Manufacturers of natural or herbal substances do not have to prove efficacy in treating or preventing a specific disease nor can they make that claim. (CLO 1)

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

First, consider the overall premise: manufacturers of natural or herbal substances often market products that are not drugs, so they are not required to prove efficacy for treating or preventing diseases before marketing them. They also cannot legitimately claim that their product treats or prevents a specific disease.

Option 1: "The first part of the statement is false; the second part is true." Here, the second part is accurate—they cannot claim that their product treats a disease. However, the first part is generally considered true in contexts about dietary supplements or herbal products, since pre-market proof of efficacy for disease treatment is not typically required in the same way as for prescription drugs. Labeling that they do not have to prove efficacy would be misleading if taken as false, so this option incorrectly labels the first part as false.

Option 2: "The first part of the statement is true; the second part is false." This would imply they can claim disease treatment while not having to prove efficacy, which contradicts regulatory practice that prohibits disease-specific treatment claims. Since the second part is accurate (you can’t claim disease treatment), this option is internally inconsistent and thus incorrect.

Option 3: "Both parts of the statement are true." This aligns with the typical regulatory stance: manufacturers of natural or herbal substances generally do not have to prove efficacy to market (pre-market efficacy proof for disease treatment is not required in the same way as for drugs), and they cannot claim that their product treats or prevents a specific disease. This option correctly reflects both elements in a combined form.

Option 4: "Both parts of the statement are false." This would deny both the lack of pre-market efficacy proof and the prohibition on disease-treatment claims, which contradicts standard regulatory understanding of natural/herbal product labeling and claims. Therefore, this option is incorrect.

In summary, the statements about regulatory requirements tend to support that the first part is generally true (no pre-market efficacy proof required for disease treatment claims in this category) and the second part is true (they cannot claim disease treatment). The option that asserts both parts as true best matches the regulatory framework for natural or herbal products, while the other options mischaracterize one or both aspects.

Manufacturers of natural or herbal substances do not have to prove efficacy in treating or preventing a specific disease nor can they make that claim. (CLO 1)

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Question at position 1 Learning Objective 1 Dietary supplements are not required to undergo multilevel testing or receive approval from federal agencies before being soldTrueFalse

Question at position 1 Learning Objective 1 Dietary supplements are not required to undergo multilevel testing or receive approval from federal agencies before being soldTrueFalse

The DSHEA states that dietary supplements:

Which governmental agency regulates dietary supplements in the United States (once they are on the market)?

In the United States, dietary supplements are tested and regulated by the __________ before going to market.

Why aren’t vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and herbal remedies as tightly regulated by the FDA as are drugs and food additives?

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

More Practical Tools for International Students

Homework AI Solver

Stylized Writing Assistant

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation Assistant

In-Class Translation Assistant

Class Notes Assistant

Quiz Search Assistant

Past Exam Questions by School

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler