Highlight
– Commonly used structure/function claims on dietary supplement labels often lead consumers to infer disease prevention or treatment benefits, contrary to regulatory intent.
– Survey data from over 4,000 US adults revealed significant misinterpretation of claims like “supports heart health” or “supports cognitive function” as implying direct protection against heart attacks or dementia.
– Misinterpretation occurred consistently with both a well-known fish oil supplement and a hypothetical supplement, suggesting a widespread issue.
– These findings highlight the need for improved regulatory policies and consumer education to minimize misunderstanding of supplement health claims.
Study Background and Disease Burden
Dietary supplement usage is pervasive in the United States and globally, with consumers frequently turning to supplements for purported health benefits—particularly in the domains of cardiovascular and cognitive health. Labels on supplements commonly feature structure/function claims such as “supports heart health” or “supports cognitive function,” which by law are not permitted to imply that the supplement prevents or treats any disease. This distinction aims to protect consumers from misleading advertising and unproven health promises. However, the extent to which consumers understand or misconstrue these label claims has been previously unclear. Misinterpretation of these claims can lead to inappropriate expectations, misuse, or delayed healthcare seeking, which has public health implications given the burden of cardiovascular disease and dementia worldwide.
Study Design
This investigation employed two separate online survey studies targeting representative samples of adult US participants recruited via the SurveyMonkey Audience platform. The first study focused on a widely used fish oil supplement, while the second utilized a hypothetical supplement named Viadin H. Each participant was randomly assigned to view one of four otherwise identical product labels that featured distinct structure/function statements related to heart or brain health (e.g., “Supports Heart Health,” “Supports Cognitive Function”) or no health claim (control). Following exposure to the label, participants were queried regarding their beliefs about the likelihood that the supplement could prevent or treat specific diseases such as heart attack, heart failure, dementia, or improve memory.
Key Findings
A total of 2,239 participants completed the fish oil survey and 2,164 completed the Viadin H survey. The cohorts were demographically balanced, with approximately half female and a sizable subset aged 45-54 years.
In the fish oil group, those viewing the “Supports Heart Health” claim were significantly more likely to believe the supplement could prevent heart attacks (62.5% vs. 53.9%, P=.003) and heart failure (59.0% vs. 50.7%, P=.005) compared to the no-claim group. Similarly, the “Supports Cognitive Function” claim increased the perception that fish oil could prevent dementia (47.4% vs. 39.6%, P=.009) and improve memory in dementia sufferers (48.0% vs. 40.5%, P=.01).
The Viadin H survey corroborated these trends: labels stating “Heart Health” or “Supports Heart Function” led participants to more frequently endorse beliefs that the supplement prevented heart attacks or heart failure. Conversely, labels with “Brain Health” or “Supports Cognitive Function” increased perceived efficacy against dementia and memory decline. For example, only about 20% believed the brain health claims implied lower heart attack risk, while over 40% attributed heart attack prevention beliefs to heart-related claims (P <.001).
These consistent patterns indicate a substantial consumer tendency to interpret structure/function claims as indicative of specific disease prevention or therapeutic benefits, despite regulatory guidance to the contrary.
Expert Commentary
These findings raise critical concerns regarding the clarity and impact of dietary supplement labeling. While structure/function claims are designed to characterize normal physiological support without crossing into disease claims, the data demonstrate that consumers often conflate the two. This misinterpretation may derive from the language used, which emphasizes “support” for organs or cognitive functions—a term that may implicitly suggest protection against disease.
The preference for more concrete or disease-specific claims likely reflects consumers’ desire for clear guidance on health benefits, but it places manufacturers and regulators in a difficult position balancing informative marketing and truthful, non-misleading communication.
Notably, this issue is not limited to any single supplement type but appears generalizable across supplement categories. Regulators such as the FDA should consider revising labeling requirements to enhance clarity, perhaps by including disclaimers or more explicit explanations of what structure/function claims signify. Additionally, healthcare providers should be aware of these potential consumer misperceptions when advising patients on supplement use.
Conclusion
This rigorous survey analysis reveals a significant discrepancy between the regulatory intent and consumer perception of structure/function claims on dietary supplement labels. Such claims frequently mislead consumers into believing supplements confer specific disease prevention or treatment benefits, which may impact health decision-making and adherence to conventional medical advice.
To mitigate potential public health risks, enhanced regulatory frameworks for labeling transparency are necessary, alongside targeted consumer education initiatives. Further research should explore intervention strategies to correct these misinterpretations and assess real-world impacts on supplement use behavior and health outcomes.
References
1. Assadourian JN, Peterson ED, Navar AM. Label Statements and Perceived Health Benefits of Dietary Supplements. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(9):e2533118. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.33118
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dietary Supplement Labeling Guide. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements/dietary-supplement-labeling-guide (Accessed June 2025).
3. Bailey RL, Gahche JJ, Lentino CV, et al. Dietary supplement use in the United States, 2003–2006. J Nutr. 2011;141(2):261-266. doi:10.3945/jn.110.133025
4. Moyer V. Structure/function claims and regulatory issues for dietary supplements. Nutr Clin Pract. 2018;33(4):491-497. doi:10.1002/ncp.10102