GAO Testimony Takes Aim at Herbal Dietary Supplements’ Marketing Practices, Contaminants
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has delivered testimony before the U.S. Senate’s Special Committee on Aging that highlights examples of deceptive or questionable marketing practices involving certain dietary supplements. GAO also reported that some herbal dietary supplements contained contaminants, including trace amounts of lead.
According to GAO Managing Director of Forensic Audits and Special Investigations Gregory Kutz, investigators posing as elderly customers asked sales staff at 22 retail establishments a series of questions regarding herbal dietary supplements in addition to reviewing 30 retail websites’ “written marketing language” about the supplements. In several cases that both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission deemed “improper and likely in violation of statutes and regulations,” “written sales materials for products sold through online retailers claimed that herbal dietary supplements could treat, prevent or cure conditions such as diabetes, cancer, or cardiovascular disease.” Improper medical advice was also dispensed by sales staffs in claiming that certain supplements would prevent or cure conditions such as high cholesterol or Alzheimer’s disease.
GAO also found trace amounts of at least one potentially hazardous contaminant in 37 of the 40 herbal dietary supplement products tested, “though none in amounts considered to pose an acute toxicity hazard.” All 37 supplements tested positive for trace amounts of lead and, of those, 32 also contained mercury, 28 cadmium, 21 arsenic, and 18 residues from at least one pesticide. Noting that the levels of contaminants did not exceed any FDA or Environmental Protection Agency regulations governing dietary supplements or their raw ingredients, the report acknowledged that “FDA agreed that 16 of the 40 supplements tested would be considered in violation of U.S. pesticide tolerances.” Manufacturers told GAO that contaminant levels identified “were too low to raise any issues during their own internal product testing processes.”
