Algae related regulation & legislation

!!

This chapter documents significant regulatory decisions, EFSA scientific opinions, Commission implementing decisions, and enforcement cases relevant to algae. It is not a comprehensive legal digest; rather it identifies the some practically important rulings and decisions that establish the current regulatory framework and that any serious algae producer or compliance professional should know. Decisions are grouped by application area.

Where a decision results in a binding measure (e.g. a Commission Implementing Regulation authorising a novel food), the binding measure is the primary reference and is cited in the relevant subject chapter; this chapter provides the regulatory context and reasoning behind key decisions.

This chapter is the place to list & describe experience in particular cases by invited contributors. Any description of the interplay between EU-level regulation and local implementation is very welcome.

The authorisation of DHA-rich oil from the heterotrophic microalga Schizochytrium sp. was one of the earliest novel food authorisations for an algae-derived food ingredient and set important precedents for subsequent applications.

• The original authorisation was under the 1997 Novel Food Regulation; it was incorporated into the Union list, Regulation (EU) 2017/2470.
• The authorisation covers oil from Schizochytrium sp. with specific compositional specifications and is a restricted novel food (only the holder of the relevant data and its licensees are authorised to place the product on the market as a novel food, though this proprietary protection has expired or may be extended depending on the application type and date of authorisation).
• This authorisation established that heterotrophic microalgae biomass-derived extracts (oils) are treatable as conventional food ingredients for safety assessment purposes, provided safety is established through the novel food assessment pathway.
• Subsequent authorisations for DHA/EPA oils from Crypthecodinium cohnii followed a similar assessment logic.
• EFSA NDA Panel opinion: Scientific Opinion on the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), EFSA Journal 2012; 10(7):2815, 48 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2815, also see EFSA articles referenced there.

• Astaxanthin derived from Haematococcus pluvialis was assessed by EFSA and authorised as a novel food for various food categories.
• The EFSA opinion noted concerns about upper limit intakes due to potential accumulation and interactions with other carotenoid sources (particularly from aquaculture-origin astaxanthin); the authorisation includes specific conditions of use limiting the daily intake and requiring labelling advisory notes for certain population groups.
• EFSA NDA Panel, Scientific Opinion on the safety of astaxanthin for its use as a novel food in food supplements. EFSA Journal 2020;18(2):5993, 9 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.5993
• The Commission Implementing Regulation authorising astaxanthin-rich biomass from Haematococcus pluvialis is included in Union list, Regulation (EU) 2017/2470.

• Although it is commonly known (or at least assumed) that Astaxanthin is one of the most powerful antioxidants, it is not allowed to claim “antioxidant activity” as a health claim label on Astaxanthin extract packages by Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.
• Any health claim displayed on a product label must be explicitly evaluated by the EFSA and authorized by the European Commission.
• “Antioxidant” is a Specific Health Claim: The term “antioxidant” or “antioxidant activity” is not a simple description; EFSA considers it a specific health claim because it implies a physiological function or benefit within the human body. ASA/CAP UK, Nutraingredients.
• EFSA's Negative Opinions: The EFSA evaluated multiple submissions seeking to link astaxanthin consumption to antioxidant properties, protection of DNA/proteins/lipids from oxidative damage, or skin protection. EFSA issued negative opinions, concluding that a cause-and-effect relationship between astaxanthin intake and these specific health benefits had not been sufficiently substantiated by clinical data. EFSA Journal 2009; 7(9):1253, EFSA Journal 2011;9(6):2206, Stachowiak-Szulc 2021, deBoer, etal 2014.
• Not in the Union Register: Because of EFSA's rejection, astaxanthin does not possess any authorised health claims on the official EU Register of Nutrition and Health Claims. EU labelling, ASA/CAP UK.

