Supplement labels may look scientific, but many are nothing more than marketing spin cloaked in pseudo-medical jargon. Terms like “supports heart health” or “boosts brain function” trick consumers into believing supplements prevent diseases—without a shred of clinical proof. Add in industry-invented buzzwords like “cosmeceuticals,” and you have a billion-dollar deception thriving on FDA loopholes.
Walk into any pharmacy and you’ll be confronted with shelves of supplements making bold promises: “supports heart health,” “boosts brain function,” “enhances immunity.” At first glance, these statements appear scientific, but in reality, they are nothing more than regulatory sleight-of-hand. The dietary supplement industry thrives on carefully crafted language that exploits FDA loopholes to project authority without providing evidence. Under current regulations, supplement claims fall into three categories: nutrient content claims, health claims, and structure/function claims. Nutrient claims, such as “low sodium,” are straightforward. Health claims, such as folate reducing the risk of birth defects, require substantial data and FDA premarket approval. Structure/function claims, however, occupy a gray zone that has become the marketing weapon of choice. These statements—“supports heart function” or “promotes brain health”—do not require scientific substantiation before going to market. Manufacturers need only add the perfunctory disclaimer: “These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”
The problem is that consumers routinely misinterpret these vague statements as equivalent to clinically proven health claims. A landmark survey study of 4,403 U.S. adults, published in JAMA Network Open, makes this deception painfully clear. Participants were randomized to view supplement labels for either fish oil or a fictitious product called Viadin H, with variations including no claims, “supports heart health,” or “supports cognitive function.” The results were striking. For fish oil, respondents shown a “Supports Heart Health” label were significantly more likely to believe the product prevented heart attacks (62.5% vs. 53.9%) and heart failure (59.0% vs. 50.7%) compared with the no-claim control. Similarly, those shown “Supports Cognitive Function” believed fish oil prevented dementia (47.4% vs. 39.6%) and improved memory in dementia (48.0% vs. 40.5%). Even more telling, when the researchers tested the fake product Viadin H, consumers responded in the same way. A label with “Heart Health” or “Supports Heart Function” led 40% of respondents to believe it prevented heart attack or failure, while a “Brain Health” or “Supports Cognitive Function” label pushed consumers toward assuming dementia-related benefits. The conclusion was clear: structure/function claims are systematically misinterpreted as therapeutic claims, contrary to their regulatory intent.
This semantic trickery is not confined to supplements. The beauty industry has created an entire pseudo-category: cosmeceuticals. The term suggests pharmaceutical-grade efficacy for cosmetics, but it is entirely a marketing invention. According to the FDA, there is no such category—products are either cosmetics (designed to alter appearance) or drugs (intended to affect body structure or function). Nonetheless, the industry embraces “cosmeceuticals” because the word carries a pseudo-scientific authority that sways consumers while avoiding the rigorous clinical trial requirements imposed on pharmaceuticals. While certain cosmeceutical ingredients, such as niacinamide or glycolic acid, have demonstrated limited dermatological benefits, the category itself is a regulatory fiction, weaponized for profit.
The consequences of this deceptive language are profound. Consumers often reject evidence-based therapies in favor of supplements and cosmeceuticals that promise “natural” solutions. Billions of dollars are wasted each year on products that rely on linguistic loopholes rather than clinical science. The supplement industry alone is worth more than $180 billion, built largely on the strategic use of ambiguous terms. These claims displace proven therapies, misdirect consumer spending, and perpetuate myths about efficacy. Worse, they erode trust in legitimate medicine by cloaking profit-driven marketing in the guise of scientific authority.
The solution is both political and cultural. Politically, the FDA must reevaluate and tighten its framework for supplement and cosmetic labeling to eliminate these deceptive ambiguities. Culturally, consumers must adopt greater skepticism and learn to read between the lines. Until regulators act, phrases like “supports heart health” or “cosmeceutical” should be recognized for what they are: marketing myths masquerading as science.
