Introduction
The Court of Justice of the EU judgment (C-386/23) prohibited advertising herbs such as ashwagandha with health claims, dealing a blow to the freedom of companies operating in the supplement sector. Is this consumer protection or excessive bureaucracy? Let us look at the consequences of this judgment.
Luxembourg Ignores Common Sense
The Court of Justice of the EU demonstrated that common sense is not its forte. Judgment C-386/23 prohibits companies from using claims such as "ashwagandha supports energy." This is absurd - as if you banned a grandmother from recommending linden tea! The CJEU restricts both freedom of speech and business.
Judges Detached from Reality
Judges in Luxembourg issue judgments detached from reality. They demand that small companies conduct costly research to confirm that garlic supports immunity. Small businesses cannot afford this, unlike corporations that benefit from the situation.
Business Caught in the EU Trap
The judgment burdens businesses. Novel Nutriology used the claim "anti-stress" for a supplement containing saffron and melon, which was permitted during the transitional period (Art. 28(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006) - claims from the "pending" list did not require authorisation until EFSA approval. The company relied on studies: from 2017 (Nutrients) - 77% of participants felt calmer after 30 days, and from 2018 (Journal of Functional Foods) - melon reduces stress after 4 weeks. The CJEU disregarded this transitional period, demanding rigorous evidence. Later studies, such as the 2019 meta-analysis (Journal of Affective Disorders) and the 2020 study (Antioxidants) on melon lowering cortisol, were also not considered.
What does the law say?
The CJEU judgment violates fundamental principles. Novel Nutriology had the right to use the "anti-stress" claim during the transitional period. The CJEU in case C-162/97 (Nilsson) emphasised legal certainty. The requirement of additional studies is disproportionate, violating economic freedom (Art. 16 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). The ECtHR in Backovic v. Serbia (no. 2) (2025) indicated that the freedom of commercial expression of companies cannot be restricted in this way.
Final Word
The CJEU judgment harms companies and traditions across the EU. Should the EU respect business rights more? Share your opinion and let us discuss the protection of the supplement industry.