Key Takeaways: Natural products industry regulatory updates
Congress is considering legislation to reinforce national dietary supplement regulation under FDA oversight.
CRN has petitioned the Supreme Court over New York’s supplement age-restriction law.
Industry groups are seeking FDA clarification on DSHEA disclaimer placement rules.
ANH-USA released a prevention-focused chronic disease reform framework.
California lawmakers advanced a proposal for a “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” food label.
Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act: NPA Underscores the Urgency
The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health held a hearing titled Healthier America: Legislative Proposals on the Regulation and Oversight of Food, led by Morgan Griffith, chairman of the subcommittee.
The Natural Products Association (NPA) shared the news that, during the meeting, U.S. Congressman Nick Langworthy discussed the benefits of H.R. 7366, the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act, legislation aimed at reaffirming a single, science-based national standard for dietary supplements under the authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Langworthy said:
“For nearly 30 years, dietary supplements have been regulated under single science-based national framework led by the FDA, giving consumers confidence that products are safe and properly labeled and consistently regulated across the country. But in recent years, as we’ve seen in many different industries, states are moving away from that model, imposing their own arduous requirements and restrictions, often beyond what the FDA has already reviewed and determined to be safe. My state of New York often does this, and it leads to higher costs and fewer choices with consumers. When states override science-based FDA determination, you end up in a situation where the same product is treated as safe in one state, but suspect in another state, just by crossing a state line. That’s regulation for regulation’s sake; it doesn’t make any sense for businesses or the people that they serve. That’s why I have introduced H.R. 7366, the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act, to reaffirm that we should have one clear, science-based national standard—not a patchwork of conflicting state rules.”
Commenting on the meeting and the bill, NPA CEO Daniel Fabricant, Ph.D., commended Langworthy for introducing bill, noting that contradictory state-level proposals and mandates not only strain manufacturers and retailers, but also create unnecessary confusion for consumers seeking safe, reliable products. “H.R. 7366 offers a clear, common-sense solution: reinforce a single, science-based federal standard that ensures consumer protection while preserving consumer access and innovation. On May 12, during NPA’s Fly-In Day, our members will meet with offices across the House and Senate to underscore the urgency of this issue, advocate for swift passage of the bill, and encourage additional lawmakers to join as co-sponsors in support of a consistent and rational regulatory framework.”
Read more on industry’s stance: Industry Rallies Behind Federal Preemption Bill for Dietary Supplements.
NY Age-Restriction Law: CRN Petitions Supreme Court
The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) has petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upholding a New York law that restricts the sale of certain dietary supplements to minors based on how those products are labeled or marketed. According to CRN, the law represents a content-based restriction on speech because it is triggered by marketing claims—such as weight loss or muscle building—rather than by ingredient safety or demonstrated harm. The trade group argues the law broadly applies to products that are safe and beneficial, while failing to address potentially harmful ingredients.
The law took effect in April 2024 and prohibits the sale of supplements to individuals under 18 if they are marketed for weight loss or muscle building. CRN challenged the law in federal district court in March 2024, alleging it violates First Amendment protections for commercial speech. After the district court denied a preliminary injunction, the Second Circuit affirmed the decision in November 2025, finding the law met the legal standard for regulating commercial speech. CRN contends the court made its decision without requiring empirical evidence that the restriction would directly and materially advance the state’s public health goals and deferred to legislative judgment without adequately considering less restrictive alternatives.
CRN’s petition asks the Supreme Court to address whether restrictions on commercial speech can be upheld without evidence that they materially reduce harm, and whether courts may defer to legislative approaches without evaluating less speech-restrictive options.
“If this decision stands, it creates a dangerous roadmap for regulating products using speech as a proxy rather than evidence of actual harm caused by the product,” said Steve Mister, President & CEO of CRN. “That has serious implications not just for our members, but for any industry that communicates truthful information about lawful products. The First Amendment requires more than speculation or allowing truthful messages to become proxies for perceived harm. Legislatures should have more than a hunch or wishful thinking when they restrict speech.”
CRN also expressed appreciation to a coalition of organizations that have filed amicus curiae briefs in support of CRN’s writ of certiorari petition before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Taxpayers Protection Alliance Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, and the Pacific Legal Foundation have joined in urging the Court to review CRN’s challenge to the New York law. “This case is about far more than dietary supplements,” Mister said. “If governments can use speech as a proxy for harm without evidence, it creates a roadmap for restricting truthful communication in virtually any sector. We appreciate these organizations for recognizing those risks and lending their voices in defense of sound policy and constitutional protections.”
Misted added: “The First Amendment requires more than speculation when a legislature wants to restrict protected speech. We are encouraged to have such strong support as we ask the Supreme Court to reaffirm that principle and ensure that lawful products are not regulated based solely on how they are described.”
DSHEA Disclaimer Placement: CRN Citizen Petition Seeks Clarification
CRN announced the filing of a Citizen Petition with FDA seeking clarification on how the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) disclaimer may appear on dietary supplement labels. Submitted on CRN’s behalf by Venable LLP, the petition asks FDA to issue a Direct Final Rule confirming that supplement labels comply with federal requirements when they use a single boxed DSHEA disclaimer on one panel, while structure/function claims on other panels are linked to that disclaimer through an asterisk or similar symbol.
