Supplements Are Not “A Lie”: A Compliance-First Rebuttal to the Viral Video
Youtuber Johnny Harris recently claimed the U.S. supplement category is the “wild west,” implying companies “don’t have to tell FDA anything,” can make sweeping health claims by slapping on a tiny disclaimer, and face “no real enforcement.” That framing makes great YouTube—but it mixes accurate facts with half-truths, omits key context, and conflates very different regulatory pathways.
This post unpacks what the video gets right, what it gets wrong, and—most importantly—what founders need to do to build compliant, resilient brands.
Key takeaways (for busy founders)
Supplements are regulated—under the food framework (DSHEA)—not the drug framework. That choice brings different obligations (GMPs, labeling, substantiation, NDI notifications) and a different enforcement model than prescription drugs.
“Just add the disclaimer” is a myth. Structure/function claims still require competent and reliable scientific evidence and must be truthful and not misleading. Disease claims remain prohibited.
Enforcement exists beyond FDA inspectors. Large retailers, payment processors, plaintiffs’ firms, competitors, and certifiers create real-world guardrails (testing, document review, label/claims gating).
OTC drugs and supplements share an “honor-system first, enforcement later” reality. Many OTCs follow monographs without preapproval; premarket FDA review is not the only legitimate model.
One meta-analysis ≠ “supplements don’t work.” Most “vitamin/mineral prevent cancer/death” endpoints are the wrong question for many modern categories (e.g., protein, creatine, omega-3, fiber, sleep aids).
Good brands win by engineering compliance upstream. That means claims roadmapping, formula-to-claim alignment, validated test methods, stability planning, and retailer-ready documentation.
The framework: Food vs. drug (and where OTC fits)
U.S. law classifies dietary supplements as a subset of food (DSHEA, 1994). That means:
No FDA pre-approval of each product, similar to most foods and many OTC drugs that follow monographs (also no individual pre-approval).
Yes to requirements: cGMPs (21 CFR 111), identity testing of ingredients, finished-product specifications (e.g., micro, heavy metals, potency), label formatting, and substantiation for claims.
Yes to prohibitions: no disease claims; no unapproved drug claims; no unsafe ingredients; adulteration/misbranding rules apply.
Could Congress have chosen the drug pathway instead? Sure. Would that eliminate bad actors? History suggests no. Even in drug/OTC worlds, enforcement remains a blend of audits, warning letters, civil actions, retailer gatekeeping, and market pressures.
Fact check #1: “They don’t have to tell FDA anything”
Misleading. Brands don’t submit products for approval, but obligations include (non-exhaustive):
NDI notifications for truly new dietary ingredients (pre-market filing where applicable).
30-day post-marketing notifications to FDA for each structure/function claim.
cGMP documentation & testing: supplier qualification, identity/assay methods, lot specs, release decisions, and retain samples—auditable by FDA.
Brands that skip filings, claims notifications, or cGMPs are non-compliant—not “within the rules.”
Fact check #2: “Just add the tiny disclaimer and say anything”
Incorrect. The DSHEA disclaimer (the small “These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA…”) only applies to permissible structure/function claims and does not legalize disease claims or unsubstantiated promises. FDA and FTC expect competent and reliable scientific evidence—typically human data appropriate to the claim’s breadth, dosage, and population. One risky word can tip a structure/function statement into a disease claim.
Fact check #3: “There’s no real enforcement”
Incomplete. FDA’s budget is limited, but enforcement pressure comes from multiple directions founders feel every day:
Retail/commercial gatekeepers (Costco, CVS, Amazon programs, Whole Foods, large distributors) require COAs, stability plans, GMP proof, and claims/legal reviews; many test product pre- and post-onboarding.
FTC actions and plaintiff bar (class actions) target claims that lack appropriate human evidence, dosage matching, or that overstate effects.
Competitor testing (e.g., assay challenges, heavy metals, identity) and NAD challenges.
Payment processors/ad platforms impose claim restrictions and documentation reviews.
No, that’s not “no enforcement.” It’s a distributed enforcement ecosystem—and brands must be ready for all of it.
Framing issues in the video
1) Using drug-approval as the gold standard for all products
Drugs are designed to treat disease; supplements are designed to supplement the diet and support normal structure/function. Expecting multi-year RCT programs for “supports healthy sleep” is a category error. The correct standard is truthful, non-misleading claims backed by appropriate human evidence—not Phase III drug data.
2) Generalizing from vitamin/mineral prevention endpoints
A frequently cited meta-analysis concluded multivitamins do little to prevent cancer, CVD, or death. That’s not surprising—and not the point of most modern categories (e.g., protein sufficiency, creatine for strength/power, omega-3 index, fiber for regularity, melatonin for sleep onset, etc.). Category-fit endpoints matter.
