by Kyle Turk
October 16, 2025
In recent years, we’ve seen a troubling trend emerge across the country. State legislatures have introduced bills that seek to ban access to certain dietary supplements or impose new labeling requirements that conflict with federal law.
These proposals threaten to unravel decades of an established national regulatory structure and create chaos for consumers and businesses.
The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), amended by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), makes clear that dietary supplements are principally regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Federal Trade Commission also is responsible for regulating and policing advertising, including infomercials, for dietary supplement products.
This national framework ensures uniform standards for advertising, manufacturing, labeling and safety — providing confidence for consumers and predictability for businesses.
Congress designed this system precisely to avoid a patchwork of state laws that would make compliance virtually impossible and limit consumer choice. FDA, not 50 separate state agencies, holds the authority to determine the safety of dietary supplement products, how they must be labeled, and when enforcement action is warranted.
Proposals emerging in states like California, Massachusetts and New York — restricting consumer access to supplements such as creatine, green tea extract, or weight management formulas — represent regulatory overreach. These bills not only misjudge how dietary supplements are regulated but also violate the principle of federal preemption.
By attempting to impose state-specific restrictions or warning labels, lawmakers are venturing into territory reserved exclusively for FDA. The FD&C Act preempts state labeling requirements that are “different from or in addition to” federal standards, and for good reason. Without preemption, companies would face conflicting requirements, stifling innovation and driving up costs that ultimately hurt consumers.
Dietary supplements are a vital part of public health and used by over 80% of Americans to support their well-being. Uniform national regulation ensures that these products are held to consistent standards — whether sold in Alaska, California, Florida or Oregon. This consistency gives consumers confidence that the supplements they buy are subject to the same safety and quality requirements nationwide. It also prevents a race to the bottom in which differing state mandates could either restrict access or weaken consumer protections.
Allowing states to dictate supplement labeling or ingredient access would create confusion, limit product availability, and undermine the very system that Congress established over 30 years ago to protect consumers and promote wide access to supplements.
Simply put, there should be one regulator for dietary supplements, not 51.
The Natural Products Association continues to advocate for strong, science-based regulation of dietary supplements under federal law. We support appropriate FDA enforcement against bad actors who sell adulterated and misbranded products.
But NPA opposes attempts by states to reinvent the wheel or politicize consumer access to safe, federally regulated dietary supplement products.
Preserving access, consistency and consumer confidence requires a single, unified regulatory framework. That’s why dietary supplement regulation belongs with FDA, exclusively under federal law, and not in 50 different statehouses.
Kyle Turk is Vice President of Government Affairs with the Natural Products Association in Washington, D.C. You can reach him at kturk@npanational.org.