Stronger border checks for personal imports can protect Americans from unsafe foreign products, but the same rules could also shrink consumer access and choice. Action Alert!
Listen to the audio version of this article:
THE TOPLINE
- New customs requirements could mean higher prices, delayed deliveries, and fewer natural health choices for consumers buying products from overseas.
- Stronger scrutiny can protect consumers from unsafe products, but added costs and paperwork could also drive responsible small suppliers out of the U.S. market.
- We support practical, risk-based import procedures that target illegal products while preserving access to compliant products from reputable companies.
Consumers who buy natural health products from overseas could soon face higher prices, delayed deliveries, and fewer choices. A new Customs and Border Protection (CBP) rule that comes into force on October 22, 2026 adds hurdles that may discourage smaller companies from supplying American customers. Our concern is that responsible businesses could be caught alongside sellers of unsafe or illegal products. Additionally, patients who import life-saving medications for personal use that are not currently manufactured in the US may find there are delays or even barriers at US borders which could endanger lives.
What’s Changing
Low-value packages (under $800) imported for personal use previously benefited from a customs exemption that simplified their entry into the United States. The new CBP rule removes that exemption for international mail and adds stricter requirements for mailed products overseen by agencies such as FDA.
CBP offers an electronic option for some shipments, but it still requires detailed information, someone legally responsible for the import, and a financial guarantee called a customs bond. Suppliers may need specialist help, adding costs that consumers could ultimately pay.
The rule does not itself ban all imported medicines or abolish FDA’s personal importation policy. But administrative barriers can make an established supply route unusable.
Scrutiny Should Target Unsafe Products
There are good reasons to examine imports carefully. Unapproved, poorly controlled injectable peptides sold online, including products sourced from China, deserve scrutiny. ANH supports action against reckless suppliers. The concern is what happens to responsible companies that have supplied Americans with high-quality products for years.
Consider oral dietary supplements derived from animal organ extracts (e.g., desiccated thyroid or adrenals). If the products meet U.S. supplement requirements, suppliers should have a practical way to reach American customers.
These additional customs hurdles will likely make importing some supplements and medicines more costly or difficult. Animal-derived products can require extensive documentation of animal origins and processing. Depending on the product, suppliers may need to trace materials through multiple stages of the supply chain. These animal-source requirements vary by product, and many predate the customs change. The new entry procedures can make complying with them more burdensome.
A small producer may lack the staff, expertise, or money to manage the process. It may simply stop exporting to America. Consumers then lose an option, even without evidence that the product is unsafe.
Supply-chain information can also be commercially sensitive. Many natural ingredients cannot be patented as they occur in nature. A company’s valuable know-how may lie in its sourcing relationships and production methods. Disclosing that information could therefore undermine the commercial viability of some companies and thus further shrink consumer choice.
Fewer Suppliers Means Less Choice
Large businesses can spread compliance costs across many products. Smaller innovators often cannot. Our concern is that added red tape will favor established players over emerging competitors, leaving consumers with a less diverse marketplace and fewer affordable options.
These changes came through agency rulemaking under existing law, rather than new legislation passed by Congress. Following Loper Bright, courts must independently determine whether an agency has acted within the authority Congress granted it. Rule changes are, then, more open to legal challenge than they have been in the past.
A better approach would enforce existing laws against contaminated, mislabeled, and unlawfully marketed products while providing manageable entry procedures for compliant suppliers. FDA already has authority to act against illegal or harmful products. Clear guidance, requirements matched to actual risks, and practical help for smaller businesses could protect consumers without unnecessarily narrowing their choices.
If you depend on an imported product, ask your supplier about continued availability, new fees, and delivery times. For prescribed medicines, plan with your clinician before supplies run low.
We will address the business implications separately for our Corporate Leadership Circle (CLC). Natural health companies seeking regulatory insight and a voice in protecting consumer access can learn more about joining the CLC.
Please share this article in your networks and consider donating to support our work.
