A new bill introduced in Congress could mark an important step toward restoring rational, science-based oversight of dietary supplements while protecting consumer access nationwide. Action Alert!
THE TOPLINE
- Supplements are comprehensively regulated by the FDA under federal law and have an excellent safety record.
- New laws targeting weight-loss and muscle-building supplements—like the one enacted in New York—use vague definitions that could restrict access to basic nutrients and protein products.
- The Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act reaffirms federal authority and could help prevent state-level overreach such as California’s Proposition 65, which has led to widespread, often meaningless warning labels without proven public health benefit.
Rep. Nick Langworthy (R‑NY) has introduced the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act, legislation aimed at “restoring common sense to dietary supplement regulation” by reaffirming the FDA’s authority over supplements at the federal level. The bill would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to clarify that no state may impose requirements on dietary supplements that differ from or add to federal law. We must support this bill.
A Patchwork of State Laws Is Undermining Public Health
Dietary supplements are already regulated under a comprehensive federal framework. The FDA has clear authority over supplement safety, labeling, manufacturing standards, and enforcement. This system works: as we’ve repeatedly shown, supplements are overwhelmingly safe. They are so safe that our colleagues at ANH International found UK residents were more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning than they were by consuming supplements.
Yet in recent years, several states have attempted to impose their own rules—creating a confusing and burdensome patchwork of regulations that threatens access to safe, beneficial products.
A growing number of state-based bills seek to restrict the sale of weight-loss and muscle‑building supplements to minors. Proponents argue that these products can contribute to eating disorders or “unhealthy weight control behaviors” among young people. While protecting children is a legitimate concern, these bills take a blunt and poorly targeted approach.
Many rely on vague and overbroad definitions that could sweep in a wide range of supplements having nothing to do with weight loss—including protein powders, hormones, and even essential nutrients. In the midst of an ongoing public health crisis marked by poor diet and nutrient deficiencies, restricting access to basic nutritional support is the opposite of sound policy.
Sales‑restriction bills have been introduced in multiple states. One such bill has already been signed into law in New York and remains in effect, even as it faces a legal challenge. If allowed to spread, these laws would fragment the national marketplace and leave consumers facing different rules depending on their ZIP code.
Some proposals go even further by requiring covered supplements to be placed behind the counter or in locked cases. While ostensibly aimed at restricting youth access, these measures effectively limit access for everyone. Products hidden from view are less likely to be discovered by consumers who could benefit from them—or consumers may feel uncomfortable asking for them at all.
The predictable result is reduced access to beneficial products for all, undermining—not protecting—public health. Check out the list below to take action against these bills in your state:
Alaska
Federal Uniformity Is the Solution
The Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act addresses this problem by reaffirming that dietary supplement regulation is a federal responsibility. States would be prohibited from creating requirements that conflict with or exceed those set forth in the FD&C Act.
This reinforces the FDA’s existing authority while preventing states from enacting poorly drafted laws driven more by politics or ideology than by science.
A Check on Abuses Like California’s Proposition 65
The bill could also help rein in abuses stemming from state‑level regimes such as California’s Proposition 65, an issue ANH has examined in depth in a 2015 white paper.
Passed by voters in 1986 as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, Prop 65 was intended to protect consumers by requiring warnings on products that could expose them to chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm. Over time, however, the law has morphed into a profit‑driven enforcement scheme.
Under Prop 65, chemicals with as little as a one‑in‑100,000 theoretical risk must trigger warnings. The state’s list of chemicals—maintained by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment—has ballooned to nearly 900 substances. To avoid costly litigation, businesses now place warning labels on almost everything, regardless of real‑world risk.
So‑called “public interest” groups exploit this system by filing predatory lawsuits and extracting millions of dollars in settlements and attorney fees. Civil penalties that should benefit the public instead flow to private actors, while consumers are inundated with meaningless warnings they have learned to ignore. There is no statistical evidence that Prop 65 has produced measurable health benefits.
By reaffirming federal primacy in supplement regulation, Congress can help prevent similar state‑level abuses from spreading nationwide.
Protect Consumers by Preserving Access
Allowing 50 different regulatory regimes to govern dietary supplements serves no one—not consumers, not small businesses, and not public health. Congress should act swiftly to restore clarity and consistency by advancing this bill.
ANH strongly supports the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act and urges lawmakers to reject state‑level efforts that restrict access based on fear, vague definitions, and flawed assumptions. True consumer protection depends on science, transparency, and freedom of choice—not regulatory overreach.
Action Alert!
