The Norwegian Food Safety Authority intends to destroy NMN – which the EU food safety authority just assessed as safe.
The Norwegian Food Safety Authority wants to destroy NMN. EFSA has deemed the substance safe. What is actually happening?
Norwegian authorities want to destroy a substance that the EU's own food safety authority has just deemed safe. This is about more than NMN. It's about the kind of consumer protection Norway actually delivers – and whether power is used with precision or on autopilot.
This is not just about one product
NMN has become one of the most discussed substances within NAD+, energy metabolism, and healthy aging. At the same time, Norwegian authorities have chosen one of the strictest – and least updated – lines in Europe.
Live Longer AS has received a notice from the Norwegian Food Safety Authority regarding a marketing ban and destruction of NMN. The striking thing is the timing: on May 11, 2026, EFSA, the EU's own food safety authority, issued a positive scientific safety opinion on β-NMN as a source of niacin.
So here we are: the EU's expert authority says "deemed safe under proposed conditions of use." The Norwegian Food Safety Authority says "destroy." That's not a small nuance. It's the core of the issue – and it deserves an honest answer.
What is NMN, explained simply?
NMN stands for nicotinamide mononucleotide. It is part of the body's NAD+ system. NAD+ is a coenzyme involved in energy metabolism, cell maintenance, and a variety of biological processes the body depends on.
Interest in NMN stems from the fact that NAD+ levels decline with age. Therefore, researchers are investigating NAD+ precursors like NMN and NR to understand how the body can support NAD+ levels again. NAD+ is linked to, among other things, cellular energy production, maintenance processes, mitochondrial function, recovery, and general biological function.
This does not mean that NMN is a magic shortcut or that one should promise medicinal effects. But it does mean that NMN is one of the most interesting substances in NAD+ research right now. In a regulatory sense, it's also worth noting one thing: EFSA considers β-NMN as a source of niacin, i.e., vitamin B3, as NMN is a derivative of niacin, vitamin B3.
What has EFSA actually said about NMN?
This is the core. On May 11, 2026, EFSA published its scientific opinion on β-NMN as a novel food. The conclusion is clear: its identity, production process, composition, and specifications give no safety concerns, and EFSA concludes that β-NMN is safe under the proposed conditions of use and a bioavailable source of niacin.
It's worth understanding what 300 mg/day actually is. It is the applicant's proposed level of use in the application – not a toxicological upper limit for β-NMN as a substance. The two things should not be confused.
And the tolerance at higher doses is reassuring: EFSA's assessment basis refers to human intervention studies at up to 900 mg/day for 60 days and 250 mg/day for 24 weeks without identified side effects. In addition, a separate randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled study found that β-NMN was safe and well-tolerated at 1250 mg/day for up to 4 weeks in healthy adults.
| Assessed | What the conclusion was |
|---|---|
| Identity, production, composition, specifications (EFSA) | Do not raise safety concerns. |
| Genotoxicity (EFSA) | No concerns identified. |
| Bioavailability (EFSA) | Considered a bioavailable source of niacin. |
| Tolerance in human studies | Up to 900 mg/day for 60 days and 250 mg/day for 24 weeks without identified side effects. A separate randomized, placebo-controlled study found good tolerance at 1250 mg/day for 4 weeks (Scientific Reports, 2022). |
In other words: science has moved on. The question is whether the Norwegian Food Safety Authority has done the same.
NMN is not alone: NR is already approved in the EU
A point that almost always gets lost in the debate: NMN is not an exotic, unique chemical without precedent. It belongs to the same family of NAD+ precursors as nicotinamide riboside (NR).
NR-chloride was authorized as a novel food on the EU market as early as January 2020 – specifically as a source of niacin (vitamin B3) in food supplements for adults. Same substance class. Same niacin purpose.
Consider this side-by-side
NR: NAD+ precursor, source of vitamin B3, approved in the EU since 2020.
NMN: NAD+ precursor, source of vitamin B3, positive EFSA safety opinion in 2026 – and in the authorization process.
It's hard to tell a credible story that one is an acute consumer hazard that must be destroyed, while the other is sold completely legally on store shelves.
And NMN is not alone in the queue: the EU has received several NMN novel food applications, and at least one for 500 mg/day is already undergoing EFSA's risk assessment. The direction is clear – regulations are catching up with science.
What is the Norwegian Food Safety Authority trying to do?
