Nasty NATC

We are promised miracle cures and instant relief.  Zero cholesterol and diabetes control.  Beautiful, clear skin and tight abs and asses.  Hair by the millions of strands and pounds shed by the kilos.  All these, proclaimed in full page glossy magazine ads and giant billboards.

But there's always a tiny line at the bottom, which somehow makes it ok for all these miracle procurers to get away with practically murder.  A small aside, nothing to obssess about.  By the way, ahem, there is “no approved therapeutic claim.”  But, I always wonder, what the heck does that mean?

What does “therapeutic” mean, in the first place?  Does it mean medical, like, FDA approved?  The word “therapy”, according to my trusty Merriam, means the “treatment, specially of bodily, mental or behavioral disorder”.  So that sort of means that there's no approved “treatment claim” for that product.  I think.

So the question now becomes, appending this short sweet phrase to a gazillion promises entitles all these hawkers to make all of them?  Is that how the system works?  Is it required that the hawkers and purveyors at least conduct tests?  Or are we supposed to simply rely on the paid endorsers who are smiling at the camera or speaking on the radio?

It's confusing.  When did this practice start?  I don't remember seeing ads like this ten years ago.  How did they suddenly proliferate?  Who gave manufacturers the blessing to begin marketing in this way?

If there were practically zero scientific basis for them to make the claim, like they scooped pond water into a recycled plastic bottle and marketed it as essence of attar guaranteed to make rheumatism go away, will that magic phrase already free them from responsibility from disappointed customers?  What if there were pathogens and bacteria galore in the elixir?

I feel sorry for the gullible or the simply lazy, the ones who can't be bothered to read the fine print.  They look at the gorgeous splashy ad, believe there's a cure for what ails them, spend hard earned pesos to buy a week's supply of pills expecting their sugar, cholesterol, uric acid or libido to go down (or up, as desired), and get placebo results.

Will they have a remedy?  Can they sue the advertiser?  Seems like, they can't.  Because the advertisers will argue, there was truth in advertising, sort of.  They gave full disclosure: their claims weren't approved. Therefore, all their claims should be taken with a grain of salt.  Maybe sacks of them.  With a dash of miracle product thrown in for good measure.

I think the government should rethink this policy.  It's not fair to allow multi-million companies to blitz consumers into thinking there's a cure-all, and then let them keep their millions if the product doesn't work, just because they stuck that innocuous phrase in.  It's legal permission to keep sucking the suckers.

It's either the government should stop these marketing whizzes from peddling their wares, or at least they tell us, the consumers, what exactly we can expect when we buy that product.  Never mind if we don't get pearly white teeth or blemish-free skin.  Are there minimum guarantees of safety these manufacturers have to adhere to?  Can we demand that these products be at least non-toxic?  Are we allowed to sue if it causes irreversible kidney or liver damage?

(Trust a lawyer to think of potential lawsuits).