Tamper evidence
Updated
Tamper evidence is not required for shelf-stable dry spice the way it is for some categories, and it is asked for anyway by the buyers who matter most.
What counts
A feature that cannot be removed and replaced without leaving visible evidence. In practice: a shrink or stretch band over the closure, a heat-induction membrane bonded to the jar land, or a closure with a breakaway ring that separates on first opening.
A plain threaded cap is not tamper evident however tight, and neither is a sticker across the lid that peels cleanly.
Whether you need it
For dry spice sold direct, no rule compels it. The risk it addresses is low and the product is not a vector in the way a chilled or liquid product is.
That is the regulatory answer. The commercial answer is different, and the commercial answer is the one that costs you an account.
What buyers ask for
Wholesale and retail buyers ask for tamper evidence by name, often as a line on a vendor questionnaire rather than as a conversation. A jar without it can be refused at a receiving dock by somebody with no discretion to make an exception.
Online sales raise it too, because a customer receiving a jar from a stranger looks for the reassurance a supermarket has trained them to expect.
Choosing
A shrink band is the cheap universal answer and adds nothing to shelf life. Induction gives evidence and a real moisture barrier for the price of a sealing unit and compatible closures. A breakaway closure builds it into a part you were buying anyway, where one is available for your finish.
Whichever you pick, decide it before the first jar order. It constrains the closure, the finish and sometimes the jar, and retrofitting it means re-buying all three.