Ok, first, I'm not trying to defend any single product here, but I will attempt to answer a couple of questions because they apply to much more than just this one product.

No, it doesn't conceal its contents; it just doesn't list the exact amounts of some of the ingredients. Most any product in a grocery or drug store is the same way. Very often, at the bottom of the ingredients list it'll say "herbs and spices" or "flavorings" etc. and rarely (if ever) are the exact amounts of every ingredient listed.

Maybe it's because, as the label says, daily values for those ingredients have not been established, and it's a regulatory thing - only ingredients for which daily values have been established are required to be listed that way(?)

Let's look at an example: http://www.puritan.com/b-complex-vit...complex-010282
At the bottom of the label, where it says "other ingredients" it doesn't list how much of each one. And it says, "This product contains a soy ingredient." but it doesn't tell us WHAT soy ingredient, or how much. It would appear that Puritan conceals its contents too. Or maybe daily values for those ingredients have not been established.

There are other reasons all ingredients don't have exact amounts listed on labels. In the case of something like canned soup, there is no reasonable way to determine exactly how may oz/mg of carrots, beans, salt, onion powder, or other ingredients are in every can.

In many cases, it's a situation of "trade secrets". In over a century, Coca Cola has never revealed the exact formula of 7x (the syrup used to flavor their product). McDonalds never divulged what was in their secret sauce, and Col Sanders kept mum about how much and exactly which 11 herbs and spices they used (interesting story about that one - but for another time & place. ) Some of these secrets have leaked or been approximated, but they are still considered trade secrets, and these companies have gone to great length$ to protect those secrets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret

Trade secrets are a form of intellectual property. While patents and copyrights have time limits, trade secrets do not, which is why many companies do not patent their recipes and formulas, and that is very likely the case with a very profitable product like 5 HR., and IMO, the real reason it's done.

Yes, that is an assumption. Why did unleaded gasoline cost more than leaded gasoline? Lead was not a natural byproduct of refining; the lead was added to gasoline. Unleaded gasoline should have cost less. Should we assume that they put the lead into it and then took it out again? During the beginning of the phase-in, it might have been less expensive to do it that way. What about after unleaded gas comprised more than 1/2 of production/sales? It was still more expensive.

If I were to speculate (and that's all I can do) in the case of 5 HR., I would speculate that it's because federal regulations require that for a product to be labeled "decaffeinated" it only needs to be more than 97.5% decaffeinated. Even "decaffeinated" coffee has a small amount of caffeine. Whether the caffeine in the decaf 5 HR is added, added then removed (from a portion of the product as a cost-reduction measure), residual, or in one of the other ingredients, I have no idea. Those 6 mg (about as much as a half cup of decaffeinated coffee) aren't likely to have enough effect to make it worthwhile adding it.

Nervous asked if anyone has tried it, and if we thought it would do any harm. I have tried it. I used to like it, but as I noted, they've changed the formula several times now (I've heard at least 4 times) and I'll have to decide if I think it's still doing what it used to. We got a great deal on it through an ad in an AARP magazine (about $2/ bottle, shipping included).

I wouldn't advise using it on a regular basis, but I don't think it would harm the vast majority of PNers, especially with the toned-down formula, to use it on occasion as I have, and certainly not to try it once, as directed, and decide for themselves.

Doc