Introduction
The digital age has blurred the line between genuine health advice and commercially motivated promotion. Claims of influencers of FDA-approved or clinically tested products often create trust, but misplaced trust is often misplaced. Misuse of regulatory language, particularly references to food and drug authorities, is a powerful tool for disinformation.
The US’ Food and Drugs Administration and Food and Drugs Authority in Ghana are responsible for ensuring public health by regulating consumables, but their scope is often misunderstood. Many products, such as dietary supplements and herbal remedies, are marketed as “approved” or “certified” but are actually registered or loosely regulated under general safety frameworks, without rigorous scientific testing or evaluation for effectiveness.
At the same time, a good number of influencers, many without any scientific or medical background, play a central role in shaping public perceptions of health and nutrition. According to a study by De Veirman et al., (2017), consumers are more likely to trust and purchase a product when it is endorsed by a popular figure, regardless of the product’s scientific validity. This emotional appeal is intensified by platform algorithms that reward engagement, not accuracy, allowing misleading claims to reach millions rapidly (Sari et al., 2021).
The convergence of weak regulatory enforcement, vague approval terminology, and influencer culture creates fertile ground for the spread of sponsored misinformation. As noted by Vraga and Bode, (2020), health misinformation on social media not only distorts consumer knowledge but also erodes trust in legitimate public health institutions. The consequences are far-reaching, from wasted resources to real health risks, particularly when products are misused or consumed in unsafe ways under the assumption of regulatory endorsement.
The article discusses the misuse of “approval” claims, its impact on sponsored misinformation, the implications, and the need for clearer regulations, influencer accountability, and informed digital consumption.
What does “approved” mean?
The term is frequently used in food and health marketing to imply safety, credibility, or scientific validation. However, this phrasing can be misleading. Regulatory approval can take different forms and not all products meet the same scientific standards.
In the US, prescription drugs require rigorous clinical trials and pre-market review before FDA approval (Downing et al., 2014) while dietary supplements, herbal products, and functional foods do not but manufacturers are responsible for ensuring the safety of their supplements before marketing them (Office of Dietary Supplements, 2022).
In African and Asian countries like Ghana and India, food and drug regulatory authorities register or certify products rather than granting full scientific approval. Registration ensures product label meets standards and poses no immediate harm, but does not guarantee long-term safety or health benefits (WHO, 2021). Companies often frame registration as formal approval, leveraging this ambiguity for aggressive marketing.
The term ‘Generally Recognized as Safe’ (GRAS) for food additives raises concerns about conflicts of interest and insufficient transparency. The downside is, these regulatory nuances are rarely communicated to consumers, leading to misinformation on social media and influencers often promote products with vague claims, creating a false sense of security among followers (Matouskova et al., 2023). As consumers increasingly rely on digital platforms for health and related guidance, the failure to distinguish between approval, registration, and marketing authorization creates an ideal environment for misinformation to flourish. This confusion can lead to inappropriate use of products, missed warning signs, and even direct harm when users substitute influencer-endorsed products for medically necessary treatments.
Sponsored Misinformation in Action and Why It Works
Sponsored misinformation is content that appears authentic but is financially motivated, often blending advertising with health claims. Social media influencers often promote health-related products under the guise of personal experience or health advice, and often, the products are only registered or permitted for sale, but are presented as rigorously vetted, giving followers the impression of government endorsement and scientific backing. This deceptive form of marketing is amplified by social media, as promotional content is rarely subject to scientific scrutiny or regulatory oversight (Rubin, 2022). For instance, Shah et al., (2020) show that over 60% of influencers promoting dietary supplements fail to disclose their content.
Sponsored misinformation is effective due to its strategic use of emotional appeal, social proof, and authority signaling. First, emotional storytelling, often framed by influencers, drives virality by creating relatability and trust, making followers more receptive to the message (Hendricks et al., 2017). This approach distinguishes influencer content from traditional advertisements, even when commercially driven. Second, social proof; the psychological tendency to follow others, is amplified on platforms like Instagram and TikTok, where likes, shares, and comments signal credibility irrespective of scientific evidence behind it. Popular products and relatable endorsements increase users’ belief in their effectiveness (Elhai & Montag, 2020).
Authority language, such as referencing approval from food and drug regulators, provides legitimacy to consumers who may be unfamiliar with the criteria for regulatory approval and this gap is exploited by marketers and influencers (Vraga & Bode, 2020).
What are some consequences?
First and foremost, disseminating false information erodes public confidence in regulatory bodies and in the healthcare system. Customers may become skeptical of marketers as well as of respectable science and official recommendations if they discover that they have been duped by influencers who claimed regulatory endorsement. Ognyanova et al., (2020) note that repeated exposure to misinformation can erode institutional credibility and create resistance to corrective information, even when it comes from trusted authorities.
