The study, published in Nutrients, is believed to be the first in which respondents were shown advertisements for dietary supplements in order to analyze how they were received.
Recruiting a total of 397 participants (aged 18 to 65), the study utilized questionnaires to ask about general supplement knowledge and explore responses to four transcripts of radio advertisements for dietary supplements targeting memory, weight loss, immunity and sleep.
According to the report, resulting data suggested that consumer knowledge about dietary supplements in Poland is poor. Only 4.8% correctly identified dietary supplements as food products, and 40.3% believed they were over-the-counter medicines.
“There is clearly a need of improving consumer knowledge,” said Jerome LeBloch, head of scientific affairs at FoodChain ID, commenting on the findings. “The high rate of misunderstanding of the category of the product - supplements versus OTC - is problematic, as this suggests that consumer may consider that supplements may be used to prevent or cure diseases.”
Consumer perceptions in stats
Resulting data indicated respondents were most likely to believe the claims of the immunity support supplement advert and least likely to believe those of the weight management supplement.
A significant 73.1% of respondents believed that taking the advertised immunity supplement should result in an increase in the body’s immunity. Whereas only 31.3% believed that taking the weight management product would lead to weight loss.
In the case of a ‘memory’ supplement, 57.7% of respondents stated that they would expect noticeable improvements in memory based on the content of the advertisement. And 69.3% of respondents said they would expect the ‘good night’s sleep’ supplement to have a calming effect.
Expectations regarding supplement efficacy decreased as respondents’ general supplement knowledge increased.
There was a clear pattern in consumers’ expectations when it came to the importance of scientifically proving health benefits. A significant 74.1% of respondents considered that if the advertised supplements did not have an effect proven by research, advertising health benefits was unfair and misleading.
Noting that their study limitations including the small sample size and small number of adverts assessed, authors combined these findings with previous research, such as research from 2022 which indicated that as many as 96% of patients in Norway believe that dietary supplements undergo safety testing before being placed on the market.
Supplements confused with medicines
Notably, research from Poland in 2024 found that as many as 43% of healthcare professionals stated that dietary supplements are medicines or medical devices, and nearly 50% believed that the legal requirements for the marketing of supplements are the same as those for medicinal products.
“Given the forecasts for the continued growth of the dietary supplements market and the prevalence of misleading advertising practices, educational campaigns are needed to raise awareness of the nature of these products, in order to prevent them from being confused with medicines,” the authors wrote.
They added that “aggressive advertising” presenting dietary supplements as a simple solution to a wide range of health problems, “plays a major role in their growing popularity”.
“Unfortunately, many people believe that dietary supplements have therapeutic effects, and experts are wondering why consumers place more trust in supplements that have not been tested in clinical trials than in medicines,” the report said.
The rules on medicinal claims
Le Bloch said the underlying legal framework around health claims is largely harmonized under EU food law (Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006), and food supplements are treated as foods, not medicines.
“If a product is being marketed as preventing, treating or curing disease, that crosses into medicines legislation and creates a direct conflict with the existing regulatory framework,” he said.
Adverts should not state, or even imply, that the products has a therapeutic benefit.
“EU case law has established that a product may be presented as treating or preventing disease even if those words are never explicitly used, provided the average consumer is likely to reach that conclusion,” Le Bloch said.
Supplement brands can make nutrition claims, such as ‘high in vitamin C’, and ’source of protein’.
Alternatively, they can make authorized health claims that have been scientifically assessed (usually by EFSA) and approved for use under EU law.
Le Bloch argued that while there is a clear need to improve consumer understanding, he disagreed that educational campaigns were the answer.
“I don’t know if educational campaigns are possible, for me the first step should be a better explanation of the products on the label and by pharmacists,” he said.
Le Bloch argued the issue lies in the lack of control, especially when it comes to online communications. Enforcement is carried out at national level so authorities will differ in how aggressively they enforce the law, how they interpret borderline wording and how they assess claims on websites and social media.
“Industry self-regulation is clearly not effective,” he said. “I’m not in favor of a stricter regulation, but controls should be more rigorous to eliminate at least the most significant non-compliance, such as therapeutic claims.”
Kristy Coleman, food law consultant and co-founder at AK Collective, agreed law enforcement in each Member State is a key part of this puzzle.
“Many consumers understandably assume that products sold for health and wellbeing purposes have undergone the same level of assessment as medicines, when in reality they sit within a different regulatory category,” she said, “I do not think the solution lies solely in further education. Effective enforcement remains critical.”
Source: Nutrients, https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18152518, “Consumer Trust and Attitudes Towards Advertisements for Dietary Supplements”, Authors: Wierzejska, R.E. et al.
