{"id":241,"date":"2026-09-07T05:05:32","date_gmt":"2026-09-07T05:05:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/independent-lab-results-marketing-claims"},"modified":"2026-09-07T05:05:32","modified_gmt":"2026-09-07T05:05:32","slug":"independent-lab-results-marketing-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/independent-lab-results-marketing-claims","title":{"rendered":"How To Evaluate Lab Results for Plastic Marketing Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>Written by: Scott Steveson, Specialist<\/em><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"key-takeaways\">Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Independent lab reports on microplastics need structured checks against clear criteria before they can support any marketing claim.<\/li>\n<li>Verification is limited by method sensitivity, polymer panels, particle-size ranges, and production periods. Absolute plastic-free claims are not scientifically supportable.<\/li>\n<li>Four evaluation steps, covering lab qualification, method suitability, data-quality controls, and scope boundaries, determine whether a dataset can support a defensible non-detect claim.<\/li>\n<li>Scope lock keeps claims tied to the specific product, matrix, and production period reviewed, so claims do not spill over to untested SKUs.<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\" target=\"_blank\">The Wellness Quality Institute<\/a> provides Plastic-Free Pathway Verification that turns reviewed lab data into scope-locked, defensible claim language.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Why Method Limits Make Absolute Claims Impossible<\/h2>\n<p>California&#8217;s State Water Board defines microplastics in drinking water as solid plastic material with particles that have at least three dimensions greater than 1 nanometer and less than 5,000 micrometers. That definition is intentionally broad, and it reaches far beyond what any validated commercial method can measure today.<\/p>\n<figure style=\"text-align: center\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co\/1784829388732-c6255482b477.webp\" alt=\"Fragments of plastic suspended in blue water below the surface.\" style=\"max-height: 500px\" loading=\"lazy\"><figcaption><em>Plastic doesn&#039;t disappear \u2014 it fragments. These secondary microplastics are the breakdown products of everyday objects, and independent research now detects them across the water supply. Detection, though, establishes presence, not absence.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Two analytical methods often referenced in this space are SWB-MP1-rev1, an infrared spectroscopy method validated for particles larger than 50 \u00b5m through 5,000 \u00b5m, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.waterboards.ca.gov\/drinking_water\/certlic\/drinkingwater\/documents\/microplastics\/sop_mp2_rev1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\">SWB-MP2-rev1<\/a>, a Raman spectroscopy method validated for particles larger than 20 \u00b5m through 5,000 \u00b5m. The regulatory definition reaches down to 1 nanometer. The best validated methods start at 20 or 50 micrometers, which are thousands of times larger. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/journals\/water\/articles\/10.3389\/frwa.2026.1763916\/full\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\">Standard industrial screening methods that stop at 20\u201350 \u00b5m leave the entire sub-20 \u00b5m fraction, including most nanoplastics, undetected<\/a>. This analytical gap prevents any laboratory from generating data strong enough to support an absolute plastic-free claim.<\/p>\n<p>The 1\u201320 \u00b5m fraction is not validated under either method. Everything below 1 \u00b5m, which is the nanoplastic range, currently sits beyond reliable commercial measurement. <a href=\"https:\/\/measurlabs.com\/blog\/microplastics-in-water\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\">Even pyrolysis GC\/MS, the only common method that can theoretically approach the nanoplastic range on a mass basis, provides no particle size, number, or shape information<\/a>. The total mass of particles can also fall below the method&#8217;s own detection limit. Outcomes depend on the product type, the method, and the quality of the data. This is why independent review of all three is necessary before anyone approves claim language.<\/p>\n<h2>Step 1: Confirm Laboratory Qualification and Accreditation Tier<\/h2>\n<p>The Wellness Quality Institute starts every review by confirming that the laboratory was qualified to run the microplastic testing. Laboratory accreditation, which is formal recognition by an independent body that a lab meets defined competence requirements, separates reviewable data from data that cannot support any claim.<\/p>\n<figure style=\"text-align: center\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co\/1784829434095-0fc8fbcf29fa.webp\" alt=\"Scientists in white coats working with samples and microscopes in a laboratory.\" style=\"max-height: 500px\" loading=\"lazy\"><figcaption><em>Only a small number of laboratories can genuinely test for microplastics, and capability varies by instrument and method. WQI reviews a company&#039;s existing third-party laboratory data against a defined standard \u2014 it does not run the tests itself.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>The required inputs for this step are the laboratory&#8217;s accreditation certificate, the scope of accreditation that lists the specific methods and matrices covered, and the accreditation body&#8217;s name and reference number. Under <a href=\"https:\/\/www.iso.org\/standard\/66912.