Author: Zoe Tembo

Dietary Supplement Labels: Divided Opinions on the Relaxation of Regulations 

Vitamins, probiotics, minerals, and botanicals are among the many dietary supplements used by approximately 75% of Americans to support their diets and maintain their health. Although often found in the same aisle in stores, the FDA does not regulate supplements in the same way as drugs. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) defines dietary supplements as a category of foods regulated by the FDA. The Act furthermore enacted labeling requirements, including rules on the placement and contents of disclaimers and nutrition labels. The disclosures are required to remind consumers that supplements are not FDA-reviewed for safety or effectiveness before they are sold. Recently, the issue has been how much a manufacturer must disclose on a label and specifically how many disclosures are required to appear on each “panel” of a supplement label. 

In a class action suit filed against Amazon in 2023, the plaintiffs, a group of consumers, claimed that Amazon promotes and sells products that lack mandatory disclaimers on their labels, making them dangerous, defective, and illegal. The plaintiffs alleged that Amazon advertised purported benefits of certain dietary supplements not approved by the FDA without providing the required disclaimers. While the case remains ongoing, Amazon recently filed a motion to pause the suit, claiming it hinges on a regulation that the FDA announced is under revision. 

On December 11, 2025, the FDA released a letter responding to requests to amend label regulation 21 C.F.R. 101.93(d), which governs the placement of disclaimers. The current regulation, added by DSHEA, provides that statements for supplements can be made if they contain a disclaimer in bold type that reads: “This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.” The current rules require that the disclaimer appear on each panel of a product label where a claim is made. The FDA’s December letter asserted that, based on its initial review, revising the regulation to remove the requirement that the disclaimer appear on each panel of a supplement would “be consistent with section 403(r)(6)(C) of the FD&C Act while reducing label clutter and unnecessary costs.” The letter also acknowledges that the FDA has rarely enforced this requirement and is therefore likely to propose an amendment. There is no timeline for when the rule change might take effect; however, the letter states the FDA will not enforce the existing rule while it is under review. 

The regulations would still require the disclaimer to appear at least once on the bottle, however, many consumers and critics in the medical field believe the amendment would weaken the already deficient warning system. A study done between 2004 and 2013 found that consumers made more than 15,000 reports of health problems linked to supplements to the FDA’s central reporting system. Supplements that claim to help with weight loss, sexual function, energy and muscle building have been among those found to have potentially harmful undisclosed ingredients like prescription pharmaceuticals and steroids. Public health advocacy organizations and consumers have called for reforms to the supplement regulation process including proposals of mandatory product listing, FDA standards, and premarket review. 

Some supplement retailers advertise that their supplements are voluntarily self-regulated following industry-wide initiatives which created their own standards that complement or enhance government regulations. Voluntary programs like the Council for Responsible Nutrition and the Consumer Healthcare Products Association can promote enhanced product safety and fill the gaps of government regulation. Although they present certain benefits, these programs remain limited by their lack of enforcement power and voluntary nature. 

The letter proposing the relaxation of disclaimer requirements is a step in the wrong direction for advocates who have been fighting for heightened regulation. The plaintiffs in the Amazon case say the letter should not stop their suit, because their claims include many other disclaimer violations beyond the “each panel” rule. If passed, however, many believe the amendment will be the first step toward dangerously weak warnings on supplement labels.

Accessibility Behind Bars: ADA Compliance in Prisons

Among the limited rights of incarcerated individuals, those ensuring fair and human treatment are often the subject of debate and frequently go unenforced. In the past few years, complaints have arisen concerning the poor and unequal treatment of inmates with disabilities, sparking lawsuits and questions over whether U.S. prisons are complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which aims to protect individuals with disabilities in various areas of public life.

Congress passed the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehab Act) to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities in federal employment, federally funded programs, and programs conducted by federal agencies, including federal prisons. The ADA, applicable to state prisons, was initially passed in 1990 and updated in 2010 to include official standards for accessible design. The 2010 standards require at least 3% of cells to be accessible to people with mobility disabilities, and at least 2% to be equipped with communication accommodations for people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. The ADA furthermore states integrated setting policies which assert that inmates or detainees with disabilities should not be placed in facilities that do not offer the same programs as where they would otherwise be held. Additionally, they should not be denied access to available programs and activities, including education, work release, visitation, and vocational opportunities.

Although the ADA and Rehab Act intended to accommodate incarcerated individuals with disabilities, without enforcement, they are rendered ineffective. In 2022, a lawsuit was filed against the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department for their detention facilities failing to comply with the ADA. A deaf inmate at a San Diego County jail reported that he was taken to the jail’s dentist for tooth pain, but could not communicate with the dentist or jail staff because he was not provided an interpreter. Fourteen other disabled plaintiffs testified that they experienced similar treatment, including two wheelchair users who were given inaccessible bunk bed assignments, one of whom was told he had two options, “sleeping on the floor, or trying to climb up to the third bunk.”

Similar violations of the ADA have occurred in detention facilities across the country. In Georgia, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Georgia, and the National Association of the Deaf brought a lawsuit on behalf of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates overseen by the Georgia Department of Corrections. The suit, initially brought in 2018, is still ongoing, and as of April 2025, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is pending. The plaintiffs claim that because the communication events are not accessible, they are not given notice of the prison’s rules and procedures, subjecting them to disciplinary actions for failing to comply with unexplained rules. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have been unable to attend activities and educational opportunities required for prerelease because of the lack of accessibility for the deaf and hard-of-hearing.

A similar complaint was filed in 2023 against the Minnesota Department of Corrections for failing to notify individuals with disabilities about modifications to GED courses, practice tests, and exams, preventing them from applying for accommodations, such as extended time and breaks. Participation in educational courses can lead to a reduced sentence; therefore, by denying inmates accommodations, prisons could be keeping them incarcerated longer than they would have been had accommodations been provided. The Minnesota Department of Corrections subsequently agreed to comply with the ADA and provide accommodations so that inmates with disabilities can participate in GED courses. They also agreed to require training for facility personnel on the ADA and disability discrimination and pay over $70,000 in compensatory damages to the individuals affected by the discrimination.

Recently, additional claims have surfaced regarding ADA compliance in prisons, including denial of proper medical care to incarcerated individuals with disabilities. Although courts uphold ADA standards for equal access to public services, the claims must be specifically applicable to the ADA or the Rehab Act, and incarcerated people must adhere to a standard form for filing civil rights lawsuits. Given that many incarcerated individuals with disabilities lack general resources, let alone information on how to file a complaint, it is likely that many ADA and Rehab act violations go unchallenged.