LABELS on dietary supplements are influencing consumers to believe they can prevent or treat serious conditions, according to a large survey study. The findings suggest that phrases such as “heart health” or “brain health” are easily misinterpreted, raising concerns about current labelling standards.
Widespread Use of Supplements
Supplements are widely used and often marketed with claims that they “support” various aspects of health. These structure and function statements are legally intended only to indicate general wellness support, not disease prevention, yet their interpretation by the public remains uncertain. Researchers set out to examine how such labels affect consumer perceptions, using both a familiar product and a completely hypothetical supplement.
Survey Results on Label Perceptions
Two online surveys, comprising a total of 4403 US adults, tested four different label versions for both a fish oil supplement and a fictitious supplement called Viadin H. Participants were randomised to view labels with or without health-related statements. Among the 2239 participants in the fish oil survey, those shown a label saying “Supports Heart Health” were significantly more likely to believe it prevented heart attacks (62.5 percent vs 53.9 percent; P = .003) and heart failure (59.0 percent vs 50.7 percent; P = .005). Similarly, when labels read “Supports Cognitive Function”, participants were more likely to report that fish oil prevented dementia (47.4 percent vs 39.6 percent; P = .009) and improved memory in dementia (48.0 percent vs 40.5 percent; P = .01). Comparable findings emerged from the 2164-person Viadin H survey, where labels with “Heart Health” or “Brain Health” statements led respondents to assume the supplement reduced risks of heart disease or dementia (eg, heart attack risk: 40.0 to 40.5 percent for heart-related claims, versus 20.2 to 23.3 percent for brain-related claims; P < .001).
Implications for Public Health
The study demonstrates that consumers often interpret structure and function statements on supplements as disease-specific claims, contrary to regulatory intent. Researchers argue that clearer labelling standards are needed to minimise misunderstanding and protect public health. For clinicians, this highlights the importance of discussing evidence-based benefits with patients who turn to supplements for disease prevention.
Reference
Assadourian JN et al. Label Statements and Perceived Health Benefits of Dietary Supplements. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(9):e2533118.
