Washington, D.C.—The introduction of the Dietary Supplement Listing Act of 2026 by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) has renewed a long-running debate within the natural products industry over the role of mandatory product listing in dietary supplement oversight (background: Durbin Introduces Dietary Supplement Listing Act of 2024; Dietary Supplement Listing Act of 2022 Introduced, Industry Divided). While some in the industry view the proposal as a transparency-focused update to the existing regulatory framework, others argue it would expand the authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), increase costs, and burden responsible manufacturers without delivering clear public health benefits.
The bill would require supplement manufacturers, packers, or distributors to submit basic product information already included on labels—such as product names, ingredient lists, directions for use, allergen statements, and electronic copies of labels—to FDA. The bill directs FDA to create a publicly searchable database while protecting confidential business information and proprietary blend quantities.
CRN: Federal registry is a transparency tool—not a barrier to innovation
The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), which describes the legislation as a milestone in CRN's more than decade-long effort to establish a federal dietary supplement registry, said the bill preserves the existing Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) framework and does not authorize FDA to require that supplements get premarket approval.
“In an era when the Administration has rightly called for more transparency about what we eat and how food is made, it makes sense to apply that same transparency to dietary supplements,” said Steve Mister, President & CEO of CRN. “Consumers deserve to know what products are on the market and what they contain—and FDA needs that same information to do its job effectively.”
CRN has emphasized that FDA currently lacks a comprehensive inventory of dietary supplements on the market and has argued that a well-designed listing system would allow the agency to better focus enforcement on unsafe or illegal products rather than compliant companies. CRN also points to public support for transparency, citing a 2019 Pew Charitable Trusts survey in which nearly nine in 10 U.S. adults favored requiring manufacturers to provide FDA with product and ingredient information.
“Creating a federal registry is a transparency tool—not a barrier to innovation,” Mister added. “It aligns squarely with the Administration’s broader transparency goals and strengthens consumer trust without limiting access or disrupting responsible manufacturers.”
NPA: Americans don’t need D.C. micromanaging their supplement cabinet
In addition, Dr. Fabricant stated, there are other issues that require industry's attention: "NPA is perplexed that industry advocates would make mandatory product listing a priority, amid the most pressing opportunities and challenges facing ingredient suppliers, manufacturers of finished products and retailers. NPA remains focused on countering growing threats from state legislatures to restrict and regulate legitimate supplements, addressing the 'drug preclusion' clause in DSHEA, expanding consumer access to science-based products that promote health and wellness, and ensuring that FDA moves expeditiously against bad actors. Mandatory product listing will not achieve—and in some cases, will even undermine —those objectives."
AHPA: There is no clear benefit public health
Also expressing concerns, the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) announced its opposition to the latest iteration of the Dietary Supplement Listing Act, noting that AHPA also opposed earlier versions of the legislation. While AHPA stated it is not opposed to the concept of mandatory product listing in principle, the association said advocates have not sufficiently articulated how the current proposal would deliver tangible consumer benefits or meaningfully enhance FDA’s existing enforcement authorities, particularly with respect to drug-spiked products marketed as supplements.
AHPA also raised concerns about the impact on small businesses and reiterated its support for statutory amendments that protect consumers without placing undue burdens on responsible manufacturers. “AHPA remains committed to protecting public health and fostering a transparent, innovative dietary supplement industry,” said AHPA President & CEO Graham Rigby. “We will continue our direct engagement with FDA and Congress to develop meaningful, common-sense reforms that increase accountability and modernize our regulatory framework to meet the needs of today’s dietary supplement marketplace and consumers.”
ANH-USA: A mandatory listing would shrink consumer choice
The Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) also opposed the bill, warning that mandatory listing would "shrink consumer choice, raise prices, and give the FDA sweeping new powers to sideline safe, effective supplements under the guise of safety." ANH-USA argued that supplements have a strong safety record and stated there is no public health crisis warranting expanded FDA authority. According to the organization, a comprehensive registry could be used to identify, target, and remove products—particularly high-dose nutrients, potent botanicals, and innovative formulations that compete with drugs—based on FDA interpretations. ANH-USA further contended that increased compliance costs would favor pharmaceutical drugs over natural products and lead to reduced product availability.
