I think calling various things that are sold as pills or potions for curing illness but are not tested and endorsed by established medical authorities “homeopathic” is pretty common, because I keep kearing it.
Zicam is a great example, in fact. I’d like it if somebody that knows more about the following would correct and clarify, but my somewhat uncertain understanding is that the law allows special flexibility for things that are labeled “homeopathic”, but doesn’t define them very well. A legal definition of “homeopathic”, one used to draw lines between approved and criminal behavior, might get pretty weird, like “a substance that contains an ingredient that does not contain an ingredient that is specified”. I mean, how DO you limit what someone can call “homeopathic”? We can’t call Hahnemann back to ask him if they’re satisfying the spirit of his teachings. So, if you want to sell a cure for the common cold, you can try to make it a legitimate medicine, or you can call it “homeopathic” and not really prove anything.
And yet, a long time ago, I read an article in one of the journals about airborn particles (I used to be in aerosol science) that someone had discovered zinc chloride smoke cures colds. Eventually a product called Nasal-Ease, that sprays a zinc gluconate mist (gluconates do something better for absorption I think) into the nose. Then Zicam came out, but had all kinds of funny dodges to avoid making a mist, perhaps because Nasal-Ease had patented the mist version.
So I think the law actually promotes people avoiding testing their medical products by calling them “homeopathic”, although that would not be the intent of a law passed to protect consumers. A law passed to protect manufacturers, though, might do exactly that.
As a subject of idle curiosity, I wonder how much money is given to Congress by sick individuals, and how much by the pharmaceutical and pseudopharmaceutical industries? For that matter, I wonder if there are legitimate pharmaceuticals marketed to help recover the sense of smell?