{"id":91,"date":"2026-08-19T05:01:23","date_gmt":"2026-08-19T05:01:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/avoiding-unsubstantiated-clean-label-claims"},"modified":"2026-08-26T05:05:55","modified_gmt":"2026-08-26T05:05:55","slug":"avoiding-unsubstantiated-clean-label-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/avoiding-unsubstantiated-clean-label-claims","title":{"rendered":"How to Avoid Unsubstantiated Clean Label Plastic Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>Written by: Scott Steveson, Specialist<\/em><\/p>\n<h2>Key Takeaways for Plastic and Microplastic Claims<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<p>Absolute claims like \u201cplastic-free\u201d or \u201cmicroplastic-free\u201d cannot be backed by today\u2019s lab methods across all particle sizes and plastic types.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Scope-locked phrasing that states only what your data shows sharply reduces regulatory and litigation risk.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Brands need to audit existing lab data for method limits, polymer panels, blank controls, and chain of custody before making plastic-reduction claims.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Independent third-party review, such as the Wellness Quality Institute\u2019s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification, turns lab reports into defensible, publicly verifiable claims.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Learn how the Wellness Quality Institute can help your brand replace unsubstantiated claims with language your data can support at <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\">wellnessqualityinstitute.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>How Exact Claim Language Connects to Your Data<\/h2>\n<p>The table below shows how common claim language ties to regulatory risk and what your lab data can honestly support. Each claim type is judged against a single test: whether the evidence matches the exact scope of what the label says.<\/p>\n<table style=\"min-width: 100px\">\n<colgroup>\n<col style=\"min-width: 25px\">\n<col style=\"min-width: 25px\">\n<col style=\"min-width: 25px\">\n<col style=\"min-width: 25px\"><\/colgroup>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>Claim Type<\/p>\n<\/th>\n<th colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>Example Language<\/p>\n<\/th>\n<th colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>Regulatory Risk<\/p>\n<\/th>\n<th colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>What the Data Actually Supports<\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>Absolute absence<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>\u201cPlastic-free\u201d \/ \u201cMicroplastic-free\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>High, because the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/materialtruths.com\/greenwashing\">FTC Green Guides<\/a> require substantiation before use, and no method confirms total absence across all particle sizes and polymer types<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>Nothing, because no validated analytical method currently reaches below 20 \u00b5m (Raman) or 50 \u00b5m (infrared), leaving the nanoplastic range and smaller microplastic fractions undetectable<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>Unqualified reduction<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>\u201cSignificantly reduced microplastics\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>Medium to high, because vague comparative claims need a defined baseline, tested scope, and documented method under the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/materialtruths.com\/greenwashing\">FTC Green Guides 16 CFR Part 260<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>A reduction relative to a prior tested lot, within the method\u2019s detection range, for the specific polymer panel screened, not a universal reduction<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>Scope-locked non-detect<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>\u201cNo target polymers detected above [X] \u00b5m using [method] in [product\/lot]\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>Low, because the claim is bounded by documented method limits, polymer panel, and production period and matches what the data shows<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>Exactly what the reviewed dataset supports: a non-detect result within the tested particle-size range, for the reviewed polymer panel, in the sampled production period<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>Verified pathway<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>\u201cWQI Plastic-Free Pathway Verified\u201d (Standard Met products only)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>Low, because results are reviewed against published criteria and approved language is tied to a public registry ID that defines the exact scope<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td colspan=\"1\" rowspan=\"1\">\n<p>That the company\u2019s dataset was reviewed and accepted under the Wellness Quality Institute\u2019s standard, showing progress toward plastic-free goals within the verified scope<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2>Step 1: Audit Your Existing Lab Data for Four Critical Inputs<\/h2>\n<p>The Wellness Quality Institute starts with the data you already have, not with new testing. Most premium water, beverage, and supplement brands have commissioned independent lab work at some point. The real issue is whether that data can support any claim.