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.