The difference between “Solid Health Claims” and “Preliminary Health Claims” is the level of evidence to support the claim. “Solid” claims are supported by solid evidence, and suggest certain diets that are high or low in specific nutrients may help prevent a specific disease. “Preliminary” health claims do not have solid evidence, and instead are based off of “incomplete, shaky evidence.” The food industry is likely to disregard both of these types of claims in favor of a “structure/function” claim which are completely unreliable, and make broad suggestions about the body’s functions with vague terminology that means almost nothing. They favor this type of claim because it requires close to zero approval from the FDA, and unsuspecting consumers will be convinced by the claim and spend money on …show more content…
However, some products, such as specific vitamins, are well-tested to prove beneficial in some aspects, yet manufactures do not have the time to wait for FDA approval because of the competitive market. These same manufacturers could also be providing a cheap form of that vitamin that is not absorbed by the body, and they attempt to hide that from the customer. I feel that these claims can be dangerous, but not on their own. It takes an ignorant, gullible, and desperate person to be negatively impacted by these claims. If someone is diagnosed a real disease and needs to take real medicine for it, but they head over to the Vitamin Shoppe instead because of some structure/function claim on a pill bottle, then that would be dangerous because they would be lacking the proper treatment. There is also the possibility that a supplement is not well-tested, and could be causing unknown harm to the consumer. In general, it is probably a bad idea to be putting things in your body that have not been confirmed to be universally