Takeaways: Dietary Supplement Listing Act H.R. 8370
|
Washington, D.C.—In April, Rep. Maxine Dexter, M.D. (D-Ore.), a physician serving in Congress, introduced the Dietary Supplement Listing Act (H.R. 8370) in the United States House of Representatives. The bill calls for requiring dietary supplement manufacturers to register their products with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
“More than three-quarters of Americans take dietary supplements,” said Dr. Dexter in a press release from her office. “As a physician, I’ve seen countless patients assume these products are vetted for safety. Unfortunately, our regulatory bodies don’t have access to the most basic information about these products. My common sense legislation brings transparency to consumers and regulators alike to keep our communities safe.”
The Dietary Supplement Listing Act would require companies to provide FDA with information about their products, including:
- product names
- a list of all ingredients
- an electronic copy of the label
- allergen statements
- health and structure/function claims
This legislation is a companion bill to the January 2026 introduction of the Dietary Supplement Listing Act of 2026 by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) (background: Industry Reacts to Dietary Supplement Listing Act of 2026).
While some in the industry view the proposals as a transparency-focused update to the existing regulatory framework, others argue it would expand the authority of FDA, increase costs, and burden responsible manufacturers without delivering clear public health benefits.
NPA: The "misguided" bill is "deeply flawed and unnecessary"
The Natural Products Association (NPA) condemned the bill, warning that it would "impose sweeping new federal burdens on dietary supplement manufacturers at the very moment the industry is confronting an accelerating wave of state-level efforts to restrict consumer access."
NPA said there is no credible evidence that FDA currently lacks the authority or information it needs to effectively oversee the dietary supplement marketplace and protect public health. In reality, NPA argued, FDA has "extensive tools to monitor safety, enforce compliance, remove dangerous products from U.S. commerce, and target bad actors through civil and criminal actions."
Another concern raised by NPA: Under the legislation, FDA would be required to build and maintain a centralized electronic database of dietary supplement products. NPA says regulatory compliance could lead to legal exposure for companies acting in good faith, arguing that the database could be weaponized by plaintiff’s attorneys to "pursue opportunistic claims based on highly technical or unsettled interpretations of FDA law and state consumer protection statutes."
“This misguided bill would only divert critical resources away from scientific research, product innovation and quality improvements, ultimately slowing development of the next generation of dietary supplements that consumers rely on to promote their health,” said Daniel Fabricant, Ph.D., President and CEO of NPA. “At a time when U.S. policymakers should be focused on clarifying regulations and strengthening federal uniformity, this bill is in search of a problem and would create unnecessary requirements, increase the risks of frivolous litigation, and undermine innovation across the industry.”
CRN: FDA Supplement Registry Would Increase Transparency and Consumer Trust
The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) welcomed Rep. Dexter’s introduction of a House version of the Dietary Supplement Listing Act as a move that furthers CRN's commitment to bringing accountability to the supplement marketplace through a public registry of labels that strengthens FDA oversight.
According to CRN, the legislation would:
- Increase transparency across the marketplace
- Strengthen FDA oversight and enable faster action against bad actors
- Build consumer trust through accessible product information
- Level the playing field for responsible companies
- Provide retailers with greater confidence in the products they sell
"For too long, gaps in visibility have allowed bad actors to exploit the marketplace—introducing adulterated or misbranded products that undermine consumer trust and tarnish the reputation of responsible companies," said Steve Mister, President and CEO of CRN. "A federal dietary supplement registry is a commonsense solution designed to shine sunlight into the marketplace, enabling FDA to more efficiently identify problems and for retailers to better curate their offerings with quality products.
Regarding the argument that FDA already has sufficient visibility to the marketplace, Mister countered: "The agency itself has repeatedly stated it does not have a comprehensive view of products currently on the market. Product listing directly addresses that gap without altering the fundamental framework of DSHEA or restricting consumer access. Feigned objections about increased litigation risk or regulatory burden from exposing product information similarly miss the mark as other databases and online platforms already disclose identifying information, just not all in one place, and CRN’s own Supplement OWL demonstrates proof of concept with minimal burden on industry. Providing that information to FDA in a standardized format is a reasonable expectation in a $60+ billion marketplace that serves nearly three-quarters of American adults."