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\">ISO\/IEC 17025:2017<\/a>, the international standard for laboratory competence, laboratories must show technical competence for the specific methods and matrices included in their accredited scope.<\/p>\n<p>A laboratory qualifies at the preferred tier when it holds accreditation for the applicable microplastics method, such as California&#8217;s ELAP accreditation. It qualifies at the accepted tier when it holds ISO\/IEC 17025 accreditation and lists the microplastics method and the specific product matrix explicitly within the accredited scope. A laboratory that holds general ISO\/IEC 17025 accreditation but does not list microplastics methods or the relevant matrix in its accredited scope does not automatically qualify.<\/p>\n<p>Red flags that make data non-reviewable at this step include no accreditation, accreditation that does not cover the method used, accreditation that does not cover the product matrix tested, and an expired accreditation certificate. Consider a hypothetical beverage brand that submits a microplastic report from a contract laboratory accredited for environmental water testing but that has never validated its method for a sugar-containing functional beverage. The accreditation exists, but the matrix sits outside its scope. That dataset cannot support a verification decision without additional method-equivalence documentation.<\/p>\n<h2>Step 2: Match Particle-Size Range and Polymer Panel to Your Claim<\/h2>\n<p>Once laboratory qualification is confirmed, the next step is to check whether the method&#8217;s particle-size range and polymer panel fit the claim you want to make. A result only has meaning inside the boundaries of what the lab actually tested.<\/p>\n<figure style=\"text-align: center\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co\/1784829410323-fb401fc7b1e4.webp\" alt=\"Colorful plastic fragments in water inside a laboratory petri dish.\" style=\"max-height: 500px\" loading=\"lazy\"><figcaption><em>Microplastics are particles smaller than five millimeters. Current methods can count and identify them at the upper end of that range, but reliable measurement falls away as particles get smaller \u2014 a limit that shapes every honest claim.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>The required inputs are the method&#8217;s validated detection range, which includes the lower and upper particle-size limits, the list of polymer types screened, and the reporting categories used. The Wellness Quality Institute standard, WQI-CS-01, specifies a minimum target polymer panel of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyamide (PA), polycarbonate (PC), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), with PE, PS, PVC, and PET as anchor polymers. The panel must also include reporting categories for other confirmed polymers and for unidentified particles with no spectral match.<\/p>\n<p>The decision criteria require that the tested particle-size range matches the validated range of the method, that the polymer panel covers at least the anchor polymers, and that results are reported by size fraction rather than as a single total number. <a href=\"https:\/\/studocu.com\/bo\/document\/universidad-evangelica-boliviana\/evaluacion-del-estado-nutricional\/microplastic-contamination-in-food-systems-a-review-of-detection-methods-and-ai\/158934205\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\">Conventional FTIR spectroscopy often misses particles below 20\u201350 \u00b5m, with some studies reporting that up to 95% of 1\u201350 \u00b5m particles can go undetected<\/a>. Any claim built on FTIR data must therefore state the validated range of that method.<\/p>\n<p>A hypothetical bottled water brand illustrates the polymer panel problem clearly. The brand submits a report showing no microplastics detected, but the laboratory screened only for PE, PP, and PET. The bottle cap is made of polypropylene, which is already covered, but the label adhesive contains a nylon-based polymer (PA). PA is not in the tested panel. The non-detect result is real for the three polymers tested, yet the dataset cannot support a claim that covers the full minimum polymer panel. The scope of any approved claim language must match what the lab actually screened.<\/p>\n<h2>Step 3: Check Data-Quality Controls Inside the Report<\/h2>\n<p>A technically capable laboratory using an appropriate method can still produce unreliable data when its quality controls fall short. This step focuses on the internal evidence that the results reflect the sample rather than contamination from the laboratory environment.<\/p>\n<p>The required inputs are blank results, including field blanks, procedural blanks, and air blanks where relevant, spike recovery data that show the percentage of a known quantity of added standard material that the method recovers, replicate measurements, and the complete chain of custody documentation. <a href=\"https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC12981036\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\">Results from microplastic analysis should include both raw and blank-corrected data, along with the average and standard deviation of particles found in blanks, and a clear statement on whether blank correction was applied<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>The decision criteria require that procedural blanks were run alongside samples, that blank-corrected data appear separately from raw data, that spike recoveries fall within an acceptable range that demonstrates method accuracy, and