An imported sweet has “liquorice” in its name. A buyer assumes the ingredient disclosure is complete and copies a front-pack photograph into the vending menu. The missing purchasing question is whether the food also crosses a concentration condition requiring the longer hypertension warning. A name can answer one label question without answering the other.

This guide focuses on confectionery and beverages containing glycyrrhizinic acid or its ammonium salt because the substance itself or the liquorice plant Glycyrrhiza glabra has been added. Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, Annex III points 3.1–3.3, sets different additional labelling conditions for these categories. We checked the EUR-Lex consolidated text dated 1 April 2025 on 8 October 2026. The thresholds below are label-review triggers, not safe-consumption limits or equipment specifications.

For a B2B vending project, the practical task is to obtain the food supplier’s category, concentration basis and approved market label, then keep that information tied to the exact pack and machine selection. Three real WEIMI public listings form a procurement shortlist. We have not independently tested the equipment, analysed confectionery or drinks, or certified any label.

For confectionery at 4 g/kg or above, and relevant beverages at 50 mg/l or above, the required wording is “contains liquorice – people suffering from hypertension should avoid excessive consumption”. Point 3.3 uses 300 mg/l or above for beverages containing more than 1.2% alcohol by volume. Its footnote applies the level to the product as proposed ready for consumption or reconstituted according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Confirm the actual product classification and label with its responsible food business.

A machine display can help shoppers identify a product, but it is not a substitute for the required package or attached label on prepacked food. Commission a pack-to-SKU acceptance trial with the final label revision, not a generic liquorice flavour icon.

Each branch concerns the acid or its ammonium salt from the specified addition, not the percentage of a decorative flavour description. A supplier specification stating “2% liquorice extract” is not directly comparable with 4 g/kg of glycyrrhizinic acid. Request a statement that actually resolves the regulatory parameter, unit and finished-product basis.

These entries summarise specific provisions. They do not determine all obligations for every food, package size, sales model or Member State. An approved label also needs the broader food-information review appropriate to the actual product.

This brief is useful for importers of packaged liquorice confectionery, vending operators expanding a mixed drink range, and distributors building a private-label snack assortment. It is especially relevant when a supplier offers several strengths, pack sizes or market-language labels that look nearly identical.

It also helps a procurement team handling concentrated drinks. A specification for the concentrate and a specification for the ready-to-consume drink describe different bases. The vending business must understand what is actually supplied and what preparation, if any, the customer is expected to perform. This guide compares packaged retail equipment; none of the shortlist is claimed to formulate or dilute a beverage.

A location owner can use the document as a purchasing checklist without collecting shoppers’ medical information. The statutory wording concerns the food label. Deciding whether a particular person should consume a product is a separate health question, which this equipment buying guide does not answer.

We compare retail mechanisms, not a food-health outcome

The shortlist covers open-door camera checkout, a conventional touchscreen dispensing machine, and a two-cabinet snack-and-drink station. We use the published descriptions to identify evidence a buyer should request: pack compatibility, catalogue mapping, customer information and a demonstrable retrieval path. Public listings establish candidates to investigate; they do not establish compliance in an EU destination.

The demonstration begins with an approved pack

Supply the front and back artwork, final filled pack, dimensions, weight and required storage conditions. Ask the equipment supplier to show a purchase using that exact SKU. With similar-looking strengths, the test should verify that the selected product and delivered product remain aligned. Include an old-to-new artwork transition if you expect a warning or language panel to change.

What our evaluation does not measure

We do not measure glycyrrhizinic acid, validate a laboratory method, assign a legal food category or independently verify recognition accuracy. We do not rank the products by sales, reliability or regulatory approval. A camera, a large screen or two selling spaces cannot infer ingredient concentration. Food evidence and machine acceptance have separate owners, linked through the SKU revision.

1. Obtain the relevant substance evidence

Ask the food supplier whether glycyrrhizinic acid or its ammonium salt is present through addition of the substance itself or Glycyrrhiza glabra. Keep the relevant formulation or analytical evidence reference, product code and revision. A generic flavouring brochure does not resolve the finished product. Agree who will assess uncertainty or changes in the ingredient supply.

