![\"arrow\"](\"https:\/\/resource.innovamarketinsights360.com\/fif\/banners\/a03817d3-f18a-4a6c-b7f8-42dcd030a295.webp\" "\\"arrow\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe industry body argues SB 1033 represents a \u201cmisplaced policy approach\u201d that would create burdensome requirements outside the established federal regulatory framework. It also warns against the \u201calarmist\u201d messaging to consumers, which it says is \u201cdisconnected to any actual harm.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ultimately, the organization believes that such measures risk confusing consumers, increasing costs, and \u201cundermining the uniform national system that has governed dietary supplements for more than three decades.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDietary supplements are already regulated under a comprehensive federal framework that includes rigorous Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) and contaminant testing requirements,\u201d says Steve Mister, president & CEO of CRN.<\/p>\n
\u201cLayering additional state-specific mandates on top of that system is unnecessary and counterproductive. It creates regulatory fragmentation without improving consumer safety.\u201d<\/p>\n
Regulatory redundancies?<\/p>\n
US federal law mandates that dietary supplement manufacturers adhere to GMPs, which include screening for contaminants, including heavy metals, and ensuring products meet established safety standards.<\/p>\n
While modern analytical techniques can detect extraordinarily small trace levels of naturally occurring elements, detection alone does not equate to risk, highlights CRN.<\/p>\n
In addition, the organization argues that protein products in the state are already subject to California\u2019s Prop 65, which requires warning labels for items that exceed very conservative thresholds for heavy metals. Therefore, California consumers are already alerted if a product exceeds California\u2019s permissible levels.<\/p>\n
The industry body alleges that SB 1033 would instead layer on additional California-specific testing disclosures and labeling mandates for protein powders and related products, creating a parallel compliance regime unique to one state.<\/p>\n
CRN argues that the new regulation would ignore the fact that many food items will have trace amounts of heavy metals from the environment, including fresh produce and meat.<\/p>\n
Impact of \u201cpatchwork\u201d regulations<\/p>\n
CRN adds that this kind of \u201cpatchwork approach\u201d will affect companies of all sizes, from national brands to emerging innovators. It anticipates that the new legislation will require separate testing protocols, website disclosures, packaging revisions, and supply chain adjustments tailored to individual state requirements.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe proliferation of inconsistent mandates across states could disrupt national distribution systems and increase costs for businesses and consumers alike,\u201d Mister adds. \u201cA fragmented state-by-state system introduces uncertainty, inefficiency, and unnecessary expense across the marketplace.\u201d<\/p>\n
CRN strongly supports a \u201csingular, science-based\u201d national standard of compliance. Along with other supplement industry groups, it welcomes the recently proposed federal Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act, overseen by the US FDA as the national regulator of dietary supplements.<\/p>\n