If you’re a parent, you might have noticed toddler “milk” while browsing the formula aisle. The powdered drink, aimed at children between 1 and 3, often pledges benefits like “improved brain development” or “improved immune function.”
But you may not know that these products are largely unregulated and make claims that are not supported by science, according to studies. For this reason, among others, public health authorities around the world have long sought to police such advertising. Yet despite these efforts, toddler milk has grown to become a $20 billion global business.
People can just choose not to buy food that’s mislabeled. Isn’t that how it works in the US?
But if the label aims to mislead would you call it mislabeled?
The same could be said of all consumer protection laws, but does this kind of thinking ever end up working in favour of the consumer?
Nope, that’s not the idea behind that approach. This is just about industry profits.
So many of these type things get tagged under the category ‘nutritional supplements’ that can pretty much legally claim anything they like so long as they put a tag to the effect of ‘claims not tested and validated by the FDA’ on the package.
It’s pretty amazing how this works in the US. As long as it’s labeled as a supplement, companies can put literal rat poison into their products and it’s legal.
Additionally, it appears that many people aren’t even aware of that.
Hyper free market capitalism (unless it’s an actual threat to an incumbent company) plus a ‘do your own research’ mantra. There has pretty well always been that individualistic streak to the culture with this iconic imagery of the lone cowboy or the solitary businessman held up as representative of the Real American® where people would get upset if it wasn’t allowed.