Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
HHS approves six peptides over FDA objections, Celsius faces class action over fat-burning claims, Atkins targets post-GLP-1 users, and The Quality Group expands.
The US just handed peptide brands a regulatory window — over FDA scientists' objections. And Celsius is in court over fat-burning claims every functional brand should be watching.
In this episode:
The Health Marketing Daily is a concise briefing for marketers and founders in supplements, functional food and consumer health, hosted by Marco & Klara. New episode every day.
Enjoying the show? A quick rating or review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify helps other marketers find us.
Also from Marco & Klara: The FMCG Marketing Daily · The Digital Commerce Daily
The daily briefing for professionals in health, nutrition, and wellness marketing. Every episode covers an ingredient of the day, the latest science and regulatory updates from EFSA and beyond, and the brand and market moves shaping the nutraceutical industry. Hosted by Klara and Marco — evidence-based, no hype, no bro-science. Built for formulators, brand managers, regulatory affairs teams, and anyone building in the health and nutrition space.
Marco: Four strong stories lined up for you today.
Klara: We're starting with a big one — the Trump administration just greenlighted six peptides, over FDA scientists' objections.
Marco: Then Celsius is in court over fat-burning claims. A warning for every brand making bold efficacy promises.
Klara: Atkins is pivoting hard to chase post-GLP-1 consumers.
Marco: And The Quality Group is scaling up manufacturing in Germany.
Klara: Let's get into it.
Marco: The US government has just handed the peptide wellness market a significant regulatory win — and it's worth understanding what that actually means for brands on both sides of the Atlantic.
Marco: Peptides are short chains of amino acids. Think of them as smaller, more targeted versions of proteins. They've exploded in popularity across the biohacking and longevity space, with consumers using them for everything from muscle recovery to skin health to metabolic support.
Marco: Here's what happened. The Department of Health and Human Services — HHS, sitting above the FDA in the US regulatory structure — granted what's called "enforcement discretion" for six specific peptides. That phrase means the FDA will not actively pursue enforcement action against their sale, even though these compounds haven't gone through full drug approval. The catch? FDA career scientists reportedly objected to this decision. That's not a small footnote. That's a visible crack inside the US regulatory machine.
Klara: From a science standpoint, that internal split should make brands nervous. Enforcement discretion is not the same as a safety approval. It's closer to a temporary look-the-other-way. The FDA scientists who raised concerns aren't wrong to do so — many peptides have limited long-term human safety data. Brands that treat this as a permanent green light are taking on real risk.
Marco: I'd argue there's a genuine short-term commercial opportunity here, but Klara is right that it's built on unstable ground. The smarter brands will use this window to invest in evidence — proper studies, responsible claims — rather than racing to over-promise.
Klara: And European brands should watch this carefully. EFSA operates very differently. No equivalent enforcement discretion exists here. What flies in the US today may never fly in Europe at all.
Marco: Now let's move to our next story.
Klara: Celsius Holdings is being sued over its claim that its energy drinks burn body fat.
Klara: Celsius has built its entire brand identity around metabolic and fat-burning benefits. That positioning helped it become one of the fastest-growing functional beverage brands in the US. But bold efficacy claims attract scrutiny — and now that scrutiny has arrived in court.
Klara: A proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Celsius misled consumers with its "burns body fat" marketing. Plaintiffs argue the claim is unsubstantiated. Celsius is pushing back, saying it stands firmly behind its products and the clinical studies supporting them. That dispute is now in front of a judge.
Klara: From a regulatory standpoint, this is a textbook example of why outcome-based claims are so dangerous. Saying a product "burns body fat" is a direct efficacy claim. To defend that in court — or before a regulator — you need robust clinical evidence specifically for that outcome, in that population, using that product. Citing general research on caffeine or green tea extract won't cut it.
