The current health claim conveys an incorrect impression of universal benefit to all and risk to no one. The Pearson decision points the way to rectifying consumers' misunderstandings. This would embrace the court's ruling that manufacturers have a First Amendment right to provide such information as long as it is presented accurately and in a balanced way. The scientific literature has suggested that there are significant health aspects for some small percentage of people resulting from low-sodium diets, that most people do not benefit from sodium reduction, and that obesity and other nutrients play a much larger role in the development of hypertension. Today, for example, it would be more accurate to tell consumers that they would derive blood pressure benefits from eating more fruits, vegetables and low-fat dairy products than to reduce dietary salt.
Scientific developments demand more flexibility in health claims generation and evaluation.
The current rules, for example, make no direct provision for modifying or deleting a health claim when science shows it to be inaccurate or ineffective. No health claims have been modified or discarded in the history of FDA health claims regulation. If not today, eventually, such a system becomes unacceptably rigid in ignoring the advances of science. However, an approach along the lines of Pearson , where information is presented in a balanced, accurate and non-misleading manner, can significantly assist in enhancing the consumer's understanding. In addition, FDA suggests that different standards should apply to health claims on dietary supplements as on food products.