that replicates show reproducibility. <a href=\"https:\/\/thetestinglab.eu\/sample-chain-of-custody-a-comprehensive-guide-to-laboratory-compliance\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\">Under ISO\/IEC 17025:2017 standards, every sample must have a traceable history, and incomplete chain of custody forms prevent laboratories from issuing valid certificates of analysis<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Red flags include missing blanks, blanks reported but not used to correct sample results, spike recoveries outside acceptable bounds, no replicates, and gaps in chain of custody between sample collection and laboratory receipt. A hypothetical supplement brand makes the blank problem concrete. The brand&#8217;s report shows zero particles detected across all target polymers, yet the report contains no blank data. Without blank results, no one can tell whether the zero-detect finding reflects the product or a laboratory environment so contaminated that particles were present in every sample, including the blanks that were never run. <a href=\"https:\/\/cen.acs.org\/analytical-chemistry\/how-study-microplastics-when-everywhere\/104\/web\/2026\/03\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\">A 2023 study found that the reagents and commercial chemicals used to separate and prepare microplastics contained microplastics themselves<\/a>. Blank data therefore act as proof that the reported result is real.<\/p>\n<h2>Step 4: Decide Whether the Dataset Supports a Non-Detect Claim<\/h2>\n<p>The final evaluation step checks whether the dataset, after passing the first three steps, actually supports a non-detect claim and whether the scope of that claim is correctly bounded. A non-detect result means the lab found no reportable target polymer particles within the tested particle-size range, using the reviewed method, on the sampled production lot. It does not mean the product contains no plastic.<\/p>\n<p>The required inputs are the reporting limits for each polymer in the panel, the production or sampling period covered by the dataset, the specific product SKU or model tested, and the matrix. The decision criteria require that reporting limits meet the minimum thresholds defined in WQI-CS-01, that the dataset covers the specific product and production period for which a claim is sought, and that no reportable target polymer particles were detected within those limits.<\/p>\n<p>A non-detect result alone does not suffice when the reporting limits themselves are weak. A laboratory that reports \u201cnone detected\u201d with a reporting limit of 500 \u00b5m provides no meaningful information about particles between 20 \u00b5m and 500 \u00b5m. That range includes the vast majority of microplastics found in beverage matrices. The reporting limit must meet Wellness Quality Institute requirements, or the non-detect result cannot support a defensible claim.<\/p>\n<p>Over-extended scope is the most common failure at this step. A functional beverage brand tests one SKU, a 500 mL glass-bottled sparkling water, and receives a non-detect result. The brand then uses that result to support a claim across its entire product line, including a PET-bottled still water and a canned electrolyte drink. The tested product, matrix, and packaging all differ from the products now carrying the claim. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ftc.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/attachments\/press-releases\/ftc-issues-revised-green-guides\/greenguidesstatement.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\">Under 16 CFR 260.9, a free-of claim must be clearly and prominently qualified to the extent necessary to avoid deception<\/a>. A claim extended beyond the tested scope is, by definition, deceptive.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Turn your reviewed dataset into scope-locked claim language. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\" target=\"_blank\">Get your dataset reviewed for scope-locked claim language.<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<h2>Decision Checklist for Reviewing Your Own Reports<\/h2>\n<p>This checklist turns the four evaluation steps into a practical decision tool you can apply to any microplastic report before you approve claim language. If your dataset cannot satisfy all ten items, it cannot support a defensible non-detect claim within the tested scope, and any claim built on it exposes your company to regulatory and reputational risk.<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Laboratory qualification:<\/strong> Does the laboratory hold ISO\/IEC 17025 accreditation, or accreditation such as California&#8217;s ELAP, with the microplastics method and your specific product matrix explicitly within the accredited scope?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Method validation:<\/strong> Is the analytical method validated for your product matrix, and does the report state the validated particle-size range, including lower and upper limits?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Particle-size range:<\/strong> Does the report state results by size fraction, not as a single aggregate number?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Polymer panel:<\/strong> Does the tested panel include at minimum PE, PP, PET, PS, PVC, PA, PC, and PMMA, plus reporting categories for other confirmed polymers and unidentified particles?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Blanks:<\/strong> Does the report include procedural blank data, with both raw and blank-corrected results reported separately?