The newest legislative development in this evolving landscape is California’s Assembly Bill 2030 (AB 2030), signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 2, 2026. This bill introduces significant restrictions on the sale of certain dietary supplements and over-the-counter diet pills, specifically targeting consumers under the age of 18. AB 2030 prohibits the sale of dietary supplements "labeled, marketed or otherwise represented for weight loss or muscle-building" and over-the-counter diet pills to minors, with a narrow exception for those possessing a valid prescription. The legislation mandates age-verification requirements for both retail and remote sales and empowers authorities to levy civil penalties of up to $500 per violation.
Governor Newsom’s signature on AB 2030 marks a shift from his previous stance. He had vetoed an earlier iteration of the legislation. However, his prior objections were reportedly rooted in concerns about the administrative and enforcement challenges of the bill, rather than a disagreement with its underlying premise. Sources close to the administration suggested that Newsom’s veto was not an endorsement of unrestricted access to these products for young people, but rather a question of practical implementation. This suggests a willingness to explore pathways that achieve the intended protective measures, even if the initial legislative approach proved problematic. The governor’s eventual approval indicates a perceived necessity to address potential risks associated with these products for a vulnerable demographic.
The Growing Influence of STRIPED and the Eating Disorders Nexus
The impetus behind AB 2030, and similar legislative efforts, can be largely attributed to the advocacy and research conducted by STRIPED (Strategic Training Initiative for the Prevention of Eating Disorders), an academic group affiliated with Harvard University. Led by academic Bryn Austin, STRIPED has been instrumental in raising awareness about the potential link between the consumption of weight-loss and muscle-building supplements and the development of disordered eating patterns among adolescents.
In a 2022 communication with SupplySide Supplement Journal regarding an earlier version of the California bill, Austin articulated the group’s concerns: "The scientific research on the dangers of using weight-loss supplements is as incontrovertible as it is chilling: These products have been found again and again to contain a toxic brew of undisclosed ingredients linked to heart palpitations, cardiac arrest, stroke and even liver damage so extensive as to require organ transplant or resulting in death." This stark portrayal of potential health consequences has resonated with policymakers and fueled legislative action. The emphasis on "undisclosed ingredients" is particularly concerning from a regulatory standpoint, as it highlights a potential breakdown in product safety and transparency, irrespective of the intended use of the supplement.
A Patchwork of State Regulations: New York’s Precedent and Industry Challenges
California’s AB 2030 is not an isolated incident. It follows a similar legislative path taken by New York State, where a comparable law has already been enacted. This New York legislation has faced significant legal challenges, notably from the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), an influential trade association representing the dietary supplement industry. CRN’s challenge has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, with the organization arguing that the New York law infringes upon First Amendment rights. CRN contends that the law unfairly targets products based on their marketing language and the presence of certain ingredients, rather than on concrete scientific evidence demonstrating the actual harm caused by specific products.
The industry’s broader dispute with the scientific premise linking weight-loss or muscle-building supplements to an increased risk of eating disorders is a central point of contention. Steve Mister, president and CEO of CRN, expressed his disappointment with California’s legislative outcome: "This is a deeply disappointing outcome for consumers and responsible businesses, and a missed opportunity for California to pursue a more thoughtful approach," Mister stated. "Protecting young people from eating disorders is an important objective that we share. But that objective deserves policies grounded in evidence – not broad restrictions that cast suspicion on lawful products without establishing that those restrictions will address the problem." This highlights a core industry argument: that regulations should be product-specific and evidence-based, rather than broad-stroke prohibitions that could impact legitimate products and businesses.
Daniel Fabricant, president and CEO of the Natural Products Association (NPA), echoed these sentiments, linking the California bill to a broader trend of state-level regulatory actions. "California’s enactment of AB 2030 should be a warning sign for the dietary supplement industry nationwide," Fabricant cautioned. "When individual states begin creating their own restrictions for products that are already subject to a comprehensive federal regulatory framework, the result is an increasingly unworkable patchwork of conflicting requirements for manufacturers, retailers and consumers." Fabricant noted that, in addition to New York and California, significant legislative activity concerning similar age-restriction bills is underway in at least five other states, underscoring the escalating nature of this regulatory trend.
