Ivy is an ingredient in licensed cough preparations in every Swiss pharmacy. In a capsule on the food supplement shelf, it has no place at all. The same plant, two entirely separate legal worlds – and it was precisely along this fault line that two products were pulled from sale in eastern Switzerland in early 2026. Anyone wanting to understand why certain heavily marketed international ingredients simply cannot be sold in Switzerland has to look into Annex 1 of an ordinance that almost nobody has heard of.
What an eastern Swiss inspection campaign found in 33 food supplements
At the start of 2026, the Office for Consumer Protection and Veterinary Affairs of the Canton of St. Gallen examined 33 food supplements as part of a regional focus campaign. The outcome: 22 of the 33 samples were objected to, or 67 per cent. For 14 samples – 42 per cent – a sales ban was imposed, and in individual cases a recall was ordered as well.
These figures are striking, but they need context. A focus campaign is not a representative market sample. Authorities deliberately select products where they suspect elevated risk. The 67 per cent objection rate therefore does not describe the Swiss market as a whole, but the segment the enforcement authorities had already flagged as conspicuous. It remains informative nonetheless – above all because the results confirm earlier campaigns and the grounds for objection keep repeating.
Two objections concerned a point that is almost never discussed in consumer communication: according to their declarations, the products contained plants whose use in foods is not permitted in Switzerland. Specifically Gymnema silvestre and Hedera helix, common ivy. The legal basis is the FDHA Ordinance on Foodstuffs of Plant Origin, Edible Mushrooms and Table Salt – VLpH for short.
Why Switzerland has no positive list for plants – and what applies instead
A widespread misunderstanding runs: whatever is not expressly permitted is prohibited. For plants in foods, Switzerland works the other way round. There is no exhaustive positive list of permitted plants. Instead, Annex 1 of the VLpH sets out a negative list – a list of prohibitions.
Article 3 of the VLpH is brief and leaves little room: plants, plant parts or preparations derived from them as listed in Annex 1 may not be used as food and may not be added to foods. A second paragraph covers one exception: flavourings derived from these plants are governed separately by the Flavourings Ordinance. This is why St John's wort appears on the list with the note that it is permitted only as a flavouring in alcoholic beverages – the bitter herbal liqueur stays legal, the St John's wort capsule as a food does not.
What decides inclusion is not how exotic a plant seems, but its toxicity already at low doses, together with the question of whether its effect is reserved for medicinal products. Alongside deadly nightshade, monkshood and foxglove, the list therefore also contains plants many people take for harmless herbs: arnica, bearberry, mistletoe, tansy, gypsywort, clubmoss.
Parts A and B: how Annex 1 of the VLpH is structured
A revision of the VLpH divided Annex 1 into two parts and expanded it considerably. The expansion draws in part on the lists of substances issued by the German federal and state authorities, a project in which the Swiss Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO) also participates.
| Part | What it covers | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Part A | Plants, plant parts and preparations derived from them whose use in foods is not permitted. In some cases with the specific plant part named, or with a restriction attached. | Gymnema silvestre, Hedera helix, Ephedra species, Piper methysticum (kava), Pausinystalia yohimbe, Griffonia simplicifolia (seeds), Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (bearberry), Hypericum perforatum (only as a flavouring in alcoholic beverages) |
| Part B | Individual plant substances and preparations containing them. Here the subject is not the whole plant but defined compounds. | Aloe-emodin, emodin, danthron and all preparations containing these substances; preparations from the leaves of Aloe species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives |
The distinction matters in practice. Part B separates the plant from its constituents: aloe vera as carefully peeled leaf gel remains possible under food law, whereas whole-leaf preparations containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives are not permitted. The background is a safety assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which classified aloe-emodin, emodin and danthron as genotoxic and could not derive a safe daily intake. The EU prohibited these substances in 2021; Switzerland followed by adding them to Part B.
Gymnema silvestre: why a plant that switches off sweetness does not belong in food
Gymnema silvestre comes from India and parts of Africa and has been used in the Ayurvedic tradition for centuries. Its Hindi name gurmar translates roughly as "sugar destroyer". That name describes a real and well-documented effect: the gymnemic acids it contains temporarily block the sweet receptors on the tongue. Chew a gymnema leaf and you will taste no sweetness for several minutes afterwards.
Internationally, the plant is heavily promoted in connection with blood sugar and sugar cravings. That is exactly where the regulatory problem lies. A substance intended to intervene in glucose regulation falls, under the Swiss demarcation criteria, into the realm of pharmacological action – and pharmacological action is, by legal definition, reserved for medicinal products. The leaf of Gymnema silvestre is therefore listed in Part A of the prohibition list.