According to CRN, FDA has accepted this labeling approach for more than 25 years through inspections, warning letters, import reviews, and claim notifications without objection. The organization argues that the cross-panel asterisk system is consistent with both the regulation’s language and longstanding marketplace practices. CRN also noted that while FDA issued an enforcement discretion announcement in December 2025 recognizing this interpretation, ongoing litigation has continued to create uncertainty for supplement manufacturers.
“For more than 25 years, FDA has consistently reviewed and accepted this approach to labeling without objection,” said Mister. “Our petition simply asks the Agency to put into the regulation what has long been the practical and lawful standard in the marketplace…Consumers are already well accustomed to following asterisks on labels to find important qualifying information. This format is clear, effective, and consistent with how people actually read product labels.”
Todd Harrison, a Partner in Venable’s Washington, D.C. office, who helped prepare the petition, added: “Without clear regulatory confirmation, companies face unnecessary litigation risk despite decades of compliance with the FDA’s expectations. That uncertainty benefits no one—not consumers, not regulators, and not responsible manufacturers.”
CRN noted that its petition underscores that uniform national standards for dietary supplement labeling are critical to avoiding a patchwork of conflicting requirements and ensuring that FDA retains primary authority over enforcement.
Chronic Disease: ANH-USA Calls for Reform to Reverse the Crisis
The Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) announced the release of the Arizona Statement on Reversing America’s Chronic Disease Epidemic and Restoring Health Freedom, a national initiative calling for sweeping reforms to address the rise of chronic illness in the United States. Developed by a multidisciplinary group of leaders convened in Scottsdale, AZ, the statement is open for signatures from organizations, healthcare practitioners, researchers, policymakers, and the public. It outlines a framework focused on prevention, informed choice, scientific integrity, and expanded access to lower-risk health interventions.
The statement challenges what ANH-USA describes as a healthcare system overly reliant on late-stage pharmaceutical and procedural interventions that has failed to curb chronic disease. In its place, the Arizona Statement advocates for a prevention-first model emphasizing early intervention and root-cause strategies such as nutrition, lifestyle, and hygiene.
What is the Arizona Statement?
Among the priorities of the Arizona Statement:
_Protecting the free flow of truthful, non-misleading health information
_Expanding access to preventive and personalized care
_Modernizing legal definitions of “food” and “drug”
_Removing regulatory barriers that suppress innovation and fair competition
_Ensuring fair reimbursement for non-drug interventions
_Restoring public health fundamentals, including nutrition, sanitation, and lifestyle education
“America will not reverse the chronic disease epidemic while truthful health information is suppressed and effective preventive interventions remain obstructed,” said Rob Verkerk, Ph.D., Executive and Scientific Director of ANH-USA. “The Arizona Statement lays out a clear path forward: Remove the bureaucratic barriers that protect entrenched commercial interests, restore scientific integrity and informed choice, and create a regulatory framework that is genuinely fit for purpose.”
ANH-USA noted that, while chronic disease has received heightened attention nationally, including from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., “federal policy continues to lag behind the rhetoric, leaving intact a system that favors late-stage intervention over prevention, restricts informed choice, and limits access to safer, lower-risk options.” The organization added: “Recent policy battles, including efforts to shield pesticide manufacturers from liability, underscore the widening gap between public promises to ‘Make America Healthy Again’ [MAHA] and the reforms required to make that goal real. The Arizona Statement is intended to help close that gap by offering a concrete, actionable blueprint for reform grounded in prevention, transparency, open competition, and health freedom.”
“Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” Seal: EWG Co-Sponsors New Proposal in CA
The California State Assembly Committee on Health advanced Assembly Bill 2244, which would establish a first-of-its-kind state certification program and label for foods that are not considered ultra-processed. The bill, co-sponsored by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), aims to create a “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” seal to help consumers more easily identify qualifying products. The program would be overseen by the California Department of Public Health, which would accredit independent third-party certification agents responsible for verifying compliance with the state’s standards.
Under the proposal, products would be ineligible for the label if they meet California’s legal definition of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) or are already restricted in public schools. Certified products would require recertification at least every three years, and the state would maintain oversight through registration requirements, audits, and a publicly accessible list of approved items. The bill also includes retail provisions requiring large food stores meeting certain revenue and inventory thresholds to give prominent placement to certified products, such as at store entrances or checkout areas.
“Parents shouldn’t need a Ph.D. in chemistry to understand what they’re feeding their kids,” said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, who introduced the bill.“AB 2244 will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to locate healthier foods that are free from harmful additives. This new seal doesn’t limit consumer choice, it just makes informed choice possible.”
Supporters say the measure is intended to improve transparency and make it easier for consumers to identify less processed options, while establishing a standardized, state-verified labeling system backed by enforcement mechanisms and disclosure requirements.
FAQ: Natural products industry regulatory updates
What is the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act?
The bill would reinforce FDA authority over dietary supplement regulation and seek to prevent conflicting state-by-state requirements.
Why is CRN challenging New York’s supplement law?
The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) contends the law restricts lawful products based on marketing language rather than ingredient safety or demonstrated harm.
What is a DSHEA disclaimer?
A DSHEA disclaimer is the required statement noting that FDA has not evaluated certain structure/function claims made on dietary supplement labels.
What is the Arizona Statement focused on?
The statement advocates for prevention-first healthcare, informed choice, scientific integrity, and expanded access to lower-risk interventions.
What is California AB 2244?
AB 2244 is proposed legislation that would establish a “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” label for qualifying foods in California.