HAD plant preparations: objection fails in EU Parliament

Teaser: The objection to the Commission draft covering specified preparations containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives (HADs) from rhubarb, senna and buckthorn failed to secure the required majority in the European Parliament. The draft is therefore not blocked by Parliament, but it becomes law only after formal adoption and publication.

Relevant businesses are food-supplement and botanical-food manufacturers, brand owners, importers and extract suppliers using the specified plant parts. Medicinal products are outside scope.

More votes in favour were not enough

On 8 October, 282 MEPs voted for ENVI motion B10-0465/2026, 259 voted against and 23 abstained. The motion was nevertheless rejected because an objection of this kind required a majority of Parliament’s component members [1].

The result does not itself amend Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006. It does remove the parliamentary obstacle to D099926/03. Once scrutiny is complete, the Commission can adopt the draft if no other effective objection is made [2]. Only adoption and publication create the new legal act.

Which plant preparations would be affected

D099926/03 would move HAD-containing preparations from the bark of Rhamnus frangula or Rhamnus purshiana, the leaf or fruit of Cassia senna, and the root or rhizome of Rheum palmatum, Rheum officinale and their hybrids from Part C to Part A of Annex III. Species, plant part, preparation and HAD content are decisive; describing this as a blanket food ban on rhubarb, senna or buckthorn would be wrong [3].

If adopted, the regulation would apply from the twentieth day after publication. Food lawfully marketed beforehand could remain on the market for twelve months; goods manufactured or first marketed later would not benefit [3].

The current legal and scientific position

Until a new regulation is published, the specified preparations remain in Part C under Union scrutiny; Part A includes aloe-emodin, emodin, danthron and HAD-containing Aloe-leaf preparations [4]. Part C is not a positive authorisation. The annulment in Case T-302/21 has not yet taken effect because the appeal in Case C-48/25 P is pending [5].

EFSA could not establish safety from the submitted data: negative genotoxicity studies concerned preparations with low HAD concentrations, while an in vivo genotoxic component meant that concerns were not resolved [6]. The objections raised against full placement in Part A did not secure the required plenary majority.

What food-supplement businesses should check

Businesses should monitor publication in the Official Journal and begin the ingredient inventory now. Specifications need to identify botanical species, plant part, extraction process, standardisation, HAD profile and analytical method. Batch status and first placement on the market will be decisive for the transition. Alternatives require more than a “HAD-free” result because composition, function, claims, novel-food status and national botanical assessment may also change. The parliamentary vote alone does not trigger a precautionary recall.

Yours, Andreas Gebhart

Sources

All sources last checked and accessed on 8 October 2026.

1. European Parliament: Result of vote, 8 October 2026, item 2.
2. Decision 1999/468/EC, Article 5a(3)(b)–(d).
3. European Commission, draft D099926/03: Articles 1–3, 14 July 2026.
4. Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006, Article 8 and Annex III; Regulation (EU) 2021/468, Article 1.
5. General Court, T-302/21; appeal C-48/25 P; Statute of the Court of Justice, Article 60.
6. EFSA: Opinion on HAD-containing preparations, EFSA Journal 22(5), e8766, 20 March 2024.

Note: This News item provides professional context and does not replace a legal, toxicological, analytical or product-specific assessment. Image: AI-generated.