Ivy: recognised in medicinal products, not permitted as a food ingredient
Common ivy (Hedera helix) makes the dividing line even clearer. Dry extracts of ivy leaf are recognised in Europe as medicinal products for productive cough; the Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products of the European Medicines Agency describes several standardised preparations for this purpose. Ivy is not, in other words, a plant of dubious repute – on the contrary, it is one of the best-documented cough plants in Europe.
Even so – or precisely for that reason – its use in foods is not permitted in Switzerland. Two reasons interlock. First, ivy plant parts, and the berries in particular, are toxic; the triterpene saponins they contain irritate skin and mucous membranes. Second, there is a recognised medicinal use, which under Swiss law belongs to therapeutic products legislation and not to a food sold without an authorisation procedure and without medical supervision.
The decisive point for consumers: an ivy cough syrup from the pharmacy is tested, dosed and authorised for a specific indication. An ivy capsule on the supplement shelf is none of these – and cannot lawfully be placed on the Swiss market.
Not on the list does not automatically mean permitted
Anyone concluding that everything outside Annex 1 is unproblematic misreads how the system is built. The FSVO expressly describes the prohibition lists as non-exhaustive. An ingredient has to clear several hurdles at once.
| Hurdle | Legal basis | What is at stake |
|---|---|---|
| Prohibited plants | Annex 1 VLpH | Toxicity at low doses; effects reserved for medicinal products |
| Prohibited substances | Annex 4 VZVM | Substances that may not be added to foods – such as red yeast rice (Monascus purpureus) and melatonin |
| Novel foods | Novel Foods Ordinance | Without a history of safe food use before 15 May 1997, an authorisation is required |
| Pharmacological dose | Demarcation criteria, therapeutic products vs. foods | Even an unlisted plant is inadmissible if used at a pharmacologically active dose |
| Maximum levels and claims | VNem, LIV | Permitted vitamins and minerals, maximum amounts per daily dose, permitted health claims |
Another point regularly underestimated: a food supplement legally sold in an EU country is by no means automatically marketable in Switzerland. The Cassis de Dijon principle expressly excludes foodstuffs. Ordering online from elsewhere in Europe therefore does not automatically deliver a product that meets Swiss requirements.
What else the campaign objected to – and what can be learned from it
The two inadmissible plants were only part of the picture. The remaining grounds for objection form a pattern that is instructive for assessing preparations more generally.
| Constituent | Grounds for objection |
|---|---|
| Piperine (4 samples), curcuminoids (3 samples), berberine (1 sample) | Exceeding the health-related guidance value per recommended daily intake. The assessment draws on risk evaluations by the French food safety agency (ANSES) and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). |
| Beta-alanine (3 samples) | Non-sustained-release dosage form. Without delayed release, sensitive individuals may experience paraesthesia such as tingling or numbness from as little as 1 g. |
| Caffeine (2 samples), betaine, choline, citrulline, zinc (1 sample each) | Exceeding the permitted maximum amount per recommended daily intake |
| Synthetic drug substances (1 sample) | Detection of dexamethasone, paracetamol and chlorphenamine in a product explicitly marketed as purely plant-based. The FSVO issued a public warning. |
| Curcuminoids (1 sample) | Content below the declared level, and therefore misleading |
| Titanium dioxide (1 sample) | Additive not permitted |
Five further samples were objected to for impermissible health claims. This is the quietest but most frequent breach in the sector: a product can be chemically flawless and still be objected to because the packaging promises an effect that may not lawfully be asserted.
What the campaign reveals about dosage logic is also worth noting. Piperine and curcuminoids are not dubious substances – they come from pepper and turmeric, both everyday spices. What was objected to was not their presence but their concentration. The step from spice to high-dose extract is the step at which food law draws its lines.
Why certain heavily marketed international ingredients are not in our range
For a Swiss producer, this legal framework is not an irritating hurdle but a range decision taken before the first line of a formulation is written. Before a plant enters a formula at all, it is checked against Annex 1 of the VLpH, against Annex 4 of the VZVM, against novel food status and against the maximum levels of the food supplement ordinance. If it fails at any of these points, it does not enter the range – regardless of how strong international demand may be.
Geographic origin is expressly not the criterion here. Neither ivy nor bearberry nor arnica is exotic, and all three are on the prohibition list. What counts is something else: a long, documented history of use as food, a robust safety assessment, and a dosage that stays clearly within the food domain.
