For several years, products derived from hemp and other plants have navigated between market enthusiasm, consumer expectations, and regulatory caution. In 2026, the recent EFSA recommendation on CBD and its positions on botanical preparations confirmed one essential thing: in Europe, the central question is not only “is it natural?”, but above all “is it sufficiently documented to be considered safe for food use?”.
For adults who purchase oils, capsules, extracts, or herbal supplements, this change is significant. It doesn't mean the end of hemp products or wellness uses, but it does impose a stricter, more technical, and more demanding framework. Here's what this means in concrete terms for food products and therapeutic uses derived from the plant.
A new milestone for CBD food in Europe
The most significant development is the position taken by EFSA on February 9, 2026, regarding cannabidiol as a novel food. The authority set a provisional safety level of 0.0275 mg/kg of body weight per day, or approximately 2 mg per day for a 70 kg adult. This is an important benchmark, as it provides, for the first time, a quantified provisional threshold in a food context.
However, it's important to immediately qualify this: this level is provisional and does not apply to all CBD. The EFSA specifies that it concerns only certain formulations of food supplements. In other words, it is neither a general validation of "all CBD products," nor a blanket green light for all oils, gummies, capsules, or drinks on the European market.
For reputable brands and informed consumers, this changes the approach. CBD edibles are no longer evaluated solely on their popularity or plant origin, but according to a very strict set of criteria: dosage, formulation, exact composition, toxicological profile, and conditions of use. In practice, the best-positioned products will be those able to clearly demonstrate their compliance, traceability, and safety.
Why this recommendation does not constitute general endorsement
Many might interpret this news as a form of endorsement of CBD by the EFSA. In reality, the authority remains cautious. It continues to reiterate that significant data gaps exist, particularly regarding potential effects on the liver, as well as on the endocrine, nervous, and reproductive systems. These points were already highlighted in 2022 and have not been entirely resolved.
This caution has a direct consequence: EFSA continues its evaluation on a case-by-case basis. Each novel food application is examined according to the data provided by the applicant. This means that an ingredient, extract, or formulation cannot automatically benefit from the data of another. Two CBD-based products can therefore be perceived very differently depending on the quality of their documentation.
For the market, this favors operators capable of investing in thorough analyses, studies, and robust documentation. For the adult consumer, it reinforces the appeal of choosing transparent, lab-tested products with clear ingredient lists and realistic usage information. In a world where marketing promises are sometimes made too quickly, this recent recommendation encourages greater rigor.
Vulnerable populations clearly remain apart
One of the clearest messages from EFSA concerns the groups for whom the safety of CBD cannot be established. The authority cites people under 25, pregnant or breastfeeding women, and people taking medication. On this point, the position is clear: the uncertainty remains too great to consider these uses sufficiently safe.
This clarification significantly alters the way herbal products are communicated. A legal and well-formulated product for an adult is not automatically suitable for everyone. This serves as a reminder that "wellness" use is not without risk, especially when biological or drug interactions are possible.
In practical terms, for responsible sellers, this means providing better information. And for consumers, it means avoiding the automatic assumption that "it's a plant, so it's safe." This distinction between healthy adults and vulnerable populations becomes central to how CBD food products can be presented and used.
What EFSA really says about the food-medicine boundary
Another essential point is often misunderstood: the EFSA emphasizes that it assesses safety, but it is not its role to decide whether a botanical substance should be classified as food, a food supplement, or a medicine. This clarification is crucial for understanding the debate surrounding plant-derived products.
In short, the EFSA does not single-handedly decide on the question of therapeutic uses. Its role is to determine whether, under certain conditions, a product or ingredient presents an acceptable level of safety in a food context. The legal classification as a “medicine” or “supplement” depends on other rules, other authorities, and the context of use, particularly when a treatment or prevention claim is made.
For derived products , this means distinguishing between two issues. On the one hand, there's the assessment of food safety. On the other, there are therapeutic claims. A product can be studied as a novel food without being recognized as a medicine. Conversely, any claim suggesting a strong therapeutic effect exposes it to much stricter regulations than a simple wellness product.
