The “latest European opinion” on plant extracts is not a single bombshell announcement, but rather a series of scientific dossiers closely monitored by EFSA in 2025 and 2026. For the food supplement market, wellness products, and more broadly, for all those selling plant extracts in Europe, these opinions carry enormous weight. They influence how the European Commission and Member States can subsequently authorize, restrict, or regulate certain uses, claims, and sometimes even specific formulations.
For consumers, the stakes are just as high. Behind the promises of improved digestion, weight loss, energy, or natural balance, the European Union reiterates a simple principle: a health claim cannot be used freely if it is not clear, accurate, and firmly supported by scientific evidence. In this context, understanding the implications of the latest European opinion on plant extracts allows consumers to better navigate the market, make better product choices, and better grasp current public health priorities.
A “final European opinion” which actually concerns several cases
When discussing the latest European opinion on plant extracts, it's important to avoid reducing the issue to a single ingredient. In practice, several EFSA dossiers are currently under review or have recently progressed, particularly concerning berberine, hydroxycitric acid (HCA), fennel fruit and seed preparations, as well as other botanicals found in food supplements sold throughout Europe.
This clarification is important because it changes how the market is perceived. It's not a blanket rejection of all plants, but a more rigorous assessment, case by case, use by use, substance by substance. EFSA doesn't evaluate products based on marketing strategies, but rather on toxicological data, exposure levels, the populations affected, and the strength of the available evidence.
In other words, the latest European opinion on plant extracts reflects a broader trend: European authorities want to better distinguish between well-characterized, correctly dosed, and analytically controlled preparations and products that are more vague, more variable, or based on insufficiently substantiated claims. For reputable brands, this development could become a competitive advantage. For less rigorous players, however, it could create a real commercial risk.
Why does EFSA have such a strong influence on the European market?
EFSA does not decide alone whether to ban or authorize a product, but its role is central. Its scientific opinions serve as the basis for the European Commission, which then prepares a decision submitted to the relevant standing committee with the member states. In short, EFSA does not directly police the market, but it provides the scientific basis on which regulatory decisions are made.
This point is crucial for understanding the market impact. A negative opinion from the EFSA can derail an entire segment, even before a final decision that is highly visible to the general public. Brands, distributors, marketplaces, and laboratories often anticipate these conclusions. The result: reformulation, withdrawal of claims, increased caution on product information sheets, and sometimes a decrease in marketable volumes.
The European framework is already strict and based on a principle of evidence. The Commission reiterates that claims must be clear, accurate, and supported by sound scientific data. A public EU register lists both authorized and unauthorized claims. To date, over 2,300 applications for health claims have been assessed by EFSA, and only over 260 have been approved for use in the Union. This clearly demonstrates that market access for health claims is selective, not automatic.
Fennel and estragole: the case that marked 2025
Perhaps the most striking example is that of fennel preparations. In July 2025, the EFSA indicated that it could not establish a safe exposure level for estragole, a compound naturally present in some fennel preparations. It concluded that consuming fennel seed preparations may pose a health risk, particularly for infants and young children.
This issue has very real implications for public health. EFSA clearly emphasizes the protection of vulnerable groups, particularly babies, young children, and pregnant and breastfeeding women, especially when a natural substance may have genotoxic or carcinogenic potential. The fact that a compound is “natural” is therefore never sufficient to guarantee its safety for all uses and all populations.
What also changes for the market is the direct differentiation between products. EFSA clarified that fennel preparations from which estragole has been removed or in which it is undetectable are not considered to present the same risk. This immediately creates two commercial categories: on the one hand, standard products, and on the other, treated products, which are better controlled and potentially more defensible from a regulatory standpoint.
When a national signal becomes a European issue
The fennel case also illustrates how major regulatory issues arise. In this instance, the process was triggered by concerns raised by German authorities regarding products intended for infants. This point is crucial: a signal identified in one Member State can quickly escalate to the European level and transform a local concern into a high-impact issue for the entire EU.
For businesses, this means that simply following the final decisions published in Brussels is no longer enough. They must also monitor national alerts, public consultations, draft opinions, and upstream scientific discussions. Brands that wait until the last minute risk having to react urgently, incurring high costs for reformulation, relabeling, or product recalls.
For consumers, this European mechanism is rather reassuring. It shows that a problem detected in a product category, especially when it affects vulnerable groups, can be addressed in a coordinated manner. The market remains vast, but monitoring is becoming more proactive and structured.