Marco: I take a slightly different view on Celsius specifically. They have cited clinical studies, and the science behind some of their ingredients isn't nothing. But there's a gap between "we have studies" and "those studies directly support this specific claim on this label." That gap is exactly where litigation lives.
Klara: Which is precisely the point for European brands. EFSA-authorised health claims — the approved list under EC 1924/2006 — exist because the EU decided that gap was unacceptable. If your claim isn't on that list, you shouldn't be making it. Full stop.
Marco: European functional drink brands should be auditing their claim language today, not after a lawsuit lands. What gets litigated in America has a habit of becoming regulatory template everywhere else.
Klara: Our next story is up.
Marco: Atkins is rewriting its entire marketing strategy around one specific consumer moment — the point when people stop taking GLP-1 weight loss drugs.
Marco: GLP-1 medications like semaglutide have genuinely disrupted the diet industry. Millions of consumers are using them, losing weight, and then stopping — either because of cost, side effects, or because they've hit their goal. When they stop, many struggle to maintain results without structured dietary support. That's a real, growing population with an unmet need.
Marco: What Atkins has done is formally position itself as the solution for that off-ramp moment. Rather than competing with the drugs — a losing battle — Atkins is mapping itself onto the GLP-1 lifecycle. It's no longer just a standalone diet. It's being marketed as the structured nutritional framework that lapsed GLP-1 users turn to next.
Marco: From a commercial standpoint, this is a genuinely sharp move. Legacy diet brands have been losing relevance for years. Atkins found a way to stop being the alternative to GLP-1 and start being the logical next step. That reframing changes everything — the audience, the message, the distribution partnerships, even which influencers you work with.
Klara: I'll give them credit for the strategy, but I'd want to see the science keep pace with the positioning. People coming off GLP-1 drugs have specific physiological needs — preserving muscle mass, managing appetite dysregulation. A high-protein, low-carbohydrate dietary pattern can support that, but the claims need to stay grounded. Atkins shouldn't overpromise what diet structure alone can do for this group.
Marco: That's fair, and it's exactly where European brands could do this better. EFSA-authorised claims around protein and satiety are available. Build the narrative on those foundations and you have something defensible and differentiated.
Klara: The playbook is there for the taking. Now let's get to our final story.
Klara: The Quality Group, the German company behind More Nutrition and Body Attack, is significantly expanding its manufacturing infrastructure.
Klara: The Quality Group is one of Europe's most vertically integrated sports nutrition businesses. That means it controls production in-house rather than outsourcing to contract manufacturers. When a company like this invests in factory capacity rather than just advertising, it's a strategic signal worth paying attention to.
Marco: And the signal here is clear. Sustained protein demand across European markets is giving this company enough confidence to commit serious capital to supply-side infrastructure. That's not a short-term bet. You don't build factory space for a trend you think is peaking.
Klara: From a science angle, the protein category has genuinely earned its staying power. EFSA has authorised health claims for protein around muscle maintenance and growth — provided products meet the qualifying conditions. That regulatory legitimacy gives the category a solid foundation that something like the peptide space simply doesn't have yet.
Marco: Which is exactly why a supply-side expansion makes commercial sense. Brands built on authorised claims can scale without the legal and regulatory exposure we discussed earlier with Celsius. More Nutrition in particular has strong retail penetration in German-speaking markets — dm, Rossmann, online. More manufacturing capacity means they can compete more aggressively on price, speed to shelf, and new product launches.
Klara: My concern is that expansion can tempt brands into stretching their claim language. More products, more SKUs, more marketing pressure — and suddenly someone's pushing a recovery blend with wording that sits well outside what EFSA would sanction.
Marco: That's the discipline challenge that comes with growth. The brands that scale responsibly here will define what the European protein category looks like for the next decade.
Marco: Today's thread running through every story is simple — the brands that survive are the ones that earn trust before regulators or lawyers force them to.
Klara: And earning that trust starts with claims you can actually defend, not ones you hope nobody challenges.