GMAThe assessment of benfotiamine proposed for supplements at up to 300 mg daily leaves dossier gaps unresolved. EFSA recognises that it provides bioavailable thiamine but cannot establish safety under the requested conditions of use.
A vitamin can be absorbed while the dossier for its new source remains incomplete. That distinction lies at the centre of EFSA’s benfotiamine opinion, published on 9 October: nutrient availability and material safety are not different ways of saying the same thing. They are questions that require different evidence.
Gall Pharma’s application concerns supplements for adults, excluding pregnancy and breastfeeding, at up to 300 mg daily. The panel cannot establish safety under the proposed conditions. Questions remain about identity and small particles, manufacturing reproducibility, microbiological stability, metabolic fate and long-term toxicology. The finding concerns the available demonstration; it does not, by itself, prove that the compound is dangerous.
Two questions require different evidence
On the nutritional side, benfotiamine provides bioavailable thiamine. However, comparison with water-soluble sources does not support a sufficiently robust conversion factor for labelling. A formulation can therefore answer an initial question — is the nutrient available? — while leaving questions about the amount to declare and the conditions of use unresolved.
For a business, the distinction has practical consequences. Selecting a raw material requires understanding exactly what has been assessed: a molecule’s name does not fully describe the material, and a finding for one preparation does not automatically resolve uncertainties surrounding another. Specifications and manufacturing need enough precision to connect the material studied with the material that will be produced.
An ingredient begins with its process
The opinion illustrates the economic importance of documentation. Characterisation and safety data belong within the industrial project, rather than in an appendix completed once the product is ready. Leaving these questions open makes timelines, investment and positioning harder to plan. Addressing them early at least identifies the missing evidence before further resources are committed.
The institutional boundary also matters. EFSA assesses evidence, while authorisation decisions follow the relevant European process. This document does not introduce an approved dose. The number 300 describes the level proposed in the application and must be read alongside the assessment outcome, without turning it into a safety threshold.
Developing a new vitamin source requires evidence on material identity, manufacturing, exposure and safety. Bioavailability alone does not complete the pathway.
A scientific opinion on a specific application, not a new Commission authorisation or ban. The 300 mg level is proposed by the applicant, not recommended or approved.
Editorial note. This content is intended for industry professionals. It does not constitute medical advice, therapeutic guidance or regulatory advice. Read our editorial method.
Read the original source · EFSA Journal