RETRACTED: Why Does Monk Fruit Extract Remain Only Partially Approved in the EU? Regulatory Barriers and Policy Implications for Food Innovation.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. RETRACTED: Kaim et al. Why Does Monk Fruit Extract Remain Only Partially Approved in the EU? Regulatory Barriers and Policy Implications for Food Innovation.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
   Article
2. Synthetic Sweeteners and Human Health: An Overview of Health Risks, Vulnerable Populations, and Effects on Key Biological Systems.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Retracted
  RETRACTED: Kaim et al. Why Does Monk Fruit Extract Remain Only Partially Approved in the EU? Regulatory Barriers and Policy Implications for Food Innovation.2026

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as