Mister also acknowledged some differences between Rep. Dexter’s legislation and the one introduced by Durbin, which CRN also supports, and added, "both bills share the goal of enhancing consumer trust in the industry without sacrificing the foundational goals of DSHEA. CRN is pleased to see bicameral interest in this issue and looks forward to working with Rep. Dexter to address the differences and advance her legislation."
Industry Advocacy Intensifies Around Mandatory Supplement Product Listing
Looking ahead, NPA members will gather in Washington, D.C., for NPA’s Fly-In Day on May 12, with a focus on supporting:
- The Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act, which NPA explains would prevent states from imposing conflicting and restrictive requirements on dietary supplements that undermine federal oversight and limit consumer access to these products.
- Legislative reform of the clause in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) that creates a race to market between dietary supplements and FDA-approved or investigated drugs. "As interpreted by FDA, the drug preclusion clause has created confusion about the legality of dietary supplement products in the U.S. market and threatened to impede ingredient innovation," NPA said.
- Expanding consumer access to dietary supplements through health savings accounts (HSA) and flexible spending accounts (FSA), through legislation or reforms in the executive branch.
- Opposition to mandatory dietary supplement product listing (MPL), which NPA says would not only undermine investments in science but also frustrate efforts to block state legislators from burdening manufacturers with age-gating restrictions.
"Dietary supplement policy should be grounded in science, risk-based oversight and regulatory consistency, not duplicative or otherwise unwarranted mandates that burden the industry while doing little to address the real sources of consumer harm," NPA shared. "NPA has launched a grassroots campaign where industry advocates are encouraged to write to their members of Congress, requesting that they oppose mandatory product listing."
CRN also is hosting an advocacy event: CRN's 2026 Day on the Hill, taking place June 10. The event is an opportunity to engage directly with policymakers, share the value of dietary supplements, and help advance policies that support consumer access and industry innovation.
And in May, CRN announced the launch of a new social media campaign, “Sergeant Searchlight,” to raise awareness about the urgent need for greater transparency in the dietary supplement marketplace through the Dietary Supplement Product Listing Act. Sergeant Searchlight is described as a superhero fighting for transparency and accountability serving as the personification of the legislation introduced by Sen. Durbin and Rep. Dexter.
CRN is canvassing Capitol Hill with Sergeant Searchlight’s messaging on how "the Dietary Supplement Listing Act shines a light on what matters and mitigates 'The Aisle of Darkness,' a critical gap in the current system: there is no comprehensive, product registry of dietary supplements currently on the market." The campaign will roll out across CRN’s social media platforms, featuring educational Q&A content, a comic-style storyline illustrating real-world consumer challenges, and calls to action to support transparency in the supplement market.
“Consumers deserve clarity, regulators need visibility, retailers want guidance, and responsible companies should not have to compete with marketers who operate in the shadows,” said Mister. “Sergeant Searchlight brings this issue to life in a way that is engaging, memorable, and grounded in a serious policy need: ensuring that every supplement on the market is known to FDA.”
FAQ: Mandatory product listing of supplements
What is the Dietary Supplement Listing Act?
The Dietary Supplement Listing Act is proposed federal legislation that would require dietary supplement manufacturers to register products with FDA and provide product labels, ingredient lists, allergen statements, and claims information.
Who introduced the Dietary Supplement Listing Act of 2026?
Rep. Maxine Dexter, D-Ore., introduced the House version of the legislation in April 2026 as H.R. 8370. Sen. Dick Durbin introduced companion legislation in the Senate earlier in the year.
What would mandatory product listing require?
Manufacturers would need to submit product information to FDA, including labels, ingredients, allergen disclosures, and structure/function claims.
Why does CRN support mandatory product listing?
CRN argues the policy would improve transparency, strengthen FDA oversight, help retailers identify responsible brands, and build consumer trust.
Why does NPA oppose the bill?
NPA contends FDA already has sufficient authority under DSHEA and argues the proposal would increase costs, create litigation risk, and burden responsible manufacturers.
