European Organic Mark and other organic labelling prohibited for vitamin supplementation – Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) and Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) decide unambiguously

Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) and Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) clarify: foodstuffs with added vitamins or minerals must not bear the organic logo. Manufacturers must rethink their approach.

Background: What the organic mark really protects

The European organic mark is far more than a mere marketing instrument. It signals to consumers a high degree of transparency, traceability and purity of ingredients. The basis is provided by Verordnung (EU) 2018/848, which strictly regulates all organic production in the European Union. Under this regulation, a foodstuff may only be marketed as Verordnung (EU) 2018/848, if it fully complies with the production and labelling requirements laid down in Union law."organic" vermarktet werden, wenn es den unionsrechtlich festgelegten Produktions- und Kennzeichnungsvorschriften vollständig entspricht.

EU organic mark

Particularly significant is the rule that foodstuffs labelled as organic must, in principle, contain no additives. Vitamins and minerals are only permitted in exceptional cases – namely when their use is legally required. This is intended to prevent products bearing the EU organic logo from reaching the market which distort the impression of naturality through non-organic additives.

The dispute concerning the product "B."

At the centre of the legal dispute was H. Kräuter. GmbH, a German company that manufactures a product called "B.". It is a mixture of fruit juices and herbal extracts derived from organic cultivation. However, vitamins and iron in the form of iron gluconate were additionally added to the beverage. Marketing nevertheless took place using the EU organic logo and the national organic mark; furthermore, the ingredients list contained references to the organic origin of individual constituents.

The Bavarian supervisory authority prohibited this labelling as early as 2012. This was justified by reference to the regulation (EG) Nr. 834/2007 then in force, under which vitamins and minerals could only be added to an organic product if their use was mandatorily required. H. contested this through all levels of the courts. After both the Administrative Court and the Bavarian Higher Administrative Court rejected the action, the case finally reached the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG). The court suspended the proceedings and referred questions to the Europäischen Gerichtshof (EuGH) concerning the interpretation of organic law.

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) of 4 October 2024

The EuGH decided clearly: products enriched with non-plant-based vitamins or minerals must not bear the EU organic logo, since they do not comply with the strict production requirements of Verordnung (EU) 2018/848. This rule applies regardless of whether a product is manufactured in the European Union or imported from a third country.

Particular attention was given to the aspect of possible unequal treatment. H. had argued that comparable products from the United States could be labelled as "organic" under US law and could also be distributed in the Union using the EU organic logo. However, the Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) made unmistakably clear that European standards are also decisive for US products. A beverage that, like "B.", is enriched with vitamins and minerals, must not be labelled as organic even if imported from the USA. The principle of equal treatment from Article 20 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is therefore not violated.

In this way, the Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) confirmed that the organic logo may only be used for products that fully comply with Union law standards. Deviations – even if they may be permissible under national or foreign law – exclude labelling as organic.

The decision of the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) of 4 September 2025

Based on the requirements laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH), the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) definitively rejected the appeal of H. The judges made clear that a beverage such as "B." with its vitamin and mineral additives must bear neither the EU organic logo nor the German organic mark. Furthermore, a reference in the ingredients list to the organic origin of individual ingredients is also prohibited. For such a reference could mislead consumers about whether the entire product is an organic foodstuff.

It is particularly noteworthy that the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) did not accept the argumentation of the claimant that it was being disadvantaged compared to US products. The Luxembourg judges had already established that imported products must also meet the same strict standards. Competitive disadvantages therefore do not exist.

Note: So far, only the press release of the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) is available. The full reasoning for the decision will be published later.

Legal assessment and practical consequences

With the now final decision, legal certainty has been created. The organic mark remains an exclusive quality promise which is strictly protected. Manufacturers and retailers must reckon with the fact that unlawful labelling can not only be prohibited by authorities, but can also be subject to warning letters under competition law. The judgment strengthens consumer protection by preventing products with non-organic additives from diluting the organic food market.

In practice, this means that manufacturers must carefully review their formulations and ensure that additives are only contained if they are mandatorily required. The labelling must also be adjusted accordingly: neither the EU organic logo nor the national organic mark may be used if the final product does not fully comply with Union law requirements. Even information in the ingredients list referring to the organic origin of individual constituents is prohibited in such cases, because it could mislead consumers.

Care should also be exercised with imported products. Even if third-country products may be marketed as "organic" under foreign law, this does not automatically mean that they can be labelled with the organic logo in the EU. Only European regulations apply to marketing within the Union.

Conclusion: Strict standards secure confidence in the organic mark

The proceedings make it clear: whoever wishes to advertise with the EU organic logo must comply with European standards uncompromisingly. For manufacturers, this means a clear duty toCompliance review of your own formulations and labelling concepts. Even minor deviations, such as the addition of non-plant-based vitamins or minerals, can result in the loss of organic status.

For the market, however, the judgment provides an important clarification. Consumers can rely on the fact that products bearing an organic label actually meet the strict EU legal standards. For companies, it is advisable to monitor legal developments carefully and to consistently align their product design with the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 – in order to warnings (cease-and-desist notices), distribution bans and reputational damage to avoid. In doing so, you can be supported by the experts of AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart.