Tongkat ali and NMN: banned in Europe, sold everywhere

Two products that you will find in three clicks on French-language online stores: tongkat ali, sold for testosterone, and NMN, sold for aging. Neither has the right to be sold as a dietary supplement in the European Union. This is not a shelf-space subtlety, and the two files do not tell the same story at all: one was rejected for a DNA damage signal, the other is awaiting a signature.

"Novel food": the rule no one knows

Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 establishes a simple principle: any food that was not consumed to a significant degree within the Union before May 15, 1997, is a "novel food", and it must be authorized before being sold. Authorization is not a seal of approval: it is an entry on the Union list, published in the Official Journal. As long as a substance is not listed there, selling it is illegal — regardless of the shipping country, regardless of the "dietary supplement" mention on the label.

Tongkat ali and NMN are not on this list. The following explains why, and above all why the two cases are not comparable.

Tongkat ali: a safety refusal, not paperwork

In 2021, the EFSA panel evaluated the aqueous root extract of Eurycoma longifolia, proposed as a supplement at 200 mg per day for adults. Two results blocked the file: the extract proved clastogenic in vitro — it breaks chromosomes — and the subsequent DNA damage test conducted in animals came back positive in the stomach and duodenum at the highest dose tested (2,000 mg/kg).

And yet, it is one of the few that actually does something

This is what makes the file unusual. Most plants sold for testosterone do not pass the test of trials — the 2024 systematic review that covered 52 studies on 27 "boosters" shows this bluntly. Yet it classifies Eurycoma longifolia right among the rare "possibly effective" ones, in men with late-onset hypogonadism as well as in healthy men.

A 2022 meta-analysis points in the same direction: across five re-analyzed trials, the effect on total testosterone is significant and large (SMD = 1.352; 95% CI 0.565–2.138; p = 0.001), especially in hypogonadal men. In aging men, a multicenter trial of 105 men aged 50 to 70 saw total testosterone rise as early as the second week with 200 mg of standardized extract, fatigue decrease, quality of life improve — and, over twelve weeks, no hepatic or renal signal.

Six months of testing in 45 men with age-related androgen deficiency improved erectile function, with the best result coming from the plant plus training combination. In the same setup, the peak torque of the knee extensors increased by 14% with training alone and by 17% with training plus the plant.

These figures must be read in full. The meta-analysis dedicated to erectile function finds no overall difference on the IIEF-5 score: the improvement (+2.15 points) appears only in the subgroup of men whose baseline score was the lowest. This is the pattern found everywhere in this file — something moves for the one who starts from the bottom, almost nothing for the one who is doing well.

This meta-analysis only brings together two trials and 139 people, which mostly shows how thin the ground is. A twelve-week trial on 109 men aged 30 to 55, however, reports improved erectile function, a 14% increase in libido, and better sperm parameters, with a tolerability comparable to placebo. Two results that do not really contradict each other: they measure different populations, and neither has the size required to decide.

What it gives in young and healthy men

Here, the results contradict each other depending on what is measured. Six weeks at 400 mg in amateur athletes: the urinary testosterone/epitestosterone ratio does not move — good news for anti-doping control, bad news for the sales pitch. Eight weeks at 200 mg accompanying weight training in 40 young men: the same ratio, the same absence of movement, and power gains come from training.

But two weeks at 600 mg in 32 healthy young men increased testosterone (p = 0.005) and free testosterone (p = 0.012) — without LH, FSH, or SHBG moving, which points the authors towards adrenal production rather than the usual axis. In other words: dose and duration change the result, and a stable urinary ratio does not mean nothing is happening in the blood.

A frequently cited trial in moderately stressed individuals measured both aspects at once over four weeks: decreased cortisol exposure, increased testosterone, and improved mood scores.

None of this invalidates the EFSA's opinion, and the reverse is true as well. An extract can very well produce a measurable effect and carry a genotoxicity signal: these are two different questions, decided by different experiments. This is precisely why the agency concludes on safety without taking a stance on efficacy.

NMN: refused by the procedure, not by toxicology

Nicotinamide mononucleotide is a precursor to NAD⁺, a molecule used by all our cells and whose concentration decreases with age. Its European file has nothing to do with that of tongkat ali. The opinion issued by the EFSA in 2026 concludes that β-NMN is safe under the proposed conditions — up to 300 mg per day in adults, excluding pregnant and breastfeeding women — and that it constitutes a bioavailable source of nicotinamide, vitamin B3. Genotoxicity tests and a 90-day oral toxicity study were submitted to the file.

What NMN actually does in humans

On one point, the trials agree: blood NAD⁺ rises. A dose-dependent trial on 80 middle-aged adults measured it at 300, 600, and 900 mg per day for 60 days — an increase in all groups, with the highest at 600 and 900 mg. Twelve weeks at 250 mg yield the same result without biological abnormality.

This particular trial is also the only one of the lot to involve a commercial finished product rather than a laboratory molecule — a rarity in the supplement world. It additionally reports a quality of life score up by 6.5% and an insulin resistance index that remained stable, whereas that of the placebo group rose by 30.6%.

Beyond NAD⁺, the measured effects are modest and scattered. In overweight and prediabetic postmenopausal women, ten weeks of NMN improved muscle insulin sensitivity and insulin signaling — this is the result published in Science. In 48 amateur runners, six weeks at 600 or 1,200 mg per day increased oxygen consumption and ventilatory thresholds more than placebo; at 300 mg, nothing.

In 108 elderly Japanese individuals, 250 mg taken in the afternoon improved chair-stand performance (d = 0.72) and reduced sleepiness (d = 0.64); in elderly men, walking speed and grip strength progress "nominally" without body composition changing. And on arterial stiffness, twelve weeks yielded only a trend, with no significant difference between groups.

As for tolerance, nothing alarming to date: four weeks at 1,250 mg per day in 31 adults — four times the dose the EFSA deems safe — produced no significant clinical change or serious adverse effect, and the first oral administration in humans had shown nothing either.

Concretely, what do we do?

One point remains valid in both cases: outside the legal channels, no one controls what is in the tub. Neither the stated dose, nor the purity, nor the absence of things that have no business being there. This is the most concrete consequence of unauthorized sales, and it matters even before talking about efficacy.

If NAD⁺ is what interests you, there is a legal door: nicotinamide riboside chloride, the other precursor, is authorized in the Union since January 10, 2020 as a source of vitamin B3 in supplements for adults, up to 300 mg per day. Authorized means "evaluated and listed" — not "proven effective": this article has not reviewed its trials, and therefore says nothing about what it does.

Every figure in this article comes from a study you can open: the underlined mentions lead to the summary of the work the figure is taken from, written solely from the abstract. The EFSA opinions cited are official assessments, published and indexed like studies. The regulatory status described here is that of September 2026 and may change: the Union's list is authoritative. Informative content, which does not replace the advice of a healthcare professional.