• Both Spirulina (Arthrospira platensis, A. maxima) and Chlorella (Chlorella vulgaris, C. pyrenoidosa) have a documented history of use as food prior to 1997 in the EU (specifically in France, Belgium and other member states where commercial sales began in the 1980s and 1990s).
• The Commission's Novel Food Catalogue and EFSA assessments confirm that dried Spirulina and Chlorella biomass in tablet and powder form sold as food supplements and food ingredients have a sufficiently documented history of use in the EU to be considered established foods, not novel foods, when used in equivalent forms and at equivalent intakes to those historically marketed.
• This determination is product and use-specific: new forms of Spirulina-derived ingredients (extracts, phycocyanin isolates at higher purity levels, etc.) may have different novel food status — check the Novel Food Catalogue for each specific product form.

Phycocyanin extract is a common ingredient. It is produced in large quantities from Limnospira sp.; recently, new sources are available, such as Galdieria sp.. Several authors have also proposed using wastewater-grown cyanobacteria for phycocyanin extraction. Some producers call the extract Blue Spirulina (which might be misleading for consumers). Let us examine various options.

The regulatory framework for phycocyanin extract in the EU depends heavily on its microalgal source and intended technological function (e.g., whether it is used as a food supplement, a general food ingredient, or a food additive/colourant). Novel food catalogue. Phycocyanin is governed by several distinct EU listings and regulations:

• From Standard Spirulina (Limnospira platensis): Whole dried Spirulina has a documented history of consumption in the EU prior to May 15, 1997. Therefore, standard Spirulina is not novel
• The Novel Food Status (Regulation 2015/2283) The EU Novel Food Status Catalogue treats phycocyanin differently based on the organism it was extracted from:
  • Liquid or powder phycocyanin extracts derived directly from Limnospira platensis can be sold as food supplements or general food ingredients without a full pre-market novel food authorisation, provided the extraction process does not alter the nature of the plant or introduce concentrated hazards. EABA Novel Food.
  • From Novel Algae Sources: If phycocyanin is extracted from a microalgae species that lacks a consumption history before 1997, the extract must go through a novel food safety assessment and be added to the Union List of Novel Foods (Regulation (EU) 2017/2470) before hitting the market. EU4Algae – Protocol to apply for a Novel Food dossier, 2025

• The Food Additives Regulation (EC 1333/2008)
  • When phycocyanin extract is isolated and added to food specifically for its vibrant blue pigment (to impart colour), it legally falls under the scope of EU Food Additive rules rather than general food ingredients. Safety evaluation of blue galdieria extract as a food additive. EFSA Journal, 24(3), e9960, EABA Novel Food
  • Colouring Foods vs. Food Additives: Standard aqueous extracts of phycocyanin from Limnospira platensis are highly utilized across Europe as a “colouring foodstuff” (clean-label ingredient, no E-number required) because they retain the essential characteristics of the parent algae Lauzeri et al 2023.

• New Additive Approvals: For other species, explicit additive evaluations take place. For instance, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluated an application for “Blue Galdieria Extract” (a phycocyanin-rich extract from the microalgae Galdieria sulphuraria) to authorise it as an official food additive/colorant across several food categories. Safety evaluation of blue galdieria extract as a food additive. EFSA Journal, 24(3), e9960.

• Cosmetics Regulation (EC 1223/2009): If you intend to use phycocyanin extract topically, it is catalogued in the EC Cosmetic Ingredient Database (CosIng). It is officially recognised with the functions of an antioxidant, colourant, and light stabiliser in cosmetics. COSING database

• Textiles: If you intend to use phycocyanin extract as a textile coloring the relevant ECO labelling and Ecodesign for Sustainable Products are described in Chapter Textiles.