The Norwegian Food Safety Authority has issued a notice of a marketing ban and destruction of NMN at Live Longer AS, citing that the substance is not formally authorized as a novel food.
Live Longer disputes the grounds. But let's set aside the classification discussion for a moment and look at the measure, because that's where it becomes striking. There is a big difference between these two sentences:
"This cannot be sold as a food supplement until formal EU approval is granted."
"This must be destroyed – even though EFSA has just deemed the substance safe."
That difference is not small. It is the entire case.
Destroying inventory at a stage where EFSA has just issued a positive scientific safety opinion, and the Commission's authorization process is underway, appears to us as severely disproportionate to the actual risk. A marketing ban pending authorization is one thing. Annihilation is something else entirely.
The problem: when oversight becomes an abuse of power
The Norwegian Food Safety Authority has an important job, and no serious actors want a market where anyone can sell anything with wild claims and zero documentation. Precisely for this reason, it is crucial that the strongest measures hit where the actual risk is greatest. This is not always the case.
Our case is not isolated. There are well-documented examples of the Norwegian Food Safety Authority's discretion and use of measures being met with strong criticism:
The Norwegian Food Safety Authority and the actors involved in the case justified the culling with animal welfare, feral livestock, disease, injuries, and animals that could not be tamed. At the same time, many locals and support groups have strongly disagreed with this portrayal. They believe the goats were largely healthy, well-adapted to the area, and that the case in practice was about some people wanting to get rid of a herd that had lived there for a long time.
NRK Vestland has reported that 40 animals have been shot so far, and that 23 kids at risk of suffering or death have been removed. The case has also triggered strong reactions, harassment, and threats against volunteers and individuals who have tried to help the animals. This primarily shows how controversial and heated the case has been.
According to local reports, parts of the culling were carried out from the air, and several animals are said to have fallen into the water afterward. If this is true, it makes the case even more serious as an example of how dramatic consequences irreversible measures from the Norwegian Food Safety Authority can have.
The point is not that this case is similar to the NMN case. It is certainly not. The point is the principle: the reaction must be proportionate to the actual risk. When an authority makes decisions that cannot be reversed, the threshold should be higher than “we believe this is correct.” Sources: NRK Vestland; Firda; local coverage and reactions around the case.
The point is not that all cases are alike – they are not. The point is the principle: the reaction must be proportionate to the actual risk.
This doesn't just affect Live Longer
If Norwegian authorities make it almost impossible for serious Norwegian actors to work with new, research-based substances, the demand will not disappear. Customers will simply go to foreign online stores. Then Norway will have less control, not more.
| When serious Norwegian actors are pressured out | What the consumer risks |
|---|---|
| Less Norwegian documentation | Customers more often buy from foreign online stores with unclear quality. |
| Less traceability | Harder to know batch, purity, analysis, and supply chain. |
| Less responsible marketing | Foreign actors can be far more aggressive than Norwegian companies that can actually be controlled. |
The paradox is that the actors who actually try to do things properly, documented, and transparently, often become the easiest targets – precisely because they are visible and respond to emails. The unserious actors outside Norway continue as before.
Our Position
Live Longer does not believe that food supplements should be a free-for-all. Quite the opposite. We believe products should be documented, purity should be tested, claims should be sober, and authorities should intervene when products are dangerous or marketed with illegal medical claims.
But we also believe that authorities must use their power with precision. When EFSA has just issued a positive scientific safety opinion on β-NMN, and the case largely concerns classification and timing, destruction appears to be a disproportionate measure.
Malcolm's honest assessment
This is not about everything new automatically being good. But it is about authorities being able to distinguish between real risk and regulatory backlog. When EFSA has deemed β-NMN safe under the assessed conditions of use, Norwegian authorities should not act as if the documentation does not exist.
NMN from Live Longer
Our NMN products are available while the case is ongoing, with documented purity and traceable batch. We believe customers deserve transparency, clear information, and products with clear documentation.
NMN Capsules
Lab-tested NMN with traceable batch and documented purity.
NMN Powder 100g
NMN powder with documented purity and traceable batch.
Follow the case further
We will continue to publish updates, documentation, and professional assessments as the case develops. The goal is simple: more transparency, better consumer protection, and less automatic use of power disguised as safety.
FAQ: NMN, EFSA and the Norwegian Food Safety Authority
Is NMN legal to sell as a food supplement in Norway now?