<\/p>\n<p>The audit checks four inputs: the lab\u2019s analytical method and its validated detection range, the polymer panel (the specific plastic types the method can identify, such as polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), PVC, nylon (PA), polycarbonate (PC), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA)), the blank and contamination controls that show how the lab handled background plastic in its own equipment and environment, and the chain of custody that documents how samples were collected, handled, and delivered.<\/p>\n<p>Each input must meet clear quality thresholds or the dataset cannot support a claim. Common problems include methods that were not validated for the specific product matrix, such as a method built for clean water used on a carbonated or protein-rich drink, where sugars, pigments, carbonation, fats, and proteins interfere with detection. <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/msarr.magnascientiapub.com\/content\/microplastics-and-nanoplastics-beverage-supply-chain-systematic-review-sampling\">A 2026 systematic review of 42 peer-reviewed beverage studies<\/a> found that these complex matrices create major analytical interference. Incomplete blank data, where the lab did not fully document background contamination, is another frequent gap that makes a \u201cnone detected\u201d result impossible to interpret.<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\">You can use the Wellness Quality Institute\u2019s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification to understand exactly what your existing lab data supports before you update any claims.<\/a><\/p>\n<h2>Step 2: Tie Each Claim to Particle Size, Polymer Types, and Production Period<\/h2>\n<p>After completing the Step 1 audit and confirming that your data is sound, you need to map each planned claim to the precise parameters your data covers. Many brands discover a gap between what their label promises and what their lab report actually proves.<\/p>\n<p>Three dimensions define the scope of any honest plastic claim. Particle-size range is the most critical. The California State Water Board\u2019s two analytical methods, SWB-MP2-rev1 using Raman spectroscopy and SWB-MP1-rev1 using infrared spectroscopy, are validated for particles greater than 20 \u00b5m and greater than 50 \u00b5m respectively, both up to 5,000 \u00b5m. Everything below 20 \u00b5m, including all nanoplastics (smaller than 1 \u00b5m), sits outside what these validated methods can reliably measure. The polymer panel defines which plastic types were screened. The production period identifies which manufacturing lots the data covers.<\/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 most common mistake at this stage is stretching one SKU\u2019s result across an entire product line. <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/msarr.magnascientiapub.com\/content\/microplastics-and-nanoplastics-beverage-supply-chain-systematic-review-sampling\">The same 2026 systematic review<\/a> states that microplastic claims in beverages must tie to a specific sample set, production run, and analytical protocol, not to a whole line. A single test on one SKU from one lot supports a claim only about that SKU and that lot.<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\">The Wellness Quality Institute\u2019s verification process keeps your claims within the exact scope your data supports and can help you translate lab results into defensible market language.<\/a><\/p>\n<h2>Step 3: Swap Absolute Claims for Scope-Locked Phrasing<\/h2>\n<p>Scope-locked phrasing tells customers exactly what your data shows, without overreach. The shift moves you from absolute language that implies total absence to clear language that describes what was tested, how it was tested, and what the results were.<\/p>\n<p>Approved scope-locked phrasing links the result to its method, particle-size range, polymer panel, and production period. Instead of \u201cmicroplastic-free,\u201d a brand with qualifying data might state that its dataset was reviewed and accepted under the Wellness Quality Institute\u2019s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification standard, with the tested range and polymer panel listed in the public registry record.<\/p>\n<p>Prohibited language includes any form of \u201cplastic-free,\u201d \u201cmicroplastic-free,\u201d \u201cnanoplastic-free,\u201d \u201czero plastic,\u201d or \u201c100% plastic-free\u201d as a product claim. As the comparison table shows, these absolute claims are indefensible with current measurement limits. <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/research.wur.nl\/en\/publications\/with-a-grain-of-plastic-navigating-the-unvalidated-territories-of\">A 2026 PhD thesis at Wageningen University<\/a> reaches the same conclusion and finds that routine analytical testing cannot support claims of complete absence. The <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/materialtruths.com\/greenwashing\">FTC Green Guides<\/a> also state that \u201cfree of\u201d claims are misleading if the substance cannot be confirmed absent, which is the case for plastic and microplastic content today.<\/p>\n<p>The rewrite process should cover every place the claim appears, including packaging, websites, press materials, retailer listings, and social media. <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/globallawexperts.com\/greenwashing-the-green-claims-crackdown-and-what-it-means-for-your-business\">A recommended four-step claims audit framework<\/a> suggests inventorying all environmental claims, mapping each to its evidence, grading them by risk, and using cross-functional sign-off before publication.<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\">The Wellness Quality Institute can provide approved language that matches your reviewed evidence so your team can update claims consistently across all channels.