Berberine and HCA: two issues to watch very closely in 2026
The latest European opinion on plant extracts is not limited to fennel. Berberine is among the priority issues for the food supplements market. Following endorsement of the draft opinion on January 29, 2026, the EFSA launched a public consultation, open from March 3 to May 11, 2026, on plant preparations containing this substance. For many operators, this is a strong signal that the issue has become strategic at the European level.
HCA, or hydroxycitric acid, is following a similar trajectory. EFSA also endorsed a draft opinion on January 28, 2026, with a public consultation running from March 3 to May 11, 2026. As HCA is often linked to the weight-loss supplement market, any negative or cautious conclusion could have a rapid impact on product positioning, marketing messages, and sales volumes.
These two cases highlight a simple reality: the "slimming," "energy," "digestion," and "natural wellness" segments are often the most exposed to regulatory risk because they rely on strong promises. If the scientific evidence doesn't hold up, the market must adapt. In practice, this may mean fewer claims, more caution regarding the advertised benefits, and a rise in the popularity of the best-documented products.
What this means in concrete terms for brands and distributors
For professionals, the most direct effect of an unfavorable opinion is often commercial, even before it becomes strictly legal. A brand may have to reformulate a product, remove certain claims, modify its storytelling, or completely reposition a product. In some cases, it can also lead to a decrease in sales volume, particularly if a portion of the clientele came primarily for a health promise that is now impossible to highlight.
The second major change concerns analytical quality. The market is entering a phase where the key differentiator will increasingly be the ability to prove what is, or is not, present in an extract. Presence or absence of estragole, alkaloid control, extract standardization, dosage stability, chemical or microbiological contaminants: all these factors can make the difference between a product that is exposed to risk and one that is more secure.
For online stores and specialist retailers, this evolution also leads to a better catalog selection. Today, offering laboratory-tested, compliant, traceable products accompanied by clear information is no longer just a premium selling point. It is increasingly a condition for lasting credibility in the European market.
Public health: more protection, especially for vulnerable populations
Ultimately, the primary objective of these opinions remains public health. EFSA places particular emphasis on the potential risks to vulnerable groups when certain plant-based substances exhibit concerning profiles. This primarily concerns infants, young children, pregnant and breastfeeding women, but also more broadly, consumers who use multiple supplements simultaneously without always measuring their cumulative exposure.
Botanicals are very widely available on the European market. They can be found in pharmacies, supermarkets, specialty shops, and of course online. This widespread availability explains why the authorities want to strengthen the assessment process: the more a product is distributed, the more significant the potential public health consequences of even the slightest risk signal.
EFSA also highlights recurring quality and safety concerns: chemical contamination, microbiological contamination, variability in the dosage of active substances, and sometimes insufficient characterization of the preparations. The latest European opinion on plant extracts is therefore part of a broader strategy: to protect consumers not only against exaggerated claims, but also against risks related to the actual composition of the products.
Towards more proactive monitoring of plant extracts
In 2026, EFSA published the 4th edition of its Compendium of Botanicals, an open database listing plant species that may contain substances of concern for human or animal health. This tool may seem technical, but it has a very concrete impact: it helps to better target monitoring priorities and can influence future controls.
The updated Compendium demonstrates a more proactive approach. With new pages dedicated to specific substances and the integration of QSAR-type toxicological predictions, EFSA is improving its ability to identify potentially problematic plants or compounds earlier. This allows it to move beyond simply reacting to a crisis or media alert, and instead identify risks upstream.
We must also look further ahead. EFSA's 2025-2027 scientific work program includes a revision of the guidance on the safety of botanicals and botanical preparations. If this revision strengthens or clarifies the evidence requirements, the effect could be long-lasting for the entire industry. Companies will likely need to document the safety, composition, and uses of their plant extracts.
Ultimately, the latest European opinion on plant extracts changes two major things. On the one hand, it reinforces regulatory caution in segments where health claims are numerous but not always sufficiently substantiated. On the other hand, it places greater value on products capable of providing solid guarantees in terms of analysis, formulation, and compliance. For the market, this means less room for guesswork and more value for evidence.
For adult consumers in France and Europe, the best approach is to prioritize products that have been tested, are transparent about their composition, and are sold by reputable companies. Whether we're talking about herbal supplements, hemp-based products, or other botanical extracts, the trend is clear: measured quality, legality, and traceability are becoming the true benchmarks for purchasing. In a more demanding environment, this is ultimately good news for both trust and public health.
