At The Outlook on Active Nutrition, Doug Kalman, PhD, RD, FISSN, outlines where GLP-1 drugs are falling short, and where nutraceutical brands can step in.
News|Articles|September 28, 2026
California Governor Signs AB 2030, Restricting Minors' Access to Diet Supplements
Author(s)Erin McEvoy
Listen
0:00 / 0:00
Key Takeaways
- AB 2030 prohibits OTC weight-loss and muscle-building supplement sales to minors, motivated by safety concerns including steroids contamination and epidemiologic links between adolescent use and subsequent eating-disorder diagnoses.
- Prior bill text defined covered products by labeling, marketing, or representations, enabling contextual interpretation beyond package claims when determining whether a supplement targets weight loss or muscle gain.
Trade groups say the law's broad criteria could restrict access to supplements with uses beyond weight loss or muscle building.
Advertisement
California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2030 (AB 2030) on September 28, prohibiting the sale of over-the-counter (OTC) diet pills and dietary supplements for weight loss or muscle building to anyone under 18.1 Authored by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, the bill was among 10 health-related measures the governor signed the same day.
The governor's office said nonprescribed, medically unapproved products of this type can cause harmful side effects and are frequently mislabeled or contaminated with ingredients such as steroids. It cited figures indicating that nearly 1 in 10 adolescents have used such products and that youth who use OTC diet pills are 6 times more likely than nonusers to be diagnosed with an eating disorder within 3 years.
What Did the Bill Contain Before Signing?
The announcement does not describe how the law works in practice, though
That version covered any dietary supplement under 21 U.S.C. 321(ff) whose label, marketing, or other representations present it as intended for weight loss or muscle gain, and it allowed courts to weigh context beyond label text. Retailers and delivery sellers could not sell or distribute covered products to minors without a valid prescription. Retailers would need to check identification for purchasers whose apparent age is not clearly above 18. Delivery sellers would need to collect a purchaser's name, date of birth, and residential address, verify them against an independent commercial database, and require an adult signature and photo identification at delivery. Enforcement would occur through civil action rather than criminal penalties. The attorney general, county counsel, or city attorneys could seek injunctions and civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, plus attorney's fees and costs for prevailing plaintiffs.
The governor's announcement describes the restriction in general terms. The enforcement provisions and effective date described in earlier coverage are not confirmed in the announcement.
How Has the Supplement Industry Responded?
The Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA) and the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) opposed the bill. Following the signing, Carlos I. Gutiérrez, CHPA's vice president of state and local government affairs, said the association is disappointed that the enacted law does not better balance protecting minors with preserving adult access to safe, beneficial products.3 “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,” Gutiérrez stated. “Throughout the legislative process, CHPA worked constructively with lawmakers to address these concerns. We remain committed to working with California policymakers and public health officials on approaches that protect young people while preserving appropriate access and choice for adult consumers.”
During the legislative process, AHPA had also argued that ingredients such as protein, vitamin D, and creatine relate to muscle development or metabolism, so products not typically viewed as weight-loss or muscle-building supplements could be covered based on ingredients alone.
A predecessor bill, AB 1341, was vetoed in 2022 over regulatory execution concerns, and a California Department of Public Health workgroup subsequently informed the current framework.
What Other Health Bills Were Signed?
The governor also signed AB 2244, which creates a certification standard and front-of-package label for non-ultraprocessed foods, with in-store placement intended to improve access. The governor's office described it as a voluntary standard modeled on the USDA Organic label. The bill follows AB 1264, signed in 2025, which made California the first state to define ultraprocessed foods and set a timeline for phasing them out of schools.
The package also includes added-sugar menu warnings (SB 869), a nutrition standard for one children's meal at chain restaurants (SB 977), diaper ingredient disclosure (AB 1901), and vape restrictions (AB 762 and AB 2667).
References
- Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. Governor Newsom signs legislation creating non-UPF label, other health bills advancing California's nation-leading healthcare strategy. September 28, 2026. Accessed September 28, 2026.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/09/28/governor-newsom-signs-legislation-creating-non-upf-label-other-health-bills-advancing-californias-nation-leading-healthcare-strategy/ - McEvoy E. California advances Assembly Bill 2030 on age restrictions for weight-loss and muscle-building supplements. Nutritional Outlook. July 10, 2026. Accessed September 28, 2026.
https://www.nutritionaloutlook.com/view/california-bill-2030-age-restrictions-weight-loss-muscle-building-supplements - Consumer Healthcare Products Association. CHPA statement on California AB 2030. Press statement. September 28, 2026.
Advertisement
Related to this article
Part 2 of our interview with Todd Harrison, co-chair of the FDA practice group at Venable LLP covers preclusion's structural gaps: no defined end point, no tracking registry, and a push for mandatory drug-sponsor engagement.
Todd Harrison, co-chair of the FDA practice group at Venable LLP, details the Dietary Supplement Innovation Act's language, its unintended consequences, and what industry stakeholders should watch for.
Piping Rock Health Products has launched a 300-mg NMN gummy under its Vitafusion brand, arriving less than a year after the FDA reversed its position on whether the ingredient could legally be sold as a dietary supplement.
The Dietary Supplement Innovation Act, introduced by Rep. Harshbarger, would cap indefinite preclusion, require science-based review standards, and open FDA warnings to court challenge.
At the Future Nutra Innovation Summit, Sibyl Swift, PhD, founder and principal of Swift Strategy Group, discusses supplement oversight and unpacks why mandatory product listing divides the industry.
The inaugural Future Nutra Innovation Summit opened with organizers pitching a networking-first alternative to the traditional trade show, followed by an NSF presentation on certification failure rates and consumer trust that set a tone for the rest of the event.
This overview outlines the clinical background, consumer landscape, and technical developments shaping the gluten-free category.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Trending on Nutritional Outlook - Supplement, Food & Beverage Manufacturing Trends
1
Muscle Loss, Micronutrient Gaps, and the GLP-1 Opportunity for Supplement Brands
2
Let's Talk Nutrition With Nico Episode 9: What the New NMN and Sleep Research Actually Shows
3
"Third-Party Tested" Isn't Good Enough, Sports Dietitian Tells Supplement Brands
4
What TruLife Distribution's ECRM Results Signal for Supplement Brands
5