• Extraction from wastewater grown cyanobacterua: Phycocyanin extracted from cyanobacteria grown on wastewater could be a powerful opportunity for circular economy biorefineries, blending environmental remediation with high-value bioproduct recovery. However, the specific medium (wastewater) introduces rigorous guardrails, especially regarding human consumption.
  • In some cases (e.g. some food and beverage industries), the waste stream may be reclassified as a side-product. This includes strict separation of any waste streams from the stream that will be declared as a sideproduct and depending on the circumstances implementation of quality monitoring. Examples of such strems: cleaning solutions in milk industry, cooking water of vegetables and similar. In those cases cultivation of cyanobacteria in such media is no different than cultivation in artificial media: we have to monitor the species for any toxic cyanobacteria strains and any foreign heterotrophic bacteria, funghi or other organisms that may contaminate the product.
  • We may produce extracts for non-food use, like textile colorants, biostimulants (but cyanobacteria are not allowed as CMC 2 or CMC 4 by Fertilizer Product Regulation). A final product quality monitoring would be required in such cases as part of the end-of-waste process.
  • We may overdo the extraction and purification steps. For example te purification required to produce ultra pure pycocyanin extract used as a fluorescent marker in biochemical applications might be good enough to remove all potential contaminants.
  • the same processes applied to pjycocyanin extract may render it clean and safe enough for food applications. The usual food grade phycocyanin criteria is absorbance ratio (A₆₂₀/A₂₈₀) > 0.7. Such process would have to be continuously monitored well beyond this criteria for zero trace levels of: Heavy metals (e.g., lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic), Contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), including antibiotics, microplastics, endocrine disruptors, and industrial detergents, Pathogens (e.g., E. coli, Salmonella) and harmful cyanotoxins (like microcystins) which can co-occur if the culture is contaminated by wild strains. Bellver et al, 2025

When we factor in all the risks and overheads involved in using wastewater as the growth medium for producing a high-value product, it usually turns out that reduced environmental impact and reduced costs are simply not commercially justified.

• Novel food applications for whole biomass or fractions from Nannochloropsis spp. and Euglena gracilis have been under assessment at various stages. Status as of early 2026: consult the EFSA website and the novel food catalogue for the current status of individual applications.
• These cases are relevant as demonstrations of the novel food pathway in practice for species with no documented EU consumption history.

• EFSA CONTAM Panel, “Risks for human health related to the presence of chromium in food” and the companion opinion on iodine exposure are foundational for understanding iodine limits in seaweed products.
• EFSA CONTAM Panel (2006) Scientific Opinion on iodine in food: established the Upper Tolerable Intake Level for iodine for adults and specific population groups.
• These opinions underpin Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/464 on monitoring metals and iodine in seaweed, and the use of member state guidance values for maximum iodine in seaweed products (absence of EU harmonised MRL for iodine in dried seaweed as of 2026 — relevant EFSA opinion to follow).

• EFSA CONTAM Panel (2016) Scientific Opinion on cyanotoxins in food: established tolerable daily intakes (TDIs) for microcystin-LR, cylindrospermopsin, and other cyanotoxins. These TDIs are the basis for risk management guidance at member state level and for RASFF notifications relating to cyanotoxin contamination in Spirulina and Chlorella supplements.
• EFSA CONTAM Panel (2021) Scientific Opinion on BMAA (β-N-methylamino-l-alanine), a cyanotoxin present in cyanobacteria including Spirulina. The opinion concluded that BMAA as a neurotoxin was a concern; however data gaps limited the ability to set a health-based guidance value. This opinion will inform future regulatory action on BMAA in food supplements.

• EFSA CONTAM Panel (2009, updated) established a benchmark dose for inorganic arsenic. Seaweed, particularly hijiki (Sargassum fusiforme), accumulates inorganic arsenic at levels of concern. Several EU member states issued advisories against consumption of hijiki; some member states (UK pre-Brexit, France, Belgium) set guidance values or issued warnings.
• The hijiki case is the most significant enforcement-relevant case for seaweed contaminants in EU history and explains why EU-harvested seaweed (generally lower in inorganic arsenic than Asian seaweeds) is positioned as a lower-risk alternative in regulatory discussions.

