EOF's warning on "intravenous therapies" sold as supplements — what it means in practice

On 8 July 2026 the National Organization for Medicines (EOF) published a notice about preparations presented and administered as "food supplements" under the general name "Intravenous Therapy" (IV Vitamin/Nutrition Therapy). Its message is short: these preparations are not food supplements, anything intended for intravenous infusion falls under pharmaceutical legislation and needs a marketing authorisation, and every person who takes part, directly or indirectly, in their production, distribution, promotion or administration is subject to sanctions ^[1]. The notice was reproduced widely by the Greek press the same day ^[2][3].

On 12 August 2026 the president of EOF returned to the subject on Star's main evening news, this time about injectable "peptide therapy" promoted online ^[4]. Both interventions rest on the same logic: a product's legal category is set by its route of administration and by how it is presented, not by the label a seller puts on it. This article records what was said and what it means; the systematic comparison of the legal categories sits in a separate article in the same series.

What EOF announced, and when

The notice is titled "Notice on the unlawful presentation, promotion and administration of 'intravenous therapies' as food supplements" and was posted on EOF's website on 8 July 2026 ^[1]. It describes injectable or infused preparations — IV bags, the so-called drips — containing vitamins, minerals, amino acids or antioxidants and marketed with indications such as "detoxification", "anti-ageing", "weight loss", "toning", "immune boosting" and "antioxidant therapy". To all of these the notice replies with a single, emphatic sentence: they do not constitute food supplements ^[1].

EOF grounds the warning in three risks. First, these are products never assessed for quality, safety or efficacy, nor for compliance with the good manufacturing practice a sterile product requires. Second, injectable or intravenous administration carries inherent risks of infection, allergic or anaphylactic reactions, local or systemic complications, and adverse effects from unassessed substances or impurities. Third — and this is usually overlooked — anyone who turns to such preparations instead of an authorised medicine, for the "indication" they were promised, is in practice left untreated ^[1].

The press covered the notice the same day. TA NEA and in.gr carried its content under headlines speaking of "unlawful promotion and administration", and the story was picked up by a long list of news and health sites ^[2][3]. It is worth noting what the notice does not contain: it names no brands, clinics or sellers. It is general guidance about a practice, not the recall of a specific batch, and knowing what a notice of this kind is, and what it is not helps before reading it as something else.

The second intervention: 12 August 2026 and injectable peptides

Five weeks later, on 12 August 2026, EOF president Spyros Sapounas spoke on Star's main evening news about injectable "peptide therapy" advertised online. According to the report by the medical news site therapeftis.eu, he warned that the unlawful injectable preparations sold online are of unknown composition and outside any regulatory control, that they could contain anything — from heavy metals to plain water — and that citizens should obtain medicines only from a physical pharmacy ^[4].

Two points of precision. The statement was made in a television interview, not in a written notice; we found no corresponding text on EOF's website, so the source is the published report ^[4]. And the statement does not change the legal framework — it creates neither a new category nor a new prohibition. It applies the logic of the July notice to a different group of products: whatever is promoted for injection into people with therapeutic claims is assessed as a medicinal product, and without a marketing authorisation its supply is unlawful ^[1][5].

Why an intravenous preparation cannot be a food supplement

The answer lies in two definitions from EU food law. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 defines "food" as any substance or product intended to be, or reasonably expected to be, ingested by humans ^[7]. Directive 2002/46/EC defines food supplements as foodstuffs intended to supplement the normal diet, which are concentrated sources of nutrients or other substances with a nutritional or physiological effect and are marketed in pre-measured forms: capsules, pastilles, tablets, sachets of powder, ampoules of liquids, drop-dispensing bottles ^[6]. Even the Directive's "ampoules" are drinkable forms. A supplement remains a food, and food is swallowed.

EOF's notice puts it directly: food supplements aim "exclusively and only to supplement the consumer's intake from the normal diet, and are administered by mouth" ^[1]. A substance introduced straight into the bloodstream bypasses the digestive system and, with it, the whole legal framework for food. It does not matter whether the composition matches a vitamin tablet sold lawfully in a supermarket; the route of administration alone takes the product out of the category.

The authorisation regime under pharmaceutical law

Outside food, a product intended for administration to people almost always falls within Directive 2001/83/EC. Article 6 provides that no medicinal product may be placed on the market of a Member State without a marketing authorisation from the competent authority ^[5]. EOF translates this into the language of the notice: substances and fluids for intravenous infusion "are subject to an authorisation regime", and their circulation is prohibited unless they hold an authorisation granted after a positive assessment of quality, safety and efficacy on the basis of the product dossier ^[1].

The notice also invokes the first limb of the definition of a medicinal product in Article 1(2) of the Directive: any product presented as having therapeutic or preventive properties for the human body is a medicinal product "by virtue of its presentation" ^[1][5]. The indications EOF lists — detoxification, immune boosting, "antioxidant therapy" — are exactly such claims. A preparation with that presentation would be a medicinal product even if it were taken by mouth; as an injectable, it leaves no room at all. How competence is divided between the EMA and EOF is set out in detail in the article on the regulatory framework.

Who is liable to sanctions under the notice

The notice's final paragraph is its broadest: "every person who takes part, directly or indirectly, in the unlawful production, circulation, distribution, presentation and promotion in general, and administration" of these preparations is subject to the sanctions provided by law ^[1]. The list covers the entire chain, not only whoever manufactures.

• Production: whoever manufactures or packs the preparation, in Greece or abroad ^[1].
• Circulation and distribution: importers, warehouses, resellers, online shops.
• Presentation and promotion: whoever advertises or attributes properties — websites, social media posts, information material from clinics and beauty centres ^[1][5].
• Administration: whoever applies the preparation to people, regardless of whether they sourced it themselves.

The notice gives no penalty levels and cites no specific articles of law; it refers in general to "the sanctions provided by law" ^[1]. The framework of sanctions for unlawful promotion, and how it reaches intermediaries, is examined in a separate article in this series. The notice also invites the public to submit "spontaneous reports" to EOF about related practices that come to their attention — how that works in practice is described in the article on reporting a suspect product.

What the warning does not cover

A notice with this much reach is easily read more broadly than it was written. A careful reading of the text shows its limits clearly ^[1].

• It does not concern authorised injectable medicines — solutions, vitamins or electrolytes holding a marketing authorisation and administered as part of medical practice ^[5].
• It does not concern oral food supplements that are lawfully on the market and carry permitted claims ^[6].
• It names no products, brands or businesses and is not equivalent to the recall of a specific batch.
• It creates no new legal category; it applies definitions that have been in force for more than two decades ^[5][6][7].
• It does not refer to laboratory reagents. That does not mean it exempts them, nor that it covers them; its subject is simply something else.

The same holds for the 12 August statement. It concerns products promoted for injection into people as "therapy" and sold outside pharmacies; it is not, and does not attempt to be, a classification of peptides as a chemical family ^[4]. Anyone who relays it as "EOF has banned peptides" or, conversely, as "EOF has no objection to anything it did not name" is reading into the text something it does not say.

Where research material sits in relation to this distinction

The distinction EOF draws — a food that is swallowed, or a medicine with an authorisation — leaves out a third category: chemical material supplied for laboratory research. It is neither a supplement nor a medicine, has no route of administration, and is not an alternative to either. The "research use only" statement declares exactly that: none of the requirements that apply to products intended for people has been applied to the contents.

The notice's logic applies here with the same force. Anything presented for administration to people — with a route, an indication or a promised outcome — is assessed as a medicinal product by presentation, whatever label it carries ^[5]. The distinction stops at that point.