Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain
Consumers read common supplement label phrases as promises of disease prevention or treatment, according to University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Duke University Medical Center research.
Dietary supplement use is higher in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world, with approximately 56% of adults taking at least one form of supplement. While the FDA has regulations in place that hold companies responsible for ensuring the safety of their products and accurate labeling, the FDA does not review most supplements for safety or effectiveness before they are marketed.
Regulatory categories allow nutrient claims, health claims, and structure or function claims that should describe normal bodily roles without implying disease treatment. Ambiguous phrasing like “heart health” or “supports cognitive function” appear often on labels and have raised concern about the line between consumer misunderstanding and misleading marketing.
For example, nearly 75% of fish oil supplements on the market display at least one health-related claim. Many adults with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease report taking fish oil for heart health and annual sales of fish oil supplements top $1 billion each year. This is despite multiple large randomized clinical trials finding that fish oil supplements do not prevent cardiovascular events and are not recommended for primary or secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
In the study, “Label Statements and Perceived Health Benefits of Dietary Supplements,” published in JAMA Network Open, researchers conducted randomized online surveys to evaluate whether structure or function statements are associated with beliefs that a supplement prevents or treats specific diseases.
Survey cohorts included 2,239 U.S. adults reviewing a fish oil label and 2,164 adults reviewing a hypothetical product called Viadin H, recruited via the SurveyMonkey Audience platform in early 2024. Participants were randomized to one of four label versions within each survey.
Fish oil labels included “Supports Heart Health,” “Supports Cognitive Function,” an FDA-qualified health claim for coronary heart disease with mandated qualifying text on the back panel, or no claims at all. Viadin H labels included “Heart Health,” “Supports Heart Function,” “Brain Health,” or “Supports Cognitive Function.” Respondents rated on a 5-point scale how likely the product would reduce risk or help treat listed conditions.
Across fish oil label groups, “Supports Heart Health” drew higher proportions reporting belief the product was likely to reduce heart attack risk at 62.5% versus 53.9% in the no-claim control, and heart failure risk at 59.0% versus 50.7%.
Coronary heart disease qualified health claim language showed higher proportions reporting the belief the product was likely to reduce heart attack risk at 60.3% versus 53.9%, and heart failure risk at 60.3% versus 50.7%.
“Supports Cognitive Function” produced higher proportions reporting belief the product was likely to reduce dementia risk at 47.4% versus 39.6%, and to improve memory in people with dementia at 48.0% versus 40.5%.
In Viadin H responses, heart-related labels yielded higher proportions reporting the belief the product was likely to reduce heart attack risk than brain-related labels at 40.0% and 40.5% versus 20.2% and 23.3%. Brain-related labels yielded higher proportions reporting the belief the product was likely to reduce dementia risk than heart-related labels at 34.5% and 33.3% versus 18.7% and 17.1%.
Authors conclude that structure or function statements like “heart health,” “brain health,” and “supports cognitive function” were frequently interpreted as disease claims. Findings support reevaluation of labeling language rules, which could reduce consumer misunderstanding.
Written for you by our author Justin Jackson, edited by Sadie Harley, and fact-checked and reviewed by Robert Egan—this article is the result of careful human work. We rely on readers like you to keep independent science journalism alive.
If this reporting matters to you,
please consider a donation (especially monthly).
You’ll get an ad-free account as a thank-you.
More information:
Joanna Nicole Assadourian et al, Label Statements and Perceived Health Benefits of Dietary Supplements, JAMA Network Open (2025). DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.33118
© 2025 Science X Network
Citation:
What supplement labels say, versus what consumers think they mean (2025, September 24)
retrieved 26 September 2025
from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-09-supplement-consumers.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.