The classic culinary and herbal plants of central Europe meet these criteria particularly reliably. Lemon balm, fennel, peppermint and chamomile have been part of European eating and drinking culture for centuries. Their history of use is not reconstructed but documented – and they are used in quantities that originate in the food domain and remain there. That is the unglamorous but durable reason why European herbal tradition forms the core of our formulations rather than whichever global trend ingredient is current.
Safety and use: what to look for when buying
Several practical checks can be derived from the campaign's findings:
- Complete declaration: the botanical name, the plant part used and the extract ratio should all be stated. Without this information, admissibility cannot be assessed at all.
- Where the supplier sits: Swiss food law does not automatically apply to orders placed abroad. Responsibility for importing for personal use rests with the person ordering.
- Promises of effect as a warning sign: the more specifically a disease or complaint is addressed on the packaging, the more likely the claim is impermissible.
- Extremely high single doses: when isolated compounds are dosed far above ordinary consumption levels, a second look is worthwhile.
For pregnant and breastfeeding women, children and adolescents, particular restraint applies to plant preparations in general. For many plant extracts, robust safety data for these groups are lacking. Anyone taking medication regularly – in particular anticoagulant, blood-glucose-lowering or immunomodulating medicines – should discuss the use of plant preparations with a doctor or pharmacist, as interactions are possible. If poisoning is suspected, for example after eating ivy berries, contact Tox Info Suisse immediately on 145.
Magen essentia – four plants from the European herbal tradition
Magen essentia by Natura Nova combines lemon balm, fennel, peppermint and chamomile into a 310 mg plant complex per capsule, complemented by calcium. The lemon balm extract is standardised to 2.5 per cent rosmarinic acid – equivalent to 7.75 mg rosmarinic acid per daily dose.
Calcium contributes to the normal function of digestive enzymes.
- 310 mg plant complex per capsule – lemon balm, fennel, peppermint and chamomile
- Formulated and manufactured in Switzerland to GMP standards
- Laboratory-tested batches for purity, identity and microbiological parameters
- Vegan (HPMC capsule shell), lactose-free, gluten-free, free from additives
- Amber glass protects light-sensitive plant constituents
- 90 capsules per unit
Conclusion: what is established – and what remains open
The legal position is established. Annex 1 of the VLpH lists plants in Part A and individual plant substances in Part B that are not permitted in foods. Gymnema silvestre and Hedera helix are among them, and both were detected in food supplements in eastern Switzerland in early 2026. It is equally established that these lists are not exhaustive: novel food status, pharmacological dosage and maximum levels apply on top.
A good deal remains open. The prohibition lists are a moving target – they are regularly adapted to new risk assessments and to the law of Switzerland's main trading partners. What is permitted today may be judged differently after the next safety assessment; the case of the hydroxyanthracene derivatives illustrates this exactly. It also remains open how the growing online trade can be controlled, where products reach the consumer without ever having touched a Swiss shop counter.
What follows from all this is unspectacular and still durable: a plant is not suitable because it is natural, or because it has a long tradition somewhere in the world. It is suitable when its use as food is documented, its safety assessed and its dosage anchored in the food domain. Everything else belongs on a different shelf.
Research status: July 2026. The current version of the legislation on Fedlex is always authoritative.
Legal notice: this article provides general information on how plants are classified under Swiss food law and does not constitute legal advice. Food supplements are not a substitute for a varied and balanced diet and a healthy lifestyle. They are not intended to treat, alleviate or cure disease. If you have health concerns, please consult a doctor or pharmacist.
Sources
- Office for Consumer Protection and Veterinary Affairs, Canton of St. Gallen: Food supplements under the microscope. Campaign report 2026. berichte.sg.ch
- FDHA Ordinance on Foodstuffs of Plant Origin, Edible Mushrooms and Table Salt (VLpH), SR 817.022.17, in particular Art. 3 and Annex 1. fedlex.admin.ch
- Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office: Lists of substances – plants, fungi and algae. blv.admin.ch
- Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office: Food supplements. blv.admin.ch
- Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office: Monascus purpureus (red yeast rice). blv.admin.ch
- Swissmedic and FSVO: Demarcation criteria – therapeutic products, foods and utility articles. swissmedic.ch
- FDHA: Explanatory notes on the amendment of the VLpH, Annex 1 Parts A and B. blv.admin.ch
- Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/468 of 18 March 2021 regarding botanical species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives. eur-lex.europa.eu
