Introduced March 4 in the Rhode Island General Assembly and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee, Senate Bill 2774 would amend state law related to children and establish restrictions governing the sale of “over-the-counter diet pills” and “dietary supplements for weight loss or muscle building.”
Bill would prohibit supplement sales to minors
The legislation states that “no person shall sell or offer to sell or give away, as either a retail or wholesale promotion, an over-the-counter diet pill or dietary supplement for weight loss or muscle building to any person under eighteen (18) years of age.”
Retailers selling these products would also be required to restrict customer access. Under the bill, “any retail establishment that sells over-the-counter diet pills or dietary supplements for weight loss or muscle building shall limit access to such products in a manner designed to prevent unauthorized access.”
Specifically, the legislation states that “such products shall not be directly accessible by customers,” but rather only by retail employees in secure locations, such as a locked case or behind a counter.
Courts could impose “a civil penalty of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000)” if violations occur.
Rhode Island proposal reflects growing state legislative trend
The Rhode Island bill is the latest in a series of state proposals seeking to restrict youth access to certain dietary supplements, particularly those marketed for weight loss or muscle building.
Similar measures have been introduced in multiple states in recent years, most recently in states like Hawaii, Alaska, California, and Connecticut, that would place age restrictions on certain supplement purchases and retail access.
Speaking to NutraIngredients, Kyle Turk, vice president of government affairs at the Natural Products Association, revealed that although “there hasn’t been a ton of movement on these bills recently,” legislative activity remains uneven so far in 2026, with some proposals continuing to move through committees.
He pointed to Hawaii as the “most notable development...where the proposal was voted out of its initial committee and has now been referred to a second committee for further consideration.”
Despite slower activity in some states, he added that the issue remains active across several legislatures.
“The relative lack of activity shouldn’t be interpreted as the issue being resolved or the industry ‘winning’ at this stage,” Turk said. “Many of these proposals tend to move in bursts late in the legislative process, and we continue to monitor a number of states where similar concepts have been introduced or discussed.”
He further noted that the growing number of state proposals highlights concerns about the potential for a fragmented regulatory environment, characterizing Rhode Island’s SB 2774 and its cohort as “similar misguided bills” being introduced nationwide that “reinforce the importance of securing strong federal preemption to prevent the emergence of a fragmented regulatory landscape for supplements.”
Turk said that federal legislation could help address those concerns.
“This dynamic underscores why federal action remains so important,” he said, referencing Rep. Nick Langworthy’s Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act, introduced early last month, as a “critical step toward reaffirming clear federal preemption and preventing a growing patchwork of state-by-state restrictions on dietary supplements.”
Without clearer federal guidance, Turk added, both companies and consumers could face increasing uncertainty.
