A green A does not license unlimited consumption, and a red E is not a prohibition.

One structural consequence is rarely explained. Nutri-Score applies only to processed products carrying a nutrition table. Fresh fruit and vegetables, which have no table, cannot display it. An excellent food may therefore carry no score at all, and that absence means nothing negative.

Two examples read all the way through

A carton of vegetable soup

Suppose a soup shows, per 100 ml: 35 kcal, 0.1 g fat, 6 g carbohydrate of which 2 g sugars, 1.2 g protein and 0.8 g salt.

The calorie reading is quickly done: this is essentially water, and the protein contribution is negligible, which is normal for a soup and not a flaw if it accompanies a full meal.

The real subject is salt. At 0.8 g per 100 ml, the soup sits between the low and high NHS thresholds. But nobody drinks 100 ml of soup. A 250 ml bowl delivers 2 g of salt, roughly 40 per cent of the 5 g the WHO recommends for the entire day, before any bread, cheese or sauce from the main course. Moving from the per-100 g value to the portion you actually eat is what makes the number speak.

A soya-based veggie burger

Now suppose, per 100 g: 200 kcal, 10 g fat of which 2 g saturated, 5 g carbohydrate of which 0.5 g sugars, 20 g protein and 1.4 g salt.

Check the protein claim. Protein supplies 4 kcal per gram under Annex 12, so 80 kcal out of the product’s 200 kcal, which is 40 per cent of total energy. The Annex 13 threshold for “high in protein” is 20 per cent. The claim is therefore comfortably justified, and you can verify it yourself with one division.

Saturated fat at 2 g per 100 g is moderate. Salt at 1.4 g per 100 g sits just under the British high threshold. A 100 g patty accounts for 28 per cent of the WHO daily limit, which is manageable if the rest of the meal is lightly salted and much less so once you add a bun, a sauce and a slice of cheese.

That example illustrates a pattern across plant-based meat products: the protein profile is often good, and salt is usually the figure to watch. It compensates for the blandness of texturised protein, and it is exactly where comparing two brands on the same shelf pays off.

Common mistakes

Comparing two products on their portions. Portions are chosen by the manufacturer. Only the per-100 g column is comparable, and it is mandatory.
Assuming a nutrient missing from the table is missing from the food. Fibre, vitamins and minerals are optional, and micronutrients may only be declared above a threshold.
Treating the 2,000 kcal reference as a personal target. It is a calculation convention for normalising percentages.
Confusing the 6 g salt labelling reference with a recommendation. The WHO advises staying under 5 g a day.
Reading “of which sugars” as “added sugars”. The line sums added and naturally occurring sugars, lactose included.
Trusting the rank of sugar in the list alone. Multiple sweetening sources spread across several lines.
Treating “natural” as a regulated term. Only the claims in Annex 13 are.
Taking the absence of “may contain traces” as a guarantee. Below the Article 11 thresholds the statement is optional.
Assuming a cheese with no ingredient list is mislabelled. Article 9 permits it explicitly.
Reading a Nutri-Score across categories. Comparing olive oil with yoghurt is meaningless in that system.

A label is not a diet

A label describes one product. Balance is decided across everything you eat, and the Swiss reference points work in portions rather than percentages of a package. The Swiss nutrition recommendations for adults propose five portions of vegetables and fruit a day, one portion of 120 g corresponding to a handful; three portions of cereal products and potatoes, at least half of them wholegrain; two to three portions of dairy; one daily portion of a protein-rich food, with pulses at least once a week; a small handful of nuts or seeds, meaning 15 to 30 g; and two tablespoons of vegetable oil, at least one of them rapeseed.

The national menuCH survey, whose results the office publishes, shows that the Swiss population eats considerably more sweet and salty products than recommended, and not enough pulses, fruit, vegetables and dairy. In other words, the room for improvement lies less in forensic scrutiny of a biscuit packet than in the overall shape of your meals.

Three nutrients warrant particular attention on a vegetarian diet, and the label can help you track them. The NHS notes that vitamin B12 occurs naturally only in animal products; for a vegetarian, eggs, dairy and fortified products are the reliable sources. It also points out that vegetarians are more likely to have low iron stores, because plant iron is harder to absorb, and suggests pairing a source of vitamin C with the meal. Finally, it observes that vegetarian sources of omega-3, such as rapeseed oil, walnuts and flaxseed, may not carry the same cardiovascular benefit as those from oily fish.

We go into all three in our pieces on vitamin B12, on plant-based iron absorption and in the complete guide to plant proteins. For the practical shopping angle, see how to read a food label as a vegetarian, and for certification schemes, understanding Swiss labels.

Frequently asked questions

Is fibre mandatory on a Swiss label? No. Article 23 of the FIO places it among the optional entries, alongside monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat, polyols, starch, vitamins and minerals.

Why do some products have no nutrition table? Annex 9 exempts around twenty categories: single-ingredient raw products, spices, salt, teas, vinegars, very small packs under 25 cm², craft-made foods supplied directly by the producer, loose goods and alcoholic drinks above 1.2 per cent by volume. The obligation returns as soon as a claim is made or the product is fortified.

How many grams does “high in protein” mean? There is no fixed gram figure. The Annex 13 threshold is expressed in energy: at least 20 per cent of the product’s calories must come from protein for “high in protein”, and 12 per cent for “source of protein”.

Does a product without a “vegetarian” statement contain animal material? Not necessarily. The statement is voluntary. Its presence legally binds the manufacturer under Article 40, including on processing aids, but its absence proves nothing and means you have to read the ingredient list.

Is carmine always identifiable on a Swiss label? Yes, in a prepacked product carrying an ingredient list: colours must appear with their functional category followed by the name or E number, so “colour (E 120)” or “colour (carmines)”.

Does “no added sugars” mean sugar free? No. It means no mono- or disaccharide, and no food used for its sweetening properties, has been added. Where the product contains sugars naturally, the label must additionally state “contains naturally occurring sugars”.

Is Nutri-Score mandatory in Switzerland? No. It is voluntary and requires brand registration with the food safety office. It only compares products within one category and does not apply to fresh foods that carry no nutrition table.

Is the text size regulated? Yes. Article 4 requires an x-height of at least 1.2 mm for mandatory particulars, reduced to 0.9 mm on packaging whose largest face measures under 80 cm².