Has Dr. Oz or his legal team published an official statement listing products he has or has not endorsed?

1. What the record shows Oz has publicly said about endorsements

Across the supplied reporting, Oz has issued statements defending the practice of presenting multiple viewpoints on his show and insisting his views are offered “without conflict of interest,” language cited in a Columbia University defense of his academic freedom and in his Senate testimony where he argued some products he discussed had supporting studies when combined with diet and exercise ^{[1] [2]}. Those statements are defensive and explanatory—addressing the nature of his show and the evidentiary basis he claims for particular products—rather than a categorical inventory listing every product he endorses or rejects ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Investigations and watchdogs: specific endorsements, not a master list

Investigative reporting and watchdog letters focus on episodes, companies and social-media posts — for example, Public Citizen and other outlets documented social posts and promotions of supplements such as green coffee bean extract and raspberry ketone and urged scrutiny for lacking disclosure of financial ties ^{[3] [5]}. Reporting by WHYY and Primetimer catalogues particular corporate connections and past promotions (Vemma, Usana and others), showing selective disclosure or financial relationships, but these pieces present examples and disclosures rather than an official, lawyer-crafted inventory issued by Oz or his team ^{[6] [4]}.

3. Legal and regulatory context the coverage highlights

The supplied coverage repeatedly points to the regulatory norms that would govern endorsements — Federal Trade Commission rules that require clear disclosure of paid relationships and the ethical expectations of medical organizations — and critics have used those frameworks to argue Oz should have been more transparent about particular promotions ^{[3] [4]}. This context frames the controversy around individual promotions and alleged nondisclosures, but none of the items provided shows Oz’s counsel releasing a compliance-style list mapping every product to a paid or unpaid status ^{[3] [4]}.

4. What Oz’s defenders and critics emphasize in available reporting

Columbia and defenders emphasize academic freedom and plurality of views on his program, and Oz himself emphasized on record that his show offers multiple points of view and that he believed some promoted products had supportive studies when used with lifestyle changes ^{[1] [2]}. Critics and consumer-watchdog groups amplify patterns: social-media posts without disclosure, corporate donations to his charity, and individual promotions that later drew regulatory attention — a pattern-focused critique rather than an invocation of a missing official list ^{[6] [3] [4]}.

5. Limits of the supplied reporting and the honest conclusion

The supplied set of articles and watchdog letters documents specific promotions, disclosures of financial ties and public defenses by Oz, but none contains or cites an explicit legal-team statement that systematically lists products Oz has or has not endorsed; therefore, based on these sources, there is no evidence of such a published list from Oz or his lawyers ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. If an interested reader needs confirmation beyond these materials, the next step would be to request a direct query to Oz’s office, legal counsel, or to search official filings and his public social-media archives, because the present reporting does not include a definitive, enumerated endorsement list.