<\/a><\/p>\n<h2>Step 4: Submit Your Dataset for Independent Review<\/h2>\n<p>A lab report and a defensible market claim are not the same thing. Self-reported results, even strong ones, look like marketing to buyers, retailers, and regulators because the company interpreting the data has a direct interest in the outcome. Independent review changes that perception.<\/p>\n<p>The Wellness Quality Institute\u2019s review standard, WQI-CS-01, aligns with the California State Water Board\u2019s drinking-water microplastics reference framework. It uses the same two analytical methods, SWB-MP1-rev1 for infrared spectroscopy above 50 \u00b5m and SWB-MP2-rev1 for Raman spectroscopy above 20 \u00b5m. California\u2019s framework serves as a technical reference because it is the strictest credible public standard available, not because verification is limited to California. California did not create, approve, authorize, or endorse the Wellness Quality Institute or its standard.<\/p>\n<p>The review covers laboratory qualification, analytical method, product matrix, sampling, tested particle-size range, target polymer panel, reporting limits, blank results, spike recoveries (where a known amount of a substance is added to confirm the method can detect it), replicates, chain of custody, data recency, product scope, and production or sampling period. The minimum polymer panel includes PE, PP, PET, PS, PVC, PA, PC, and PMMA. The Wellness Quality Institute does not perform laboratory testing. It reviews data from a qualified independent lab, and this separation between testing and review keeps the verification independent.<\/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&#8217;s existing third-party laboratory data against a defined standard \u2014 it does not run the tests itself.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>The outcome is binary: Standard Met or Standard Not Met. Standard Met requires that the dataset meets all technical and data-quality requirements and that no reportable target polymer particles are detected within the tested range and approved reporting limits. A non-detect result alone is not enough, because the reporting limits must also meet the Wellness Quality Institute\u2019s requirements. Standard Not Met remains private, is never disclosed publicly, and is never described as a failed product.<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\">You can submit your dataset to the Wellness Quality Institute for this independent review and convert technical results into claims that withstand scrutiny.<\/a><\/p>\n<h2>Step 5: Use Your Public Registry ID in Market Claims<\/h2>\n<p>Every Standard Met product receives a public registry entry. This record lists the verified party, product scope, matrix, production or sampling period, tested particle-size range, lower method limit, polymer panel, reporting limits, testing lab and its accreditation, verification date, expiration date, registry ID, approved result statement, and current status.<\/p>\n<p>The registry ID turns a marketing claim into a checkable fact. Buyers, retailers, journalists, and regulators can look up the ID and see exactly what was reviewed, under which conditions, and for which products. Every public verification claim must include or link to the registry ID. Logo use cannot stand alone as a product claim and must connect to the Verification Scope record.<\/p>\n<p>Verification remains locked to the reviewed scope. You cannot extend a company-wide or product-line claim from a single dataset. The verification period lasts 24 months from the sampling date of the most recent accepted dataset. Continued claim use after that date requires re-verification with current data. Expired entries stay visible and are marked \u201cExpired,\u201d so the record stays honest over time. A single assessment fee covers review, the verification decision, and registry listing, while independent lab testing is arranged and billed separately.<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\">The Wellness Quality Institute can show you how to use a public registry ID so your claims are easy for stakeholders to verify.<\/a><\/p>\n<h2>Why Plastic-Reduction Claims Carry Extra Risk<\/h2>\n<p>Plastic-reduction and microplastic claims sit at the highest enforcement and litigation risk level within clean-label marketing. These claims make a concrete statement about what is physically in the product, and current measurement science cannot fully support absolute statements.<\/p>\n<p>The core technical limit is the detection floor. As noted earlier, current validated methods reach only to 20 \u00b5m for Raman and 50 \u00b5m for infrared at their lower limits. This leaves the fraction between 1 and 20 \u00b5m unvalidated and the entire nanoplastic range beyond reliable measurement. A \u201cnone detected\u201d result always reflects that floor. It means none found above that floor, for the screened polymers, in the tested lot, not none present at all.<\/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&#8217;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><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/jurislawgroup.com\/class-actions-lawsuits-newsletter-april-2026\">An April 2026 class action filing<\/a> against a major soup brand claimed that microwavable packaging releases harmful microplastics when heated, showing how microplastic content has become active litigation territory. Morgan Lewis\u2019s May 2026 analysis notes that labels using terms such as \u201cplastic free,\u201d \u201cBPA free,\u201d \u201cnatural,\u201d or \u201cpure\u201d are often challenged when plaintiffs allege exposure to microplastics or synthetic contaminants. Scope-locked language backed by independent review offers the only defensible path forward.<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\">The Wellness Quality Institute\u2019s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification helps brands retire unsubstantiated plastic claims and replace them with language that matches their data.