Whether it\u2019s an aging Boomer, an overworked Gen X weekend warrior or an active Millennial, maintenance joint health is increasingly a top daily concern. It\u2019s a concern that spans generations and is driving consumers to seek out great information on natural solutions. Which raises the specter of the \u201cE\u201d in DSHEA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That \u201cE\u201d stands for education. The concept behind the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) was not only that dietary supplements were safe, but they are beneficial. That \u201cE\u201d stands for the opportunity to educate the consumer, and the law allows education to be available. Consider the critical discussion regarding claims for dietary supplements. That special allowance is present so that meaningful\u2014as well as truthful and not misleading\u2014educational information could be delivered to consumers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Of course, there is a challenge with that when it comes to the topic of joint health. Even looking at this challenge from two widely different angles, the challenge is simple: Claims about joint health are tough to make. Add to this the desire to discuss the substantiated potential of some nutrients to affect minor pain and inflammation, but also the cost of such substantiation, and what we see in the market is more borrowed science that still doesn\u2019t comply with the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
FDA several years ago determined that inflammation claims were generally equivalent to disease claims, with few exceptions. When considering the limited potential for presenting acceptable pain relief claims and the preclusion of discussion of joint health, we have a claims quagmire. Substantiation alone for joint health support is challenging since most clinical endpoints would be either too long to measure realistically (populations with dietary components and statistically significant effect on joint health) and\/or require evaluation of who would be considered \u201cdiseased\u201d individuals. That substantiation, in FDA\u2019s current thinking, is not appropriate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, I believe we can educate the consumer in those areas with the relative regulatory impunity; the emphasis in the approach lies in the \u201cE\u201d portion of the acronym and other allowances within the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n