Ryze Superfoods, LLC was under review as part of BBB National Programs’ NAD marketplace monitoring program. The review focused on express claims that its Mushroom Coffee provided “all-day energy, sharper focus, healthier digestion, better immune support and better sleep.”
The inquiry also examined whether advertising for Mushroom Matcha implied appetite-suppressing benefits similar to those of GLP-1 agonists without side effects.
Ryze Superfoods responds
During the NAD inquiry, Ryze Superfoods informed the division that it had permanently discontinued all the challenged express claims. NAD’s press release stated that “voluntarily discontinued claims will be treated, for compliance purposes, as though NAD recommended they be discontinued.”
The company further stated it “is modifying the presentation of its advertising claims.”
A spokesperson for Ryze told NutraIngredients that the decision to withdraw claims aligns with the company’s ongoing compliance approach.
“At RYZE, we stand behind the truth and accuracy of all our marketing claims,” the spokesperson said. “As strong supporters of voluntary industry self-regulation and NAD’s mission of promoting high standards of truth and accuracy, we are committed to evidence-based claims and to periodic review and refinement of our messaging. Our decision to revise our advertising is consistent with that objective.”
Because the claims were withdrawn before review on the merits, NAD did not make a formal determination on their truthfulness or on substantiation adequacy.
Compliance and substantiation lessons for functional beverage brands
NutraIngredients spoke with Asa Waldstein, principal at Supplement Advisory Group, who explained that the NAD action highlights the risks that functional beverage brands face when promoting broad health benefits.
According to Waldstein, many mushroom-based and functional coffee products operate in a gray area and “‘walk the compliance line’ as their claims are likely not enough to attract serious FDA scrutiny,” he said. Some companies, he added, avoid direct packaging claims to reduce risk but “may take extra ‘risks’ on secondary packaging or on social advertisements.”
The fact that this was a monitoring case, rather than a competitor challenge, should also stand out to the industry.
“This NAD action shows that companies should think twice about making unsubstantiated claims in any form of marketing,” Waldstein said.
Regarding claim substantiation, Waldstein noted that while randomized controlled trials remain the gold standard, they are rarely feasible for conventional food companies.
“Well-powered RCTs are always best, but in practicality, conventional food companies do not often allocate the budget required to run these costly trials,” he said.
Still, he emphasized the need for careful alignment with the scientific record.
“Companies should ensure the ingredient data is from a competent and reliable scientific evidence study and match the amount in the product,” he said, pointing to dosage mismatches as a common issue.
Consumer perception studies may have a role, but Waldstein stressed their limitations.
“They can be helpful in bolstering a substantiation dossier for sensory claims related to taste,” he said. “They cannot be used for biomarker statements or physiological endpoints such as improved immunity.”
Waldstein also highlighted risk differences across categories. He explained that FDA has largely tolerated non-nutritive structure-function claims in foods and beverages, but disease-related statements could prompt action.
“I expect to see future enforcement when conventional foods cross the compliance line with disease statements related to things like lowers LDLs or helps with joint inflammation,” he said.
On the issue of implied GLP-1 comparisons, Waldstein noted that while some phrasing carries relatively low risk, marketers should exercise caution.
“Staying away from drug-like actions such as GLP-1 agonist and not mentioning diseases or drug names is a good first step to being compliant,” he said.
This Ryze case comes amid broader shifts in how supplement and functional beverage companies are positioning claims in light of the growing influence of GLP-1 drugs. As recently reported by NutraIngredients, for example, “making claims about side effect management is not ultra-high risk since GLP-1 is a natural body hormone,” but legal risks increase when products imply substituting for or matching drug-mediated effects.