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Spike recoveries:<\/strong> Does the report include spike recovery data that show method accuracy within acceptable bounds?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Replicates:<\/strong> Were replicate measurements taken and reported?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Chain of custody:<\/strong> Is there a complete, unbroken chain of custody from sample collection through laboratory analysis?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Reporting limits:<\/strong> Are the reporting limits for each polymer stated explicitly, and do they meet the minimum thresholds required for a defensible non-detect claim?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Scope:<\/strong> Is the dataset tied to the specific product SKU, matrix, and production period for which a claim is sought, with no extension to other products or the company as a whole?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><strong>Apply the checklist to your existing reports. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\" target=\"_blank\">Submit your report for independent verification review.<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<h2>Common Challenges and Corrective Actions<\/h2>\n<p>Most brands run into the same three challenges when they try to turn existing laboratory data into defensible claim language.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Over-extended scope<\/strong> appears most often. A single product&#8217;s non-detect result gets applied to a product line or the company as a whole. The early-warning sign is claim language that refers to \u201cour products\u201d or \u201cour brand\u201d rather than the specific tested SKU and production period. The corrective action is to restrict claim language to the reviewed product and commission separate testing for each additional SKU that will carry a claim.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Unsuitable methods<\/strong> arise when a laboratory applies a method validated for one matrix to a different matrix without showing equivalence. A method validated for still water may not perform reliably in a high-sugar beverage or an oil-based supplement. Detection methods such as visual microscopy and Nile Red staining commonly produce false positives because they cannot prove that detected particles are plastic. A non-detect result from an unsuitable method is equally unreliable. The corrective action is to commission retesting using a method validated for the specific product matrix, from a laboratory with that matrix in its accredited scope.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Lot-to-lot variability<\/strong> means a clean result on one production lot does not guarantee the next lot will match it. Packaging materials, filling equipment, and process conditions all vary. The early-warning sign is a dataset drawn from a single lot with no indication of sampling frequency or production period coverage. The corrective action is to establish a re-testing schedule that reflects production variability and to treat verification as an ongoing commitment rather than a one-time exercise.<\/p>\n<h2>How Verification Periods and Registry Updates Keep Claims Current<\/h2>\n<p>A verification finding has a defined lifespan. The Wellness Quality Institute verification period runs for 24 months from the sampling date of the most recent accepted dataset. Continued claim use after expiration requires re-verification using current data. This approach reflects the technical reality of lot-to-lot variability. A result reflects the production it came from, not the production that follows it.<\/p>\n<p>Every Standard Met product receives a public registry entry that records the verified party, product scope, matrix, production or sampling period, tested particle-size range, lower method limit, polymer panel, reporting limits, testing laboratory and its accreditation, verification and expiration dates, registry ID, approved result statement, and current status. Permitted statuses are Active, Suspended, Expired, and Withdrawn. Expired entries remain publicly visible and marked \u201cExpired,\u201d so the record stays honest over time rather than quietly disappearing.<\/p>\n<p>This structure allows a buyer, retailer, or journalist to check the registry at any moment and see exactly what was reviewed, when it was reviewed, and whether the verification is current. The claim becomes checkable rather than merely assertable, which marks the difference between a marketing statement and a substantiated one.<\/p>\n<h2>Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n<h3>What does \u201cnon-detect\u201d actually mean on a microplastic lab report?<\/h3>\n<p>\u201cNon-detect\u201d means the lab found no particles above the method&#8217;s reporting limit, for the polymer types in the tested panel, in the specific sample analyzed. It does not mean the product contains no plastic. A method with a reporting limit of 50 \u00b5m cannot see anything smaller, so a non-detect result can coexist with particles below that size. The reporting limit, the polymer panel, and the production lot all act as boundaries on what the result covers. Knowing those boundaries is the first step toward deciding whether the result can support any claim language.<\/p>\n<h3>Does WQI verification replace our legal or advertising-claims review?