• EFSA FEEDAP Panel opinions on astaxanthin for use in aquaculture feed (Salmo salar, other salmonids) established the safety, efficacy and conditions of use for synthetic and algae-derived astaxanthin as a feed colourant (zootechnical additive — skin colourant).
• The Commission authorisations under Regulation 1831/2003 are binding measures; the EFSA FEEDAP opinions (multiple, updated several times) provide the scientific basis. The most recent opinions assess the tolerance of target animals, environmental impact, and consumer safety of residues.

• EFSA FEEDAP opinions on specific microalgae species as whole biomass feed materials (e.g. Schizochytrium sp., Thraustochytrid microalgae, Nannochloropsis spp.) address safety for target animals and the environment. These opinions inform feed business operator decisions on species use within and outside the Catalogue of Feed Materials framework.

• Undaria pinnatifida (wakame), a Pacific kelp, is listed as an Invasive Alien Species of Union Concern under Regulation (EU) 1143/2014. This listing means that deliberate release, breeding, and commercial use of live Undaria pinnatifida is prohibited in the EU (subject to Commission-permitted derogations for contained use under strict conditions).
• This is one of the most directly commercially relevant IAS decisions for algae producers: wakame is a high-value commercial seaweed but its IAS status makes legal EU cultivation in open water systems impossible without a derogation.
• Sources: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 (Union list); updated by Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/1263 and 2019/1262. Check the current consolidated list for the most recent status.

• Gracilaria vermiculophylla, a red alga originating from Asia, is also listed as an IAS of Union Concern. This species has become naturalised in European coastal waters and is harvested in some areas; the IAS listing complicates commercial cultivation and potentially the sale of intentionally cultivated stock, though the specifics of the derogation provisions are relevant.

• The EGTOP (Expert Group for Technical Advice on Organic Production) issued its Final Report on Fertilisers IV in 2019, which addressed the use of nutrients for microalgae cultivation under the organic regulation.
• The EGTOP opinion confirmed that microalgae grown in closed systems can be certified organic where permitted inputs are used, but noted that the specific permissions for non-organic nutrient inputs required for microalgae cultivation (which cannot access soil nutrients) required explicit provision. This led to specific provisions in the implementing legislation under Regulation (EU) 2018/848.
• Significance: this is the primary regulatory precedent for microalgae organic certification and the basis for understanding the scope of the organic production rules as applied to closed-system microalgae cultivation.

The RASFF (Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed) portal at rasff-window contains historical notifications relevant to algae. Searching for “algae”, “spirulina”, “chlorella”, “seaweed”, “nori”, “wakame”, and “kelp” reveals patterns of enforcement action. Common grounds for RASFF notifications relating to algae products include:

• Cyanotoxin contamination in Spirulina and Chlorella food supplements (microcystin-LR exceedances against national guidance limits).
• Heavy metal contamination (cadmium, lead, arsenic, mercury) in dried seaweed and seaweed-containing food supplements.
• Unauthorised novel food status (products derived from species not in the Union list and without documented pre-1997 EU consumption history placed on market as food without authorisation).
• Iodine levels exceeding national guidance thresholds in kelp and seaweed supplements.

Producers should search the RASFF portal for their specific product type to understand the contaminant and compliance issues that have historically triggered enforcement actions.

• The EU Novel Food Catalogue (DG SANTE) provides status assessments for specific algae species and products — these are not legally binding decisions but represent the Commission's interpretation and are taken as authoritative by national authorities.
• DG SANTE Q&As on the application of the novel food regulation to specific product types are available on the Europa website and provide important interpretive guidance.
• The SWD(2022) 361 regulatory analysis of the algae sector (see Initiatives and Strategic Documents) contains Commission interpretations of how existing regulations apply to algae; these interpretations carry persuasive weight in interactions with national authorities.

See also: Novel Food | Food Quality and Safety | Environment and Use of Non-native Species | Specialised Sources — Bibliography | Frequently Asked Questions

Last reviewed: June 2026.