> But less of it, since making it illegal would greatly reduce demand

It would reduce the expression of demand, certainly, but not the actual desires of individuals that produced that expression; or to put it another way, will reduce the fulfillment of demand while the underlying unfulfilled demand still exists. This yields a net reduction in total happiness, which is counter to your apparent utilitarian ethos.

> Empirically, that is a very minor concern, if it is one at all.

Empirically? What does assessment of subjective value have to do with empirical data, apart from recognizing that individuals' subjective value empirically exists and is the source of demand?

Apart from that, apart from your apparent utilitarianism - the criteria of which remain yet unsatisfied in this discussion - what's the moral basis your assertion that forcibly denying the extant happiness of many is justifiable in order to reduce the potential unhappiness of few, especially considering that the former is not strictly necessary in order to achieve the latter, and that forcing a single uniform policy indiscriminately upon all is merely a contrivance of convenience?

My moral basis is preventing fraud and punishing people who commit fraud.

> forcing a single uniform policy indiscriminately upon all is merely a contrivance of convenience

No. If you want to claim to promote health, your products need to be shown to promote health. Supplement makers have been able to get around that very basic moral law using loopholes and bought-off politicians. I want an end to that.

> My moral basis is preventing fraud and punishing people who commit fraud.

You appear to be going far beyond dealing with fraud, and instead wish to suppress activity that's being undertaken without any deceit.

> If you want to claim to promote health, your products need to be shown to promote health.

That's fine. Note, of course, that the vast majority of supplement products contain explicit disclaimers on their labels (e.g. "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA" and "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease") that make allegations of actual fraud quite spurious. And, of course, actual fraud of the kind described in the article - e.g. selling a bottle labeled "Vitamin C" that contains no actual vitamin C - is entirely illegal with or without FDA intervention.

However, if I want to purchase a bottle of foo, honestly labeled as "foo" without making any unsustainable promises, and use the contents of that bottle based upon my own understanding of the properties of "foo", that's entirely my prerogative, and it's entirely my right to assume whatever risks the use of foo entails.

(Of course, there is the issue of defining exactly what it actually means to "promote health".)

> You appear to be going far beyond dealing with fraud, and instead wish to suppress activity that's being undertaken without any deceit.

'Deceit' does not start and end with the technical definition of fraud.

> Note, of course, that the vast majority of supplement products contain explicit disclaimers on their labels

They shout their ads and whisper their disclaimers. Why should we ignore their shouting?

> However, if I want to purchase a bottle of foo, honestly labeled as "foo" without making any unsustainable promises, and use the contents of that bottle based upon my own understanding of the properties of "foo", that's entirely my prerogative, and it's entirely my right to assume whatever risks the use of foo entails.

Why should you be able to sell something that you lead others to believe is good for them when it isn't?

Selling dandelions by marketing them as pretty flowers is fine. Selling them by marketing them as wine making material is also fine, as you can, in fact, make wine out of dandelions. Selling them by claiming dandelion wine is good for what ails you is lying. Can you honestly not see that last step?

> 'Deceit' does not start and end with the technical definition of fraud.

No, but fraud does start and end within the definition of 'deceit'.

> They shout their ads and whisper their disclaimers. Why should we ignore their shouting?

I've not personally seen ads for supplements of the kind you're describing, but if they* were* advertising features that weren't actually available in the products, that is, at minimum, a bait-and-switch ad, which is already a fraudulent practice.

> Why should you be able to sell something that you lead others to believe is good for them when it isn't?

Whether it is or isn't "good for them" is, of course, determined by them - we're in the realm of value judgments here - and while it's entirely unethical and already illegal to sell someone a product on the basis of fraudulent information, selling a product with an explicit disclaimer that states that the product has not been empirically proven to fulfill any health claims made about it is perfectly legitimate.

Selling dandelions in a box marked "dandelions" without making any unprovable claims is always perfectly OK; selling dandelions as a cure for cancer is already a fraudulent activity punishable by law.