3) Beta-carotene in high-risk smokers ⇒ “supplements are harmful”
Context matters. Population, dose, and baseline risk determine outcome. A single adverse signal in a specific high-risk group doesn’t generalize to the entire supplement landscape.
4) The “big lobbying = bad law” syllogism
Industry comments are part of nearly every federal rulemaking (pharma, autos, tech, food). DSHEA is imperfect and could be modernized; that doesn’t make every brand’s operations “a lie.”
What founders should do (so you’re investor- and retailer-ready)
Engineer compliance upstream
Finalize a claims roadmap first; formulate to those claims and to efficacious dosages backed by human data.
Lock finished product specifications: identity, potency, micro, heavy metals, allergens, and method suitability.
Draft a stability strategy (accelerated + real-time) that supports your shelf-life statement.
Specify testing and methods in contracts
Quote must include potency vs. label claim, micro panel, heavy metals (As/Cd/Pb/Hg), and any claim-linked tests (e.g., gluten).
Name methods/matrices; don’t accept “can do” without “will do” in writing.
Substantiate claims like an FTC attorney will read them
Ensure population, dosage form, duration, and outcome in the evidence match what you say.
Avoid disease adjacency (“infection,” “arthritis,” “depression”). One term can shift the legal category.
Prepare for distributed enforcement
Build a retailer dossier: COAs, stability protocol/data, master manufacturing records (redacted), GMP certificate/or audit report, and substantiation files.
Monitor competitor and retailer testing programs; plan for lot variability and aging inventory.
Treat labels and websites as legal documents
Compliant Supplement Facts / Product Facts tables; correct order, Latin binomials for botanicals, allergen declarations, dual-column rules where needed.
Apply the DSHEA disclaimer only where appropriate and readable; don’t rely on it to “save” non-compliant claims.
Quick myth-vs-fact
Myth: “Supplements aren’t regulated.”
Fact: They’re regulated under food law (DSHEA) with cGMPs, testing, labeling, and substantiation requirements—different from, not absent.Myth: “If FDA didn’t pre-approve it, it’s probably unsafe.”
Fact: Safety is managed via ingredient status (e.g., old dietary ingredients, NDIs), specs/testing, adverse-event reporting, and market enforcement.Myth: “Tiny disclaimer legalizes big promises.”
Fact: The disclaimer is necessary for certain claims but never sufficient; claims still need appropriate human evidence and careful wording.
FAQs
Q1) If FDA doesn’t pre-approve supplements, who checks my claims?
Retailers, platforms, FTC, plaintiff firms—and competitors—regularly challenge claims. Assume someone will ask for your dossier.
Q2) Do I need human studies on my exact finished product?
Not always, but your totality of evidence must reasonably extrapolate to your product’s dosage, form, population, and duration. The broader the claim, the stronger and closer the evidence should be.
Q3) Are NDIs optional?
No. If an ingredient is new to the supplement market (not marketed in the U.S. before 10/15/1994 and not otherwise exempt), an NDI notification may be required.
Q4) Can I rely on the manufacturer’s “regulatory review”?
Treat it as manufacturability compliance, not a full FDA/FTC review. Always get an independentlabel/claims/substantiation review.
Q5) How do I avoid the “honor system” trap?
Write it into your quality agreement: required test panels, method IDs, acceptance criteria, non-conformance remedies, retain samples, and document access.
The balanced conclusion
The viral video highlights real issues—bad actors, inconsistent quality, and the need for smarter oversight. But it also collapses a complex, regulated category into a single narrative that doesn’t reflect how strong brands actually operate—or how enforcement really works in 2025.
Founders can build trustworthy, retailer-ready, investor-grade supplement brands by engineering compliance upstream, substantiate first, claim second, and document everything. That’s how you avoid becoming the example in someone else’s video.
Ready to build a brand that stands up to FDA, FTC, retailers, and investors?
Book a 1:1 Consultation (Startups & Emerging Brands)
Two focused hours to stress-test your concept, claims, formula, labeling, and testing plan—plus concrete next steps.Enroll in SSET — Supplement Startup Essentials Training (Pair it with a consult for best value)
On-demand training that teaches you how to vet manufacturers, set testing & stability, build substantiation files, and avoid costly missteps. Includes our vetted contract manufacturer list.Contact Us (Established Brands / Due Diligence & Retail Readiness)
Need an end-to-end compliance tune-up before investor diligence or in prep for your exit strategy? We’ll audit your systems, fix gaps, and package your dossier.
About Blue Ocean Regulatory
Blue Ocean Regulatory helps supplement and functional food brands launch and scale compliantly. Core specialties include FDA/FTC label & claims review, substantiation dossiers, cGMP programs, manufacturer vetting, test & stability strategies, and retailer/investor readiness. Our goal: build brands that last—and pass.