Live Longer disputes that our specific NMN product should be classified as a food supplement, because the product is marketed as a chemical/reference material, not as a foodstuff. This is clearly marked on both the website and the product.
The most important thing to understand is this: the case is not about NMN being proven dangerous. On the contrary, EFSA has published a positive safety assessment of β-NMN. The case is about classification, regulations, and how far the Norwegian Food Safety Authority can go in its interpretation.
Why does the Norwegian Food Safety Authority want to destroy NMN?
Live Longer disputes this basis. Our NMN product is sold as a chemical/reference material, not as a dietary supplement or foodstuff. This is clearly labelled on both our website and product. Since the product is not sold as a foodstuff, we believe it cannot be assessed under the same regulations as dietary supplements.
Additionally, we believe that destruction is an extreme and disproportionate measure, especially when EFSA has just deemed β-NMN to be safe. There is a big difference between saying "this is awaiting formal EU authorisation as a dietary supplement" and saying "this must be destroyed." We believe the Norwegian Food Safety Authority underestimates that difference.
Is NMN dangerous?
This does not mean that we give medical advice or promise effects. But it does mean that NMN should not be portrayed as a mysterious or dangerous substance just because the regulations have not been fully updated.
NMN is also legally sold in several countries outside the EU/EEA, including the USA, Australia, Japan, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, and New Zealand, under their respective regulations. This does not automatically mean that the same rules apply in Norway, but it shows that NMN is not a substance the world treats as an acute consumer hazard.
Herein lies much of the problem: science moves faster than bureaucracy. And when a substance is deemed safe by EFSA, we believe it is strange that the Norwegian Food Safety Authority nevertheless proceeds so harshly with destruction.
How much NMN should one take?
When we refer to doses such as 300 mg, 500 mg, 900 mg, or 1250 mg, it is to explain the research and regulatory context. 300 mg/day is the usage level in one EFSA application, but it is not a toxicological upper limit for the substance. The EFSA basis also mentions human studies with higher doses without identified side effects.
The point is simple: NMN is not a substance that EFSA has rejected as unsafe. On the contrary, EFSA has evaluated β-NMN positively and safely.
Can I still buy NMN from you?
We believe customers deserve transparency. Therefore, we explain what NMN is, what EFSA has assessed, what the Norwegian Food Safety Authority believes, and why we disagree with their handling.
See NMN capsules or see NMN powder 100 g.
What is the difference between NMN and NR?
The difference is primarily regulatory: NR-chloride is already authorised as a novel food in the EU/EEA, while NMN has received a positive EFSA safety opinion and is awaiting further EU process.
The point is not that NMN and NR have identical regulatory status. The point is that this field is already well known within the EU system, and NMN is now moving in the same direction. Therefore, we believe it is difficult to understand why the Norwegian Food Safety Authority is acting so harshly right now.
Sources and Documentation
- EFSA: Safety of beta-nicotinamide mononucleotide (β-NMN)…, EFSA Journal 2026;24(5):e10007 (published 11.05.2026). DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2026.10007.
- Scientific Reports 2022: Safety evaluation of β-nicotinamide mononucleotide oral administration in healthy adult men and women (1250 mg/day for 4 weeks; randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled; UMIN000043084).
- EU Commission: Novel food / Union list and authorisations and Open EFSA for status on submitted NMN applications, including applications under risk assessment.
- EU Regulations: Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 on novel foods; Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Article 2 on the definition of food; Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 on the Union list.
- NR Precedent: EFSA Journal 2019;17(8):5775 on nicotinamide riboside chloride and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/16 authorising nicotinamide riboside chloride as a novel food.
- Live Longer AS: Statement on notice of decision – Norwegian Food Safety Authority case 2026/084079.
- The goat herd on Kvist: NRK Vestland: “Harassment and bullying stop wild goat helpers in Sogn” and Firda: “Most of the goats on Kvist have been culled – grotesque”.
- Self-dead salmon: NRK Vestland: “Here, self-dead salmon is sorted as human food” and E24: “Slaughter boat sorted self-dead salmon as food – no consequences for Mowi”.
- Bovaer/methane inhibitors: VG: “Investigates cow deaths after feed stop in research project”, VG: “Oddvar has given his cows Bovaer for half a year”, Stavanger Aftenblad: “Controversial climate measure may be banned”, Faktisk.no search for Bovaer and Tine search for Bovaer.
Leave a comment