Nutrients without effect? ​​– Why legislation ignores biochemistry

In the European Union and Switzerland, clear regulations apply: Foods and food supplements may not have or promise any therapeutic effect. What at first sounds like consumer protection leads to a remarkable contradiction upon closer inspection – the effect of nutrients is undisputed , even if they are not legally allowed to "work."

A drop of water can work – but a vitamin can’t?

Even a drop of water changes the body's condition: osmosis, cell hydration, temperature regulation. This is an effect – measurable, reproducible, biochemically traceable. But a vitamin, mineral, or amino acid shouldn't have an "effect" unless it's an approved drug? This view ignores fundamental physiological facts.

Example:

• Magnesium is involved as a cofactor in over 300 enzymatic reactions, including muscle and nerve function.
• Vitamin B12 is needed for cell division, blood formation and nerve conduction.
• Zinc is essential for the immune system and wound healing.

These nutrients work – on a biochemical level . Their absence leads to deficiencies, and their intake corrects them. This is therapeutic by definition – but it's not allowed to be called that.

The legal gray area

According to EU Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006, health claims for foods and food supplements may only be used if they have been reviewed and approved by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) . Claims such as "contributes to the normal function of the immune system" are permitted, but claims such as "helps with infections" or "has an anti-inflammatory effect" are prohibited because they are considered medically therapeutic .

This separation is legally necessary to distinguish medicines from food. However, from a biochemical perspective, it is untenable —because the body doesn't distinguish between a vitamin from a pharmacy and the same molecule from bell peppers.

Facts: Effect is not a question of wording

• Biochemistry has no legal categories . A molecule has an effect – regardless of whether it comes from food, a supplement, or a drug.
• The legislature wants to protect the end consumer from false claims. This makes sense. But it confuses protection with the restriction of scientific facts .
• The human metabolism reacts sensitively – even minimal changes in electrolyte balance, pH value or vitamin status have measurable effects.

Conclusion: The body knows no bureaucracy

On the one hand, the current legal framework protects against dubious claims of healing – on the other, it often prevents objective, fact-based communication about the effects of essential nutrients. This often leads to gaps in information, misunderstandings, or even incorrect decisions in health care.

It's time for biochemistry to regain more importance than legal terminology. Because health is based on facts, not on rhetoric.

Food Sherlock stays on top of things. Clearly. Critically. Scientifically.