The Convergence of Trends Driving State-Level Legislation
Loren Israelsen, president of the United Natural Products Alliance (UNPA), offered a broader perspective on the confluence of factors driving this surge in state-level legislative action. He emphasized that age-restriction bills are merely one component of a larger movement that is drawing together diverse political ideologies to enact change through state-specific legislation.
A notable example of this broader trend occurred on September 28, 2026, when Governor Newsom also signed into law a bill establishing a "non-UPF" (Ultra-Processed Foods) label for food products marketed in California. Israelsen pointed out that addressing the health implications of ultra-processed foods, particularly their purported links to obesity and chronic health issues, has been a consistent theme in public health discourse. The passage of such a law in a state often considered politically progressive underscores the increasingly complex and sometimes contradictory nature of contemporary policy-making.
Historically, progressive or "blue" state legislatures have been more receptive to the concept of enhanced regulatory oversight for public health and safety. Israelsen drew parallels between the successful advocacy for cannabis legalization, which initially gained traction in blue states, and the current wave of age-restriction bills. He suggested that these legislative successes are creating a roadmap for other advocacy groups seeking to influence policy at the state level.
"It’s something of a perfect storm scenario," Israelsen told SupplySide Supplement Journal. He alluded to the influence of political figures and public health advocates who have made consumer protection a central tenet of their platforms. "When repetitive voices like STRIPED consistently point on this message that our kids are being exposed to unregulated supplements, it creates a ferment that then creates a political motivation to take action at the state level."
Israelsen further elaborated on the potential political underpinnings, suggesting a dynamic where federal action might be perceived as slow, prompting a shift to state-level initiatives. "The trigger point was the arrival of RFK Jr. to say, ‘I am the messenger to tell you that change is coming.’ He got to Washington and then discovered that the wheels of government act much more slowly than the MAHA people were expecting," Israelsen stated, referencing a political movement focused on health and wellness. "He then went to the place that I think you should never go. He went to the states and gave them the green light to say, ‘If you support the Trump administration, you should pass these laws yourself.’ Now you have states competing to see who can be the fastest to pass this legislation." This perspective suggests a strategic leveraging of state legislative processes to achieve policy objectives, potentially influenced by broader political alignments.
Supporting this observation, data from the lobbying firm Multistate indicates that 15 states are currently enacting or considering legislation related to ultra-processed foods, demonstrating the widespread nature of this regulatory focus.
A Call for Industry Consolidation and Federal Preeminence
Graham Rigby, president and CEO of the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA), concurred with the assessment that various factors are converging to drive state-based legislation affecting the dietary supplement and natural products industries. He highlighted that consumer motivations for pursuing health and wellness transcend political affiliations. "When consumers are pursuing their health and wellness goals they are not thinking about political parties," Rigby said. "We have seen these kinds of bills in both red and blue states."
Rigby stressed the critical need for the industry to coalesce around unified messaging to effectively counter these emerging trends. "What we need to do as an industry is to consolidate around sensible reform where it makes sense. Congress gave the authority to regulate dietary supplements to FDA. It was not envisioned that there would be 50 different sets of rules," he asserted. This statement underscores a fundamental concern about regulatory fragmentation and the desire for a consistent, federally governed framework.
The precedent set by California’s AB 2030 is likely to have a ripple effect. Rigby concluded, "California passing this bill will certainly inspire other states to think about similar things next year. This will require focused attention from industry next year and for years to come." This outlook suggests that the current legislative wave is not a temporary phenomenon but a sustained challenge that will demand ongoing vigilance and strategic engagement from industry stakeholders. The industry’s response, whether through lobbying, legal challenges, or proactive self-regulation, will be crucial in shaping the future regulatory environment for dietary supplements and natural products. The current trend points towards an increasing complexity and cost of doing business if a harmonized approach is not established.