Influencer-endorsed products often come with substantial financial loss to customers/ consumers, as they are often marketed as premium solutions. These products are often overpriced and misleading, diverting resources away from evidence-based treatments or lifestyle choices. Consumers often overestimate the value of these products due to perceived trustworthiness, leading to costly purchasing decisions.
Beyond physical health, mental and emotional harm can also result from unrealistic health and body standards promoted through influencer marketing (Brown &Molnár, 2025). This reinforces unhealthy comparisons and can contribute to mental health and body image issues.
One of the most common and concerning consequences is inappropriate product use. Users who trust these claims may use them excessively or in combination with medications, unaware of potential interactions or toxicity.
Influencer-endorsed remedies can delay proper medical care, worsening health outcomes as depicted by Souvatzi et al., (2024) that patients influenced by online health misinformation are more likely to use unproven treatments.
Recommended solutions
Regulatory bodies must revise and enforce advertising standards to ensure accurate claims about product approval, safety, or health benefits. This includes prohibiting misuse of regulatory terms.
Scholars advocate for global standards for health advertising online, treating misleading claims in influencer content with the same severity as traditional media violations.
Social media platforms must adopt stronger content moderation and AD transparency tools to combat health misinformation. This can be done through algorithmic adjustments, prioritizing evidence-based content, and flagging unverified claims can slow false information spread.
Influencers often lack training in interpreting scientific evidence or understanding regulatory terminology, thus, there is a need for basic health literacy training especially those who advertise for consumables for wellness, nutrition, or fitness.
Public media and literacy programs should educate the public on assessing claims online, distinguishing between marketing and credible advice, understanding regulatory approval, and verifying sources. Educators, NGOs, and journalists should collaborate on campaigns to equip audiences with practical skills to navigate the modern digital system to avoid being misinformed.
In conclusion, the Food and Drugs Authority and its related agencies should enhance public access to regulatory information by regularly updating approval databases, recall notices, and health warnings in plain language. This will help counter misinformation and enable users to independently verify claims about product approvals and certifications. Transparency in regulatory communication builds trust and encourages proactive public engagement.
References
Brown, J., & Molnár, M. (2025). Influencer Marketing and Mental Health: Unpacking the Mental Health Struggles Behind the Glare of Social Media Fame.
De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through Instagram influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. International journal of advertising, 36(5), 798-828.
Downing, N. S., Aminawung, J. A., Shah, N. D., Krumholz, H. M., & Ross, J. S. (2014). Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutic agents, 2005-2012. Jama, 311(4), 368-377.
Elhai, J. D., & Montag, C. (2020). The compatibility of theoretical frameworks with machine learning analyses in psychological research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 36, 83-88.
Hendriks, B., van Meurs, F., & Poos, C. (2017). Effects of difficult and easy English slogans in advertising for Dutch consumers. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 38(2), 184-196.
Matouskova, K., Neltner, T. G., & Maffini, M. V. (2023). Out of balance: conflicts of interest persist in food chemicals determined to be generally recognized as safe. Environmental Health, 22(1), 59.
Office of Dietary Supplements (2022). Dietary Supplement Labeling and Regulation. National Institutes of Health. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/DietarySupplements-HealthProfessional/
Ognyanova, K., Lazer, D., Robertson, R. E., & Wilson, C. (2020). Misinformation in action: Fake news exposure is linked to lower trust in media, higher trust in government when your side is in power. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review.
Rubin, V. L. (2022). Manipulation in marketing, Advertising, propaganda, and public relations. In Misinformation and disinformation: Detecting Fakes with the eye and AI (pp. 157-205). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Sari, Y. M., Hayu, R. S., & Salim, M. (2021). The effect of trustworthiness, attractiveness, expertise, and popularity of celebrity endorsement. Jurnal Manajemen dan Kewirausahaan, 9(2), 163-172.
Shah, A. R., Sharma, P., Longvah, T., Gour, V. S., Kothari, S. L., Shah, Y. R., & Ganie, S. A. (2020). Nutritional composition and health benefits of psyllium (Plantago ovata) husk and seed. Nutrition Today, 55(6), 313-321.
Souvatzi, E., Katsikidou, M., Arvaniti, A., Plakias, S., Tsiakiri, A., & Samakouri, M. (2024). Trust in healthcare, medical mistrust, and health outcomes in times of health crisis: A narrative review. Societies, 14(12), 269.
Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2020). Correction as a solution for health misinformation on social media. American Journal of Public Health, 110(S3), S278-S280.
