I won't argue your point. I think Google should remove those.

However it would be nice if Google at least made an attempt to explain to people why they are banking them. And an appeals process.

Right now this is basically the wild west with if sherif says it, it is reality. We need more of a due process.

Yeah, that's what I got out of it too. As soon as I hit "FDA approved" I had to pause and consider that maybe Google isn't the bad guy here.

"FDA Approved" isn't a boogeyman term. It means the supplement was in fact reviewed/approved by the FDA, whereas dubious substances come with statements that their claims have not been FDA approved.

Why the aversion to "FDA Approved"?

The FDA approves that ingredients are “safe” to consume but the label is often used to imply the FDA has approved the ingredient for whatever health claim the manufacturer has attached to the supplement.

It is a boogeyman term not because of what it actually means but how it is leveraged to say something it doesn’t mean.

> The FDA approves that ingredients are “safe” to consume

Only for food and drug ingredients. The FDA has no such process for supplements. They FDA only evaluates supplement products after public health concerns arise from a product already on the market.

"FDA is not authorized to review dietary supplement products for safety and effectiveness before they are marketed.

If the dietary supplement contains a NEW ingredient, manufacturers must notify FDA about that ingredient prior to marketing. However, the notification will only be reviewed by FDA (not approved)"

https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/what-you-...

Take a look at the bottle and description here:

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Daily-Multivitamin-Mineral-Probi...

The FDA says they cannot be used this way but they are.

> The FDA says they cannot be used this way but they are.

1. Where does the FDA say that you can't say "Made in an FDA inspected facility"?

"Made in an FDA inspected facility" is not "Made in an FDA approved facility" nor is it "Inspected by the FDA" and it's definitely not "Approved by the FDA".

2. "Someone is doing something unscrupulous on Amazon.com" Gosh. Say it ain't so.

> It means the supplement was in fact reviewed/approved by the FDA

The FDA does not "approve" supplements, period.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/it-really-fda...

"FDA doesn’t approve dietary supplements." (from ^)

FDA approval means, specifically, that "the agency has determined that the benefits of the product outweigh the known risks for the intended use." (from ^)

And the FDA makes no such determination for dietary supplements. (from ^)

Touche, wrong word choice ("supplement") on my part.

Taking GP at their word, whatever it was was FDA approved. If the FDA doesn't approve supplements, then whatever GP represented couldn't have been a supplement, which gets back to my original question:

Why is "FDA approved" being treated here as a boogeyman by the parent?

> Why is "FDA approved" being treated here as a boogeyman by the parent?

Only because they assume that the original commenter said something untrue. The original commenter never said anything about supplements.

It is difficult to imagine what would be marketed over the internet like this that requires FDA approval and isn't at least a bit slimy. If there's something obvious thing that fits in that category that isn't, no one has mentioned it yet.

> It is difficult to imagine what would be marketed over the internet like this that requires FDA approval and isn't at least a bit slimy

Except that actually getting FDA approval suggests to me that it isn't slimy at all.

That depends, does marketing anti-depressants on TV count as slimy? I would say it does.

Being in the vaccine industry.. we take that term to mean reduced stress, back to normal life, and dollar signs.. :P

> > was FDA approved

> it sounds like your client is selling dietary supplements

The FDA doesn't "approve" dietary supplements, so either the person you're replying to is lying, ill informed (which I suspect), or it's not supplements.

FDA approves certain substances for specific uses. One loophole that dietary supplement companies will use to stamp the FDA approval on themselves is to include one such substance, even if the specific use isn't what their product is being used for.

Another loophole that these dietary supplement companies use is the "FDA Inspected" stamp.

> One loophole that dietary supplement companies will use to stamp the FDA approval on themselves is...

Can you link to a supplement that claims to be FDA approved as opposed to claiming that some included component has been approved for something unrelated, which is not the same thing?

> Another loophole that these dietary supplement companies use is the "FDA Inspected" stamp.

That's not a loophole. That's just preying on ignorance and inattentiveness.

It took me 20 seconds to find one example on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Forge-Excellence-Supplement-Metabolis...

It is a loophole in that they can list "FDA something" on their product and prey on consumers who do not know any better.

> It took me 20 seconds to find one example on Amazon:

That product in fact does NOT say that it is FDA approved, nor does it say that any of its ingredients are FDA approved. So it is not an example of "stamp the FDA approval on themselves".

> It is a loophole in that they can list "FDA something"

They are making a statement of 100% fact. Their facility was inspected by the FDA. Outlawing saying so would violate the constitution. Notably they are not saying that the product is approved by the FDA.

The title of the product is "Forge Excellence - Extra Virgin, Pure, Unrefined Coconut Oil Dietary Supplement - GMO Free & FDA Approved"

This is so obvious that I think you're intentionally missing this just to be argumentative.

I agree with you, but if we give the OP the benefit of the doubt, Google (among others like Amazon and Apple) do often ban innocent bystanders when trying to clean up legit problems. The larger issue with Google in particular is that they have next to zero customer support or appeals process. This stems out of their culture (hubris?) of the algorithm above all else.