The law, which also takes on ultra-processed foods, high-sugar content and Big Tobacco, bans the sale of over-the-counter diet pills or dietary supplements for weight loss or muscle building to anyone under 18 years of age.
“We should be about healthcare, not sick care, recognizing that preventing illnesses is far preferable to finding—and affording—treatments,” Governor Newsom shared in a press statement. “It’s why California is focused on making whole, healthy foods as accessible as possible, why we’re making healthier choices easier. California has never been afraid to challenge the status quo, and we’ll keep innovating, trying new things and clearing the way for the rest of the country to follow.
Framing the initiative as “keeping harmful substances out of kids’ hands”, the governor’s office highlighted that nonprescribed, medically unapproved products can have dangerous side effects and are too often mislabeled or tainted with harmful substances and cited a debated reported that youth who use over-the-counter diet pills are six times more likely to be diagnosed with an eating disorder within three years than nonusers.
The law establishes age-verification requirements for retailers and online sellers and civil penalties of up to $500 per violation.
‘An overly broad approach’
Following the signing, the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) expressed deep disappointment, noting that it had warned throughout the legislative process that the law’s overly broad approach could create unnecessary barriers to lawful products, confuse consumers and leave responsible businesses facing uncertainty about which supplements fall within its restrictions.
“This is a deeply disappointing outcome for consumers and responsible businesses, and a missed opportunity for California to pursue a more thoughtful approach,” said Steve Mister, president and CEO of CRN. “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.”
The council also expressed concern that courts may consider statements or images that merely “imply” these effects, claims about metabolism or strength, and even how products are grouped in stores or online when determining whether a supplement is covered by the law. In its veto request, it warned that the framework could sweep in products such as fiber and protein supplements, general wellness products, and even multivitamins.
Responding to the announcement, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association’s also stated its regret that despite advocacy efforts, the law did not strike a better balance between the shared goal of protecting minors and preserving access to safe, beneficial products for adults who use them responsibly.
“We remain concerned that the law’s broad criteria could restrict access to dietary supplements containing ingredients with legitimate uses beyond weight loss or muscle building, including ingredients widely found in products that support general health, nutrition and wellness,” said Carlos I. Gutiérrez, vice president of state & local government affairs at CHPA.
Avoiding a patchwork of states
California is the second state to sign age-restriction on weight loss and muscle-building supplements into law, nearly two years after New York passed N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 391-oo(1)(a), which went into effect in April 2024.
Similar proposals have also been introduced in states including Hawaii, Alaska, California, Rhode Island, Connecticut and most recently in New Jersey. Many of these bills reportedly originate from the Strategic Training Initiative for the Prevention of Eating Disorders (STRIPED), which launched as a public health incubator based at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Boston Children’s Hospital.
Proponents of the restrictions link the use of weight loss and body building products with the worsening of eating disorders, even though a review of the scientific literature, funded by CRN concluded that the “evidence to date does not support a causative role for dietary supplements in eating disorders.
“The use of dietary supplements for weight management in both male and female teens appears to be declining, and the objective of weight loss is not observed as a common motivation for the use of dietary supplements among this age group,” wrote Susan Hewlings, PhD, RD, the author of the review.
Industry trade associations warn that the unsupported restrictions to consumer access create significant compliance questions for manufacturers and retailers by creating a patchwork of conflicting state rules that override science-based Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determination.
“California’s enactment of AB 2030 should be a warning sign for the dietary supplement industry nationwide,” said Daniel Fabricant, PhD, president and CEO of the Natural Products Association (NPA). “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.”
He noted that AB 2030 risks becoming another blueprint for lawmakers across the country and stressed the importance of passing the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act (H.R. 7366), introduced by Congressman Nick Langworthy (R-NY) in February to establish the FDA as the sole regulator of dietary supplements.
“Congress needs to draw a clear line and reaffirm that dietary supplements should be regulated under one consistent, science-based national framework not subjected to an ever-expanding maze of conflicting state restrictions,” Fabricant added. “If Washington doesn’t act, California and New York will continue to be the blueprint for draconian anti-consumer policies.”
All trade organizations expressed their commitment to working with California policymakers and public health officials on more balanced approached and advocating more broadly for a consistent federal framework.