The therapeutic uses derived from the plant are becoming more sensitive
The recent recommendation does not close the door to research or the medical uses of plant compounds. However, it makes the difference between comfort use, nutritional use, and therapeutic use more apparent. As soon as a product approaches a medical claim, the requirements change radically.
This is particularly true for CBD and, more broadly, for plant extracts. As long as it remains within the realm of food, the main challenge is demonstrating safety at the intended doses. But when a product claims to relieve, treat, or prevent a condition, it falls into a category similar to that of a drug, with much higher levels of evidence, control, and regulation.
For consumers, this evolution is rather positive. It allows for a better distinction between genuine wellness products, intended for supervised adult use, and those making excessive therapeutic claims. For brands, this necessitates more precise communication: discussing quality, analyses, dosage, origin, spectrum, and compliance is acceptable; promising medical effects without a solid regulatory basis is unacceptable.
The case of hemp shows that the "plant + food" issues remain open
European news isn't limited to isolated CBD. On March 30, 2026, the EFSA published a scientific opinion on the safety of a CO₂ extract of industrial hemp as a novel food. This is significant because it demonstrates that cases related to Cannabis sativa L. continue to be actively investigated at the European level.
In other words, the door isn't closed to plant-derived ingredients. But every extract, every process, and every use must be justified. A CO₂ extract, an enriched oil, a standardized preparation, or a complex matrix will not be judged in the same way. The extraction method, the final composition, and the conditions of use are extremely important.
For the French and European markets, this confirms a trend favoring rigorous players. The most credible products will be those that can precisely explain their ingredients, how they were obtained, what analyses support their profile, and within what limits they should be used. The simple label "natural" is no longer sufficient.
EFSA is also strengthening its scrutiny of other herbal supplements
The movement observed around CBD is part of a broader trend. In 2026, the EFSA published the fourth edition of its Compendium of Botanicals, an open database listing plant species containing substances of potential concern for human and animal health. This demonstrates that the monitoring of plants used in food supplements is becoming more structured.
The authority is also working on revising the 2009 guidance on the safety assessment of botanicals and botanical preparations intended for food supplements. This is an important undertaking, as it could ultimately harmonize and strengthen the analysis of plant preparations based on their composition, contaminants, active substances, and exposure levels.
The case of berberine clearly illustrates this refocusing. On January 29, 2026, the EFSA's NDA panel approved a draft opinion on the safety of plant preparations containing berberine, with a public consultation before finalization. Other preparations, such as bitter and sweet fennel and hydroxycitric acid, are also undergoing evaluation. The message is clear: plant products are now primarily examined from the perspective of risk and evidence of safety.
What this actually changes for products sold to adults
In practice, recent EFSA opinions suggest that a plant-based product can only be considered acceptable in a food context if its composition, conditions of use, and toxicological data demonstrate its safety. This is a major shift for the market, as it favors well-formulated products over those that are simply trendy.
For an adult in France or Europe, this means it becomes even more important to consider several criteria before buying: laboratory analyses, legal compliance, clarity of dosage, transparency regarding the cannabinoids present, type of extraction, safe usage advice, and the absence of unrealistic promises. These are the elements that increasingly distinguish legitimate products from dubious ones.
For specialist shops and hemp enthusiasts, the good news is that quality is becoming a real competitive advantage. Tested, clean, consistent, and well-documented products are more valuable than mislabeled or oversold goods. In an increasingly professional regulatory environment, trust is now built on evidence, not just marketing hype.
Ultimately, the recent EFSA recommendation doesn't change everything overnight, but it does clarify the direction of European developments. Food products derived from the plant, particularly CBD, remain possible, but only if they are developed within a strict, documented, and realistic safety framework. The market is mature, which is rather good news for adults seeking reliable products.
Regarding therapeutic uses, the lesson is just as important: a plant, extract, or cannabinoid does not become a “medicine” simply because it is popular, nor a “food” because it is natural. The lines between wellness, dietary supplements, and therapeutic uses are blurring around a central criterion: proof. For informed consumers and hemp professionals alike, 2026 therefore marks a step toward greater clarity, more caution, and, hopefully, higher quality.