2. Confirm the category before applying a number

The provisions distinguish confectionery and beverages. Do not apply a beverage concentration to a sweet merely because its marketing calls it a “drink-inspired candy”. Ask the responsible food business to document the actual classification. The article does not extend these specific thresholds to unrelated food categories or decide the classification of a borderline product.

3. Preserve units and equality conditions

The cited wording uses “or above”. An illustrative result exactly at 100 mg/kg is not below the basic confectionery condition. Four grams per kilogram converts to 4,000 milligrams per kilogram; confusing grams and milligrams can change the review by a factor of one thousand. Keep the supplier’s original unit and the reviewed conversion side by side. Do not round a value down simply to fit a catalogue field.

4. Keep the basic-statement exception narrow

Point 3.1 says “contains liquorice” is added immediately after the ingredient list unless “liquorice” is already in that list or the food name. Without an ingredient list, the statement accompanies the name. Points 3.2 and 3.3 prescribe the longer warning immediately after the ingredient list, or accompanying the name when there is no ingredient list. They do not repeat the point 3.1 name exception. A front label reading “liquorice sweets” is therefore not evidence that the longer review is unnecessary.

5. Record alcohol and preparation only where relevant

Point 3.3 distinguishes beverages containing more than 1.2% alcohol by volume. Its footnote specifies the ready-for-consumption or instructed reconstitution basis. Collect the actual ABV and preparation instruction if relevant; do not apply the 300 mg/l branch to a non-alcoholic soft drink. Mentioning that branch here is not a recommendation to sell alcohol unattended. Any alcohol project needs a separate destination and sales-permission review.

6. Approve language and label placement

Article 10 connects the additional particulars to Annex III. Article 12 addresses availability and package/attached-label placement for prepacked food. Article 13(1) requires conspicuous, visible and legible mandatory food information. Article 15 concerns a language easily understood in the Member State, with possible national official-language requirements. Obtain market-approved artwork instead of translating a warning casually within the machine software.

7. Separate a useful screen from the legal package

Article 14(3) disapplies point 1(a) of the distance-selling provisions for foods sold through automatic vending machines or automated commercial premises. It is a specific exception, not a blanket removal of food labelling. As a procurement choice, ask for a legible product-detail view and accurate pack images before selection. Do not describe that screen choice as a universally mandated vending-screen placement rule.

8. Make revision control practical

Record which physical batches use each artwork version and when the catalogue changes. If old and new packs coexist, ask how staff prevent an image or warning from being assigned to the wrong item. For a lane machine, inspect the refill map; for an AI fridge, test recognition; for a dual cabinet, verify the mapping in each selling section. Retest only the affected product flow rather than assume the whole assortment is unchanged.

The following is a manufacturer-specific procurement shortlist based on three public WEIMI listings. “Best” means worth investigating for the indicated purchasing task. No independent comparative test or guaranteed EU label-compliance feature is implied.

For all three, agree the final model, power, network, payment provider, storage specification and support scope for the destination. The food supplier owns the concentration and artwork evidence. The equipment supplier demonstrates that the approved pack and its selection flow work in the agreed machine configuration.

Ask the supplier to walk through one correction: the food business approves a revised label, the operator updates the product record, and a shopper buys the affected pack. Who approves each step, and how can the operator see that the old image has been replaced? This is an acceptance request, not a claim that every listed platform has a dedicated compliance versioning module.

This fictional example budgets assortment review in euros. It is not a WEIMI machine quote, laboratory quotation, actual customer result or forecast return. Assume 12 packaged SKUs need a label/category review at an assumed €35 each: €420. Assume six supplier concentration files each require two hours of purchasing work at €30 per hour: €360. Assume eight hours of catalogue and pack-trial work at €30: €240. Initial allowance is €1,020.

Assume ongoing checks use two hours per month at €30 plus a €15 document-storage allowance, or €75 monthly. If a hypothetical monthly operating contribution is €1,200 after food purchase and existing recurring costs but before this allowance, capital, finance and tax, adjusted contribution is €1,125. Recovering only the €1,020 review setup allowance would take about 0.91 months at that contribution. This is not total vending-machine payback.

