• “New 21st century ‘designer’ D-Bol (label above, top) is so potent it turns genetically average guys into supernatural studs no one messes with!”
• Xenadrine EFX (label above, left) ”provides the most effective approach to losing weight ever developed!”
• “Thousands of testimonials” credit chaparral (label above, right) “for tumor remissions and complete cures. Other medical evidence indicates it is an anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial agent and a possible treatment for asthma.”
Does the government really allow supplement companies to make extravagant promises like those, which we found on Web sites promoting products we purchased? The answer is murky at best.
Under the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, manufacturers can’t claim that a product prevents or treats a disease or disorder. But they can say it affects the “structure and function” of the body--“supports healthy prostate function,” for example--or shows a “link” to a disease or disorder, and allow consumers to draw their own, often erroneous, conclusions. The FDA can require that a manufacturer change a label that it decides is making an unauthorized health claim.
DSHEA does say, confusingly, that supplement makers must be able to “substantiate” their claims. But it does not specify what that means, nor does it require that the evidence be shown to anybody, not even the FDA.
The Federal Trade Commission has the authority to punish companies whose ads are intentionally misleading. Unlike the FDA, it can force companies to give it documents substantiating suspect claims and order the products off the market if it decides that the substantiation isn't sufficient. But it can't move against a category of products, such as those containing ephedra, nor can it act against dangerous products that aren't advertised to the public.
Since DSHEA's passage, the FTC has brought more than 100 cases against supplement marketers for deceptive advertising. But “there are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of companies out there that probably deserve scrutiny,” said Richard Cleland, assistant director of the FTC's division of advertising practices. “We don't have the resources to look at every one.”
