Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40046752›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025

Bridging regulation and practice: CJEU and Dutch case law on botanical health claims.

Karin G M Lenssen, Alie de Boer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Karin G M LenssenFood Claims Research Centre, Maastricht University, Venlo, Netherlands.
Alie de BoerFood Claims Research Centre, Maastricht University, Venlo, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Even though botanicals are increasingly popular ingredients for food supplements, health claims related to their putative bene ts remain unclearly regulated. Methods: Through an analysis of EU and national case law from the Netherlands, including self-regulatory decision-making, we have studied the implications of case law on botanical health claims. Results: Our analysis reveals that there are multiple issues related to claims on botanical-containing products: whether it should be classi ed as food or medicine; what statements should be understood as health claims; what type of evidence should underlie health claims and, more specically, botanical health claims; and how to deal with online commercial communication. The case law analysis highlights rst that a gray area will continue to exist when classifying products as foods or medicinal products, particularly when it comes to products that contain botanical ingredients. Most importantly, our study also reveals that claims-even when they are on hold, like botanical claims-need a certain scienti c foundation before they can be used on products. Finally, the courts believe that even though on-hold claims will continue to give a certain level of uncertainty for food business operators, this is not a legal but rather a regulatory issue. Discussion: The findings from our case law analysis highlight that even though case law is useful in further interpretation of legislation, it does not provide any policy advancement. In the case of botanicals, a political decision regarding their substantiation is highly desired.

Indexed as

botanicalsEuropean food lawfood informationrisk analysisvoluntary food information

Identifiers

PMID40046752
PMCPMC11879797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.