ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Bridging regulation and practice: CJEU and Dutch case law on botanical health claims.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The interplay of Ashwagandha with hormonal dynamics and gut microbiota in women with breast cancer: a tri-axial perspective.Journal of natural medicines · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.