For a revision stress case, assume 200 packs at €0.80 each are held for clarification and, only for this scenario, never recovered for sale: €160. Add an assumed €120 artwork recheck and three staff hours at €30: €90. The hypothetical cost is €370. Unclear concentration evidence does not automatically establish a product is unsafe or must be discarded; an actual review may permit a different outcome.

Replace every assumption with real supplier, adviser, laboratory and equipment quotations where needed. Do not turn the label threshold into an ROI calculator or claim that the longer warning improves sales. Procurement needs enough budget to get the food evidence and the machine acceptance completed before launch.

Shelf browsing with compatible packaged drinks and sweets

Investigate the AI fridge if customers should select directly from shelves. Submit each strength and label revision for recognition testing. Ask about the actual cooling conditions rather than refrigerate confectionery merely because the cabinet offers cooling. The approved pack should remain identifiable throughout checkout.

A defined confectionery range and fixed beverage lanes

Investigate WM22 when pack handling and a stable lane map suit the project. Require final label images in the product record and a refill instruction identifying the precise SKU. A same-size replacement sweet can still have a different concentration review and warning. Physical fit is one approval, food information is another.

A broader assortment needing two selling areas

Investigate the dual-cabinet station if the site has room and both cabinets have a practical service and collection flow. Trial the planned sweets and drinks in their respective sections. Confirm whether any cooling arrangement suits both assortments; the public page does not establish independent zones.

Concentration or category is unresolved

Keep the SKU out of the approved launch assortment until the responsible food business resolves the label decision. Hardware procurement may proceed using other approved sample packs, but do not silently turn an unresolved food into a confirmed compatible, compliant item. Record the outstanding evidence and its owner.

A distributor can create a supplier evidence sheet with product code, category, relevant added source, concentration value and unit, consumption basis, ABV if relevant, approved warning branch, artwork revision and intended Member State. The sheet is a suggested procurement record, not an official EU form. Attach evidence references rather than copy an unsupported yes/no answer.

An importer comparing two confectionery strengths can require separate declarations. For illustration only, a hypothetical confectionery value of 4.1 g/kg is 4,100 mg/kg and above the point 3.2 condition. A hypothetical value of 3.9 g/kg is below that particular condition but well above 100 mg/kg, so the point 3.1 review still matters. These invented values do not classify any real sweet or prove that a lower value is safe.

A beverage buyer can do a separate unit check. A fictional 250 ml ready-to-drink non-alcoholic beverage containing 15 mg in the whole bottle corresponds to 60 mg/l: 15 ÷ 0.25. That value is above the cited 50 mg/l condition. The per-bottle total alone is not the same unit as the regulatory concentration. Use the supplier’s verified finished-product figure and appropriate current review for the actual drink.

An operator changing a language panel can stage the approved artwork update, trial the affected packs and give refill staff a version-specific checklist. This links legal label approval to an operational handoff without pretending that the vending software itself validates the formulation.

Approve the supplier evidence before approving the machine catalogue. Identify the actual confectionery or beverage, the relevant added substance/source, concentration units and finished-product basis. Keep the basic statement separate from the longer warning, and retain the alcohol/reconstitution conditions only where they apply. Use a market-approved label with the required placement and language.

Then choose a retail mechanism around the verified packs: an AI fridge for compatible shelf browsing, WM22 for an agreed dispensing map, or the dual-cabinet station for an approved two-section offer. Demonstrate the actual SKU, customer information and collection flow. None of these machines establishes ingredient concentration or validates a food-health claim.

Sources and factual boundaries

Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, consolidated text dated 1 April 2025: Annex III points 3.1–3.3 and its beverage footnote; Articles 10, 12, 13(1), 14(3) and 15 for context. Read on 8 October 2026. The three equipment sources are linked in the shortlist.

This article summarises a narrow labelling issue. It does not establish additive authorisation, classify every borderline food, approve alcohol sales, provide a complete destination compliance opinion or certify an individual product. Obtain current assessment from the responsible food business and appropriate local adviser. All numerical product and financial examples are explicitly hypothetical.