<\/a><\/p>\n<h2>Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n<h3>How long does the Wellness Quality Institute Plastic-Free Pathway Verification take, and what does a brand need to submit?<\/h3>\n<p>Timeline depends on how complete your existing lab dataset is. A brand that already has full method documentation, blank and contamination control records, chain of custody, and polymer identification results can move through review faster than a brand that still needs new testing. Required documentation includes the lab\u2019s analytical method and validated detection range, the full dataset with reporting limits, blank results, spike recoveries, replicates, chain of custody, product scope, and the production or sampling period covered. The Wellness Quality Institute does not perform lab testing. If you do not yet have a qualifying dataset, you work with a qualified independent lab first, then submit the results for review.<\/p>\n<h3>What happens if the dataset does not meet the standard?<\/h3>\n<p>A Standard Not Met outcome stays completely private. It carries no public claim, no logo rights, and no registry listing. It is not described as a failed product, because the issue often lies in the testing, such as an unsupported method, incomplete blank controls, reporting limits that do not meet the standard, or an incomplete polymer panel. The brand can submit corrected or additional information later. The review process is designed so participation does not create public downside risk.<\/p>\n<h3>What is the difference between Wellness Quality Institute verification and certification?<\/h3>\n<p>Verification describes what actually occurred, which is an independent review of a dataset against a defined standard. Certification suggests a guaranteed state, such as a product being definitively free of a substance. That type of guarantee is not scientifically possible for plastic or microplastic content, because no lab method can confirm complete absence across every particle size, polymer type, and production lot. The Wellness Quality Institute intentionally avoids \u201ccertified\u201d or \u201ccertification\u201d for this program. The approved mark is \u201cWQI Plastic-Free Pathway Verified,\u201d which signals that a company\u2019s lab data has been independently reviewed and shows progress toward plastic-free standards, not that the product contains no plastic.<\/p>\n<h3>Does Wellness Quality Institute verification align with California\u2019s microplastics framework, and does that mean California endorses it?<\/h3>\n<p>The Wellness Quality Institute\u2019s review criteria align with the California State Water Board\u2019s drinking-water microplastics reference framework, including its two analytical methods (SWB-MP1-rev1 for infrared and SWB-MP2-rev1 for Raman) and its regulatory definition of microplastics. California\u2019s framework serves as a technical reference because it is the strictest credible public standard for this testing. As noted earlier, California has no involvement with the Wellness Quality Institute. The state\u2019s framework is simply a technical benchmark. Verification is not a California approval, a government certification, or a health or safety certification, and it is available to US companies nationwide.<\/p>\n<h3>How often does a brand need to re-verify, and what triggers a scope change?<\/h3>\n<p>The verification period lasts 24 months from the sampling date of the most recent accepted dataset. Continued claim use after that date requires re-verification with current data. This reflects lot-to-lot variability, because a result describes the production it came from, not future production. A scope change occurs when you modify the reviewed product, SKU, matrix, production process, or analytical method. Verification applies only to the specific product, dataset, tested particle-size range, polymer panel, and production period that were reviewed. Company-wide or product-line claims based on a single dataset are prohibited.<\/p>\n<h2>Conclusion: Turning Real Data into Defensible Claims<\/h2>\n<p>Absolute clean-label claims such as \u201cplastic-free\u201d or \u201cmicroplastic-free\u201d cannot be substantiated, because no lab method detects every particle size or polymer type. The five-step process here, which includes auditing existing data, mapping claims to tested parameters, using scope-locked phrasing, submitting datasets for independent review, and publishing a registry ID, gives brands a repeatable path from real data to claims they can stand behind. Independent review against published criteria is what turns a lab report into a market claim that can withstand retailer checks, regulatory review, and litigation. The Wellness Quality Institute\u2019s Plastic-Free Pathway Verification closes that gap for US brands that have invested in testing and now need a credible way to show their progress.<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\">You can work with the Wellness Quality Institute to turn your existing lab data into clear, supportable claims that match what your testing truly shows.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Don&#8217;t let vague &#8220;plastic-free&#8221; claims put your brand at risk. The Wellness Quality Institute turns your lab data into defensible, verified claims.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":117,"featured_media":90,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-91","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\/91","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=91"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":148,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91\/revisions\/148"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/90"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wellnessqualityinstitute.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}