Thirty years after the landmark passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton in October 1994, the dietary supplement industry continues to navigate a complex and evolving political terrain. The legislation, a product of significant bipartisan effort and advocacy, fundamentally reshaped the regulatory framework for dietary supplements, fostering an era of unprecedented growth and innovation. However, the very conditions that enabled DSHEA’s creation—a more collegial legislative environment and the rise of influential individual champions—have largely receded, leaving the industry to adapt to a more fragmented and top-down political system.
The success of DSHEA is inextricably linked to the vision and dedication of its key architects on Capitol Hill, most notably Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Their leadership was instrumental in shepherding a controversial bill through a divided Congress, establishing a precedent that emphasized the crucial role of “political champions” in shaping policy for an industry positioned between the stringent regulations of pharmaceuticals and the more permissive oversight of food products. This period is often referred to by industry stakeholders as a “golden era” of legislative support, characterized by a bottom-up approach to lawmaking where grassroots advocacy and the influence of committee chairs played a pivotal role.
The Fading Echoes of a Bipartisan Past
In 1994, the legislative process often began at the committee level, driven by dedicated lawmakers and fueled by the energy of grassroots movements. For DSHEA, this meant a concerted effort by industry groups and consumer advocates to galvanize support by highlighting potential threats of governmental overreach on natural products. The prevailing political climate, which allowed for earmarks and empowered committee chairs, was conducive to passing standalone, impactful legislation like DSHEA.
“Those champions of old were able to enact standalone pieces of legislation that were impactful,” observed Kyle Turk, Vice President of Government Affairs at the Natural Products Association (NPA). “Now everything becomes an omnibus, which makes it more difficult to stay germane to an issue.” This shift reflects a broader transformation in Washington, D.C., where legislative agendas are increasingly dictated by party leadership in the House and Senate, creating a top-down structure that can marginalize individual initiatives.
This new political reality presents a significant challenge for the dietary supplement industry. Unlike pharmaceuticals, which contribute user fees to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the supplement industry operates under a different financial model. Furthermore, having benefited from the foundational legislation of DSHEA, the industry is not actively seeking a sweeping overhaul of its regulatory framework. Instead, its focus has become more technical and tactical, requiring targeted engagement with specific legislative leaders rather than the cultivation of a singular, overarching industry champion.
The impact of DSHEA on the industry has been profound. It is credited with sparking significant growth and innovation, allowing a diverse range of products to reach consumers. However, critics point to the lower barriers to entry that DSHEA established, which some argue have allowed less scrupulous actors to enter the market. Regardless of one’s perspective, DSHEA represented a singular legislative moment that is unlikely to be replicated in the current political climate. “The most significant difference between then and now is the makeup of Congress and the mechanics of how it operates,” Turk explained. “It’s more difficult for champions to separate themselves now.”
The Elusive Search for the Next Supplements Champion
Following the influential tenures of Senators Hatch and Harkin, the industry has actively sought to identify successors who could fill their shoes. Upon his retirement in 2015, Senator Harkin publicly signaled his endorsement of Senator Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico) as a potential successor, even facilitating a meeting in Senator Hatch’s office. Senator Heinrich became actively involved with the supplement industry, joining the Dietary Supplement Caucus and focusing on enforcing existing DSHEA provisions rather than seeking major legislative changes. While he has been a consistent supporter, his rise to the status of a definitive “champion” has not fully materialized.
Subsequent retirements, such as that of Senator Hatch in 2019, further shifted the landscape. Representative Mia Love (R-Utah), who was strategically positioned in a state with a strong industry presence, lost her election in 2019 and tragically passed away from cancer shortly thereafter. Over the years, a handful of names have emerged with each new congressional session, with some gaining traction and others fading. Many promising lawmakers who showed an interest in supplement policy have either been unsuccessful in their re-election bids or have moved to different legislative priorities.
Examples include Representative Tony Cárdenas (D-California), who served on the influential Committee on Energy and Commerce but chose not to seek re-election in 2025, and Representative Jeff Duncan (R-South Carolina). While Representative Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey) now serves as Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, his alignment with Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), a vocal critic of the supplement industry advocating for increased FDA authority, presents a different dynamic. It is noteworthy, however, that leading industry associations are now engaging directly with Senator Durbin’s office on issues such as product listing and transparency, indicating a shift towards proactive dialogue even with perceived adversaries.
The reality is that no single individual has emerged to command the same level of influence as Hatch and Harkin in the post-DSHEA era. This is not solely due to a lack of effort by the industry but also a reflection of the diminished need for a singular “champion” in an industry that has matured and a political environment that makes the emergence of such figures exceedingly difficult.
Loren Israelsen, founder and president of the United Natural Products Alliance (UNPA), suggests a reevaluation of the term “champion.” “‘Champions’ come along once in 50 years or so,” he stated. “I think we’d be better served to use other terms. The industry needs legislators now who can serve effectively as leaders, supporters, and advocates.” This sentiment is echoed by Steve Mister, president and CEO of the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN). “There’s a broader bench, rather than a single standout successor,” Mister observed.
