This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Tuesday, July 11th, 2017. I'm Caleb Brown.

Supplements that aren't approved by the FDA often simply need to say so.

And then, and this is very important, not make specific health claims.

But the public doesn't understand it that way, at least according to recent polling.

It's a bit of a catch-22 for regulators, consumers, and for trust in markets.

Peter Van Doren, editor of Regulation magazine,

discusses how we got here.

This is from the Lexington Herald Leader.

An Amish man was sentenced Friday to six years in prison for obstructing a federal

agency and for making and selling herbal health products that were not adequately

labeled as required by federal law. His name is Sam Jorod and he will be going to

prison for six years as far as we know. But leaving aside some of the facts surrounding his case, the issue that either stymied

him or was the avenue through which the government was able to act was essentially labeling

and making claims about products.

So how does the federal government right now demand that products either have their claims

validated or make no specific claims about what a product can do for you.

The law that everyone needs to understand that governs this dividing line is the 1994

Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act.

It governs all the things that are sold in supermarkets and health stores

that are not prescription drugs, but usually are thought of by the public

as natural herbs and nutritional supplements and vitamins and things like that.

My sense is that the public, and I have public opinion data to back this up,

...