<\/h3>\n<p>No. The Wellness Quality Institute Plastic-Free Pathway Verification is an independent review of a dataset against a defined standard. It is not legal counsel, regulatory advice, or advertising-claims review, and it does not replace any of them. Companies remain responsible for ensuring all product, packaging, and marketing claims are accurate and properly supported under applicable law, including the FTC&#8217;s Green Guides at 16 CFR Part 260. The Wellness Quality Institute provides independently reviewed, scope-locked claim language tied to the reviewed evidence. Your legal team still needs to approve how that language appears in context.<\/p>\n<h3>How does scope lock prevent a single product&#8217;s result from becoming a line-wide claim?<\/h3>\n<p>Every Wellness Quality Institute verification decision is bound to a defined Verification Scope. This scope includes the specific product SKU or model, the product matrix, the production or sampling period, the analytical method, the tested particle-size range, the target polymer panel, the reporting limits, and the supporting controls. A Standard Met outcome explicitly does not establish anything about products outside the registered scope, production periods outside the reviewed period, particle sizes below the method floor, or polymer types outside the tested panel. Claim language approved by the Wellness Quality Institute references the registry ID, which links to the full Verification Scope record. Any claim that extends beyond that scope is prohibited under WQI-CS-01 and may result in suspension or withdrawal of verification.<\/p>\n<h3>What is the difference between WQI verification and certification?<\/h3>\n<p>Certification implies a settled, guaranteed state, meaning that a product definitively is or contains something. No laboratory today can certify that a product is free of plastic across every particle size, polymer type, and production lot, because no method reaches the full regulatory definition range and no single test covers every production lot. The Wellness Quality Institute deliberately does not use \u201ccertified\u201d or \u201ccertification\u201d for its program. Verification describes what actually happened. An independent party reviewed a dataset against a defined standard and issued a finding bounded by what the data supports. This distinction marks the difference between a claim the science can carry and one it cannot.<\/p>\n<h3>What happens if our data does not meet the standard?<\/h3>\n<p>A Standard Not Met outcome remains private. It carries no public claim, no logo rights, and no registry listing. It is never described as a failed product, because it often reflects the testing rather than the product. Common causes include insufficient data, an unsupported method, inadequate controls, or incomplete scope. The company may submit corrected or additional information for future review. Participating in the review process creates no public downside risk, which is by design. Many brands find that a Standard Not Met outcome is the most useful result the Wellness Quality Institute produces for them, because it identifies exactly what the existing dataset does and does not prove.<\/p>\n<h2>Conclusion<\/h2>\n<p>A laboratory report and a marketing claim are not the same thing. Independent review that confirms laboratory qualification, method suitability, data-quality elements, and scope boundaries bridges the gap between them. Only a reviewed dataset that satisfies all applicable technical and data-quality requirements, and that shows no reportable target polymer particles within the tested particle-size range and approved reporting limits, can support approved, scope-locked claim language.<\/p>\n<p>The Wellness Quality Institute Plastic-Free Pathway Verification program, governed by the standard WQI-CS-01, is built to close that gap for US beverage, supplement, and wellness brands. The program reviews existing independent laboratory data against defined criteria aligned with the California State Water Board&#8217;s drinking-water microplastics reference framework. It produces a binary Standard Met or Standard Not Met outcome and, where the standard is met, issues scope-locked claim language, a public registry listing, and a logo license. It does not certify that any product is free of plastic, because no program honestly can. It converts a reviewed dataset into a claim a company can stand behind.<\/p>\n<p><em>Wellness Quality Institute Plastic-Free Pathway Verification does not certify that a product contains zero plastic, microplastics, or nanoplastics. It shows that the company is on a verified pathway toward plastic-free standards. Verification applies only to the reviewed products, submitted datasets, tested ranges, polymer panels, production or sampling periods, and supporting controls. Wellness Quality Institute verification is not a California approval, government certification, or health or safety certification.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Move from raw lab data to defensible claims. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\" target=\"_blank\">Start your verification review today.<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Learn how to read microplastic lab reports and make defensible claims. The Wellness Quality Institute verifies your data so your marketing holds up.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":117,"featured_media":240,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-241","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-certification"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=241"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=241"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=241"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=241"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}