What an exempt product may not say
Updated
On this page8
The condition
A minimum risk product may not claim to control disease-transmitting organisms or disease-carrying insects. Not ticks and Lyme, not mosquitoes and the diseases they carry, not any formulation of that idea.
Why the line is drawn there
Because a claim about disease vectors is a claim people rely on to protect their health in a specific way, and the exemption exists precisely because these products have not been through the data review a registration requires. The strongest claims are reserved for the products that were assessed.
What is left to say
That it repels mosquitoes, that it is made from listed botanical ingredients, how long it lasts if you can support that. Those are real and sellable, and they are not the same as implying protection from illness.
Implication counts here as it does elsewhere
Naming a disease alongside the product, using imagery that evokes one, or publishing a customer story about avoiding illness all make the claim without the sentence. This is the same lesson the supplements property arrives at from a different regulation.
It applies to everything you publish
Website, packaging, market stall signage, social posts and replies. A clean label and an enthusiastic blog post is the common shape of this failure, and it is the blog post that is quoted.
If the disease claim is the product, register it
For a maker whose whole proposition is tick protection, the exemption is the wrong route and the honest answer is registration or selling a registered formulation. Choosing the exemption and then making the claim anyway is the worst of both.
Distributors and retailers say it for you
A shop listing that adds a disease reference to an exempt product has made the claim on your label’s behalf. Supplying approved copy and checking listings periodically is the only practical control.