The Regulation of Dietary Supplements Within the United States: Flawed Attempts at Mending a Defective Consumer Safety Mechanism

Abstract

The use of dietary supplements in the United States has escalated in the past decade, driven by the public's desire to exert control over their health and by the mistaken belief that the safety of dietary supplements is assured by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In fact, the marketing of largely unregulated supplements presents significant risks to public health.

The Effects of Health Consciousness and Familiarity with DTCA on Perceptions of Dietary Supplements

“…Existing research shows that consumers lack considerable knowledge about the regulation of dietary supplements, indicating that consumers may make poor decisions based on incomplete information. Quinones et al () argue that the marketing of these unregulated products is a significant public health concern.…”

“…Moreover, individuals tend to assume a basic level of protection and regulation that does not exist in the supplement industry (Quinones et al ). At the same time, DTCA for prescription drugs must include both benefit and risk information, but supplement ads do not.…”

“…Health consciousness, which taps a general alertness, self‐consciousness, involvement, and self‐monitoring of one's health (Gould ), and also refers to consumer readiness to undertake health actions (Becker et al ), has been found to play an important role in shaping consumers' health‐related attitudes and decisions. Although health‐conscious consumers may be inclined to consume supplements to enhance their diets, they are often unaware that dietary supplements receive considerably less regulatory scrutiny than prescription drugs (Quinones et al ) or that many supplements actually contain the same active ingredients as prescription drugs (Mason ). The high potential for consumers to misattribute information across product categories as a result of DTCA and supplement advertising elevates the significance of new research in this area.…”

The Dual Legality of Marijuana in the United States: Implications of Conflicting Government Policies on Consumer Well‐being

“…Extant research on the interests of consumer in the marketplace has touched on important matters that are integrally related to those developing in the transitioning marijuana industry. These include: (1) vulnerable consumers and race (Collins, Schmeiser, and Urban 2013;Kopak et al 2011;Lee and Soberon-Ferrer 1997;Mansfield and Pinto 2008); (2) product quality and consistency (Burton and Creyer 2004;Mohr, Eroǧlu, and Ellen 1998;Royne, Levy, and Martinez 2011); (3) labeling and labeling requirements (Hieke and Taylor 2012;Loureiro, McCluskey, and Mittelhammer 2002); (4) controversial and/or potentially detrimental products or services (Hirschman 1991;Reichert 2003;Roberts and Jones 2001;Wojciechowski 2018;Wolburg 2006); and (5) government regulation (Caulkins and Bond 2012;Davenport and Caulkins 2016;Galloway 2003;Quinones et al 2013;Warren 2008).…”

Should states and local governments regulate dietary supplements?

“…[25] Subsequently, Oregon and Vermont reached an agreement with Vitamin Shoppe, a leading dietary supplement retailer, to permanently ban the sale of products containing BMPEA nationwide. [27] Once again, the agreement expanded on the industry's responsibility by placing the burden of confirming the absence of the adulterant in products sold on the retailer. [25] State legislation may provide enforcement actions in the absence of federal action.…”