AHPA, CHPA, CRN, and UNPA say placing ODS under the Office of Nutrition Research would add a layer of bureaucracy. NIH is accepting comments through October 28.
Four dietary supplement trade associations are urging the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to keep the Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) as a stand-alone office, according to joint comments dated October 23, 2026, and a Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) press release issued October 26.1,2 The groups are responding to an NIH proposal that would move ODS under the Office of Nutrition Research (ONR).3
The American Herbal Products Association (AHPA), Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA), CRN, and United Natural Products Alliance (UNPA) submitted joint comments on a notice published in the Federal Register on October 14.1,3 Comments are due by 11:59 p.m. ET on October 28.3
The notice, signed by Matthew J. Memoli, NIH principal deputy director, comes from the NIH Office of the Director’s Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI). It proposes two changes: establishing an Office of the NIH Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer (OCAIO) within DPCPSI, and moving ODS to a sub-office of ONR within DPCPSI.3
NIH says the OCAIO would provide clear organizational leadership for an emerging NIH-wide priority, and that placing ODS under ONR would improve the alignment of closely related scientific areas.3 The notice does not describe staffing, funding, or timeline effects. Public comments are encouraged to be sent to DPCPSIreorgcomments@nih.gov, and NIH says DPCPSI will launch a public website to encourage discussion of the proposal.3
The letter notes that ODS operated as a sub-office of the Office of Disease Prevention after its 1995 establishment until January 2020, when it became a stand-alone DPCPSI office. The groups say that status supports the office’s authority, resources, scientific scope, and access.1
The associations support collaboration between ODS and ONR, but say a scientific relationship does not by itself show that one office should sit under the other. “The notice’s stated goal of organizational alignment requires further explanation, particularly given ODS’s distinct statutory responsibilities,” the letter states.1
The groups raise three main concerns. First, they point to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, which they say directs ODS to serve as principal advisor to the HHS secretary and assistant secretary for health and to advise the NIH director, the CDC director, and the FDA commissioner. They say an added organizational layer would complicate that role.1
Second, they say supplement research extends past nutrition, citing botanicals, probiotics, and peptides. “Subsuming ODS within ONR could easily lead to a reduction or elimination of attention to non-nutritive benefits of supplementation,” the letter states.1
Third, they ask NIH to protect ODS’s infrastructure, including its Analytical Methods and Reference Materials program, dietary supplement databases, fact sheets, and workshops, and they say the proposed structure could lessen the office’s prominence and lead to reduced funding and staffing.1 The letter concedes that nothing in ODS’s founding statute dictates its exact position within DPCPSI.1 It also ties supplement research to the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) priorities.1
“We strongly urge NIH to retain ODS as a stand-alone DPCPSI office while pursuing stronger collaboration with ONR,” the letter states.1 The groups note that ODS’s 2025–2029 strategic plan already names ONR as a partner on biomarkers of nutritional intake and status, and they ask NIH to explain what barriers further collaboration cannot resolve before changing the offices’ relationship.1
If NIH proceeds, the groups ask it to publish an implementation plan addressing 6 safeguards: preserving ODS’s mission and scientific scope, retaining an identifiable ODS director with defined authority, maintaining separately identifiable funding and staffing, preserving the director’s statutory advisory access, sustaining ODS’s databases and information resources, and publishing baseline measures for a review within 2 years.1,2 The groups also noted the implementation plan should be available for comment.
The comment period closes October 28. The notice does not say when a decision would take effect.3
References
