There is a very interesting article at the Ottawa Skeptics site detailing the regulatory framework, currently in place for Supplements, Complementary and Alternative Medicines (SCAM). This is background information to help understand the proposed changes in Bill C-51.
There are a few interesting tidbits. Most interestingly, are the rules which allow weasel words when making statements that sound like efficacy claims.
For example:
“traditional use”: All this means is the there have been 50 or more years of the product being used for the claimed reason. Such a claim falls squarely under the Argument from Antiquity fallacy. Bloodlettings were traditionally used for thousands of years. However this does not mean that those who received the treatments were helped by them.
Homeopathic: Although homeopathic is one of the least sensible types of SCAM, Health Canada provides a way for homeopaths to make claims about their products. The claims must describe what they are “intended to address” not that they “can do”. Keeps them honest, but wording is very misleading.
To me, the interesting thing about these two claims is that instead of saying “these therapies work”, they say “other people think these therapies work”.
There are a few others, but hopefully you are already aware of these; “reduces risk”, “maintains”, “supports”, “promotes”, etc. Although it is not obvious what evidence, if any, is necessary to make such a claim.
In the end, our comprehension skills must be used when evaluating these claims. Do they actually say the therapy works, or do they claim something that sounds similar, but in the end is very different?