Regulatory activity around setting Maximum Permitted Levels (MPLs) for vitamins and minerals in the EU, long expected to inch forward slowly, suddenly accelerated. The conversation around ultra-processed foods (UPFs) grew from orderly scientific debate to deafening public noise, increasingly placing sports foods—and the active consumers who use them—under scrutiny within broader obesity and public health debates.
Meanwhile, a renewed push to remove barriers to trade within the EU Single Market—alongside the EU–UK “reset”, which introduced a path toward dynamic alignment of food rules—pointed to a swathe of significant incoming changes for companies operating across Europe.
Taken together, these shifts signal a change in the landscape in which sports nutrition operates. As 2026 begins, the sector needs to be ready to help shape what comes next.
MPLs moved front and center in 2025
One of the most significant shifts this year was the renewed momentum behind EU-wide MPLs. The technical discussions remain largely out of public view, but the trajectory is becoming increasingly clear.
Early indications suggest that the “calculation method” researchers explore could result in very low MPLs. If adopted without adjustment, these limits could restrict formulation options and weaken the effectiveness of products intended to support performance, hydration and recovery. This is not a minor technical update.
While well-intentioned, such an approach does not reflect the reality that nutritional needs vary significantly across consumer bases.
Athletes and active individuals can be more susceptible to deficiencies in certain vitamins and minerals—for example, due to losses associated with intense training or sweating—which, if not addressed, can affect hydration, recovery and overall performance.
This is precisely where specialized and fortified products play a critical role—and where overly conservative MPLs could do real harm.
The MPL debate also intersects with the future of nutrition and health claims. If nutrient thresholds are tightened, companies may no longer be able to use authorized claims to communicate evidence-based benefits. MPLs are therefore set to be one of the defining issues of 2026. Ensuring that the final outcome is proportionate, science-based and reflective of real consumer needs will be essential.
Ultra-processed foods: One of 2025’s biggest talking points
UPFs were impossible to ignore in 2025. From relentless media headlines to policy papers and documentary exposés, the concept moved rapidly from academic terminology into the political mainstream and public discourse. But the pace of the debate has also generated considerable confusion.
Drafts of the EU Cardiovascular Health Plan and the Life Science Strategy referenced potential curbing measures. Several EU Member States, including Belgium, have already incorporated UPF considerations into dietary guidelines. Across public debate, distinctions between indulgence or comfort foods and nutrition products designed for active consumers have frequently been blurred.
For sports nutrition, the risk is growing. UPFs remain incompletely and inconsistently defined. Classification systems such as NOVA group together foods with entirely different nutritional profiles and functions—from packaged bread to confectionery to performance products—under the same label. The category is so broad that it becomes impossible to isolate what is actually driving any observed health impacts: processing, nutrient profiles, additives, lifestyle patterns or other factors entirely.
Much of the public debate also fails to distinguish between nutritionally valuable foods and those that are not, yet headlines often treat them as indistinguishable. Sports nutrition products, by contrast, serve specific and targeted purposes—delivering energy, supporting recovery and filling micronutrient gaps that are crucial for active lifestyles. Grouping these products with categories of concern risks poor policy outcomes and restricts access to products that support healthier, more active lives.
As UPF discussions continue into 2026, the sector must remain engaged and proactive. Policymakers need a more nuanced understanding of how sports foods function—and who relies on them—if unintended consequences, such as taxes, are to be avoided.
Regulatory reset: EU–UK alignment and the push to strengthen the Single Market
The EU–UK “reset” was another major development in 2025, creating a pathway toward dynamic alignment of UK food labeling, compositional standards and marketing rules with EU legislation. For an industry that has spent four years navigating post-Brexit divergence, this presents meaningful opportunities.
Alignment could significantly simplify operations. Rather than juggling multiple and diverse product formats and regulatory frameworks, businesses could work within a single, clear system—improving trade flows, reducing administrative burdens and lowering costs.
But the reset also brings a new layer of uncertainty. Dynamic alignment means the UK will increasingly follow future EU decisions—including those still under negotiation —tying developments on one side of the Channel more closely to outcomes on the other.
At the same time, 2025 also saw a renewed push within the EU to remove barriers inside the Single Market. Through its Single Market Strategy, the Commission signalled a stronger focus on reducing fragmentation, improving consistency in the application of rules and strengthening enforcement where national differences continue to disrupt cross-border trade.
Yet significant sector-specific challenges remain unresolved, from divergent product classification across Member States to ongoing uncertainty around “on-hold” botanical claims. Taken together, both tracks point in the same general direction: greater regulatory coherence.
Alignment across the Channel could ease EU–UK trade, while a more coherent Single Market could reduce barriers within the EU itself. But in both cases, the real impact will depend on how these ambitions are implemented in practice. As negotiations and policy initiatives move into 2026, the sector will need to stay alert, engaged and informed as this evolving regulatory landscape takes shape.
Looking ahead
This was a year of regulatory flux. In 2026, the sector will need to remain present and vocal as key decisions take shape. Now is the moment to ensure policymakers understand the specific role sports nutrition plays—and the physiological needs of the athletes and active consumers who rely on it. Active awareness of regulatory trends is a must; we must be actively involved in the technical dialogue.
In 2026, I trust that the industry will continue to prioritize our consumers and, through dialogue with policymakers, ensure access to suitable and safe products, underpinned by robust science, for years to come.
