Nutrition labels are often treated as simple design elements — just another table placed on the back of packaging. Designers know how to build tables, and regulatory teams know the numbers. So why do nutrition labels cause so many packaging compliance issues?
Because nutrition labels sit at the intersection of design and compliance, and without a clear process, ownership becomes blurred.
From a visual perspective, a nutrition label is a table. Rows, columns, values, headings — all easy to recreate in design software.
A typical workflow looks like this:
Nutrition data is shared via spreadsheet or email
A designer recreates the nutrition table in a design file
The label is reviewed visually during artwork approval
This approach seems efficient, but it quietly turns regulated packaging content into a manual design task — increasing the risk of error.
Unlike logos, images, or marketing copy, nutrition labels are legally regulated.
Depending on the market, regulations define:
Which nutrients must be displayed
The order and naming of nutrients
Units of measurement
Rounding rules and thresholds
Serving size calculations
Market-specific formats (US, EU, UK, etc.)
A nutrition label can look correct and still be non-compliant.
Design tools are built for layout and typography — not for:
Validating nutrition calculations
Applying regulatory logic
Managing market-specific requirements
This is where many packaging teams run into trouble.
Problems start when the design file becomes the primary source of truth for nutrition information, instead of being part of structured artwork approval workflows.
Common risks include:
Manual copy-paste errors
Outdated values after reformulation
Inconsistent updates across SKUs or markets
Late changes that bypass proper regulatory review
When nutrition data lives mainly inside design files, every update requires manual intervention across multiple stakeholders. This weakens artwork approval workflows and makes managing regulated content in packaging projects far more complex than it needs to be.
The result is a higher likelihood of mistakes, increased rework, and reduced confidence that the final packaging is fully compliant.
The nutrition label should not be owned entirely by design or compliance. It requires shared ownership with clear boundaries.
Nutrition data accuracy
Regulatory interpretation
Market-specific requirements
Approval of regulated content
Visual layout and placement
Readability and hierarchy
Brand consistency across packaging
What neither team should own alone is the entire lifecycle of the nutrition label.
A nutrition facts label maker exists for a simple reason: design tools are not built to manage regulated nutrition data.
While designers can visually recreate a nutrition table, they cannot reliably manage the calculations, rules, and compliance logic behind it. A nutrition facts label maker is designed to handle what design software cannot.
A nutrition facts label maker helps packaging teams:
Serve as a single source of truth for nutrition information
Apply regulatory and rounding rules automatically
Generate compliant nutrition label formats for different markets
Reduce manual handling of regulated, high-risk data
In mature packaging and artwork approval workflows, nutrition data is managed upstream using a nutrition facts label maker and similar tools. Only approved, validated content is then passed into design files, allowing designers to focus on layout while reducing compliance risk and rework.
Designers are capable of creating tables.
Regulatory teams are capable of checking numbers.
The real issue is process design, not individual skill.
Without structured workflows:
Data changes late in the project
Responsibility becomes unclear
Errors are discovered too late
Packaging launches are delayed
Nutrition labels expose these weaknesses because they combine frequent changes with high compliance risk.
Nutrition labels are a clear example of why regulated packaging content requires:
Version control
Approval history
Clear ownership
Traceability across markets and SKUs
For artwork management for packaging teams, these controls are essential. When regulated content is treated like ordinary design content, teams pay the price in packaging errors and rework, delayed launches, and increased compliance risk.
When regulated content is managed as a controlled asset — and then integrated into design — artwork management for packaging teams becomes more predictable. The result is reducing packaging errors and rework, faster approvals, and greater confidence that the final packaging is correct and compliant.
The nutrition label doesn’t belong solely to design or compliance.
It belongs to a structured packaging process that:
Separates regulated data from layout
Assigns clear responsibility
Reduces manual handling
Protects teams from compliance risk
Designing packaging is a creative challenge.
Managing regulated content is a governance challenge.
Treating them as the same thing is where most packaging errors begin.
Ekaterina Skalatskaia : January 13, 2026 at 10:45 AM
For decades, packaging design has been treated as a largely visual discipline. Create the artwork, check compliance, send it to print, move on to the...
Ekaterina Skalatskaia : February 2, 2026 at 10:00 AM
Comparing packaging designs is a critical part of brand, compliance, and regulatory work — but not everyone has access to Adobe or graphic design...
William Janeway : October 28, 2025 at 9:45 AM
Packaging development is complex—endless revisions, scattered files, and slow approvals. This article shows how software that simplifies structural...
William Janeway