The Evolving Role of Advocacy: From Singular Champions to a Broader Bench
In the absence of dominant figures, the focus has shifted to a more distributed approach to advocacy, often centered around groups like the resurrected Dietary Supplement Caucus (DSC). This bipartisan caucus provides a platform for lawmakers to engage on supplement policy. Key figures within the DSC include Senators Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico) and John Curtis (R-Utah), and in the House, Representatives Mike Kennedy (R-Utah) and Marc Veasey (D-Texas).
“Historically, lawmakers from Utah and other states with a strong industry presence continue to be engaged,” Mister noted. “Overall, there is bipartisan interest and activity, even if it doesn’t center on a single ‘champion.’” This collaborative approach leverages the collective influence of multiple lawmakers rather than relying on the singular power of one individual.
Beyond the established caucus members, other lawmakers are emerging as influential voices. Senators Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) and Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), along with Representative Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), have demonstrated interest and engagement. Crapo, in particular, recently delivered a compelling speech about his personal wellness journey at a conference, underscoring the potential for personal narratives to transform lawmakers into influential supporters, and potentially, champions.
As Mister aptly put it, “Champions are rarely something you can plan for – they tend to emerge when the moment calls for it. Today, the landscape is different, and what’s notable is the collection of bipartisan voices engaging on supplement policy – through the caucus, committees and sponsorship of targeted legislation.”
Navigating a Polarized Political Climate
The challenges in identifying singular champions are further exacerbated by the current highly polarized political climate. “There’s not a lot of center-aisle legislation happening anymore,” commented Daniel Fabricant, Ph.D., CEO and president of the NPA. “The politics are catering more to the whims of the different fringes of each party now.” This division makes it difficult for centrist lawmakers, who might have once served as bridges between industries and different legislative factions, to gain traction. Senior politicians often find themselves pulled towards their party’s base, leaving less room for bipartisan consensus-building on issues that don’t align with dominant party platforms.
The longevity of DSHEA itself also contributes to the shift in advocacy needs. The industry is no longer seeking fundamental legislative change but rather targeted adjustments to address contemporary issues that were unforeseen when DSHEA was enacted 30 years ago. “To me, ‘champion’ infers actively working to achieve specific and significant legislative change,” explained Israelsen. “That’s not the ask right now. Major legislation or amendments to DSHEA are not currently on our horizon line. The needs now are more administrative and nuanced.”
The CRN concurs, emphasizing the growing network of lawmakers supporting the industry’s complex needs. “The law does not need a major overhaul, only targeted revisions to address particular issues that didn’t exist 32 years ago,” Mister stated. “In today’s environment, any DSHEA reforms would likely be led by a bipartisan group rather than one or two dominant figures. In short, future ‘championship’ is likely to be shared.”
The daily work of lobbying and advocacy remains a critical component of the industry’s engagement strategy. The Dietary Supplement Caucus is actively engaged, and organizations like CRN and NPA regularly conduct “Day on the Hill” events, bringing industry representatives to Washington, D.C., to educate lawmakers and their staff. CRN’s next Day on the Hill is scheduled for June 10, and NPA’s next Fly-in Day will occur on May 12, highlighting ongoing grassroots efforts.
However, the effectiveness of these grassroots initiatives is amplified by financial contributions. As the dietary supplement industry continues to grow into a multi-billion dollar sector, attracting significant investment and consumer attention, its political engagement must mature accordingly. The adage, often attributed to Theodore Roosevelt, “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care,” speaks volumes on Capitol Hill, implying the importance of campaign contributions in demonstrating commitment and influence. The supplement industry, while growing in economic significance, still lags in its political giving relative to its size.
“We need both now, the grassroots and the top-down, to influence leadership agendas,” urged Fabricant. “There are 6,000 associations in D.C., all fighting for oxygen. As an industry, we’ll see thousands gather at a trade show but a couple of hundred for a fly-in day. That’s not mature behavior.” This suggests a need for greater industry-wide participation in political advocacy to effectively compete for policymakers’ attention.
Emerging Outliers and the Future of Supplement Advocacy
In this post-champion era, the dietary supplement industry is encouraged to maintain an open mind regarding where new leadership may emerge. While caucuses and lobbying efforts build a foundation, unexpected figures can rise to prominence. A notable example is freshman Congressman Nick Langworthy (R-New York), who recently sponsored federal preemption legislation. This initiative aims to establish a uniform national standard for supplement regulations, thereby preempting a growing number of disparate and potentially conflicting state-level bills.
“I look at Congressman Langworthy as a great example of an outlier,” said Turk. “His office saw some white space with dietary supplements, and we were able to educate him, not just on the issues facing the supplement industry, but how they directly impact his constituents.” This situation exemplifies how proactive education and highlighting constituent impact can transform a lawmaker’s understanding and engagement with a particular industry.
The current political climate may be characterized by divisiveness and volatility, but the pathway for future champions often begins with an issue that resonates and a desire to make a significant impact. As the dietary supplement industry continues to evolve, its advocacy efforts will likely mirror this evolution, moving from a reliance on singular, powerful figures to a more diversified and collaborative approach, leveraging a broader bench of supportive lawmakers and engaging proactively in the complex political machinery of Washington, D.C. The success of DSHEA may have been a product of a bygone era of legislative politics, but the lessons learned continue to inform the industry’s ongoing journey to secure its place and ensure its future.