Age Limits on Bodybuilding Supplements: Inside the First Amendment Battle for Teen Health

Last spring, outside a Long Island suburban nutrition store, a handwritten sign read, “ID REQUIRED FOR MUSCLE-BUILDING SUPPLEMENTS,” next to the protein tubs and neon pre-workout jars. Teens in gym hoodies stopped and narrowed their eyes at labels they had previously picked up carelessly. The scene seemed ordinary, but strangely symbolic—a culture fixated on physical appearance clashing with the cumbersome legal system.

New York is the first state in the US to limit the sale of bodybuilding and weight-loss supplements to children. Ingredients are not what the law depends on. Rather, it changes the way products are advertised: retailers are required to confirm age if a supplement is advertised as being for weight loss or muscle growth. The governor’s earlier veto, in which he questioned whether health officials could keep an accurate list of dangerous ingredients, gave rise to this regulatory workaround. Lawmakers changed their focus from chemistry to marketing claims. This change turned a standard consumer protection initiative into a constitutional conundrum.

Industry organizations recognized the threat right away. The Council for Responsible Nutrition contends that rather than regulating safety, the statute regulates speech. According to the law, two identical powders may be treated differently based on the claims made on the label, such as fat burning versus digestive wellness. The group claims that because commercial speech is being used as the regulatory switch, that distinction activates First Amendment protections.

New York argued in federal court that sales to minors are governed by the law. The judges weren’t convinced that the question was that easy. The Central Hudson test, a well-known framework used when commercial speech is subject to government regulation, was applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which assumed that the statute affected speech. Citing a strong interest in safeguarding the health of minors and acknowledging data that connected specific supplements to eating disorders and health risks, the court sided with the state.

The court’s reasoning has a certain frank practicality to it. Limiting sales based on a product’s advertised purpose may lessen harm if that purpose indicates the product’s risk. It’s the type of reasoning that, when expressed simply, seems apparent. However, it raises an unanswered question: what happens if marketing language starts to stand in for safety? Like turning off the water to half the house to fix a plumbing leak, the distinction feels both ingenious and a little unsettling.

Guardrails have been strongly advocated by researchers and public health advocates. Eating disorder researcher S. Bryn Austin of Harvard has argued that the limitations give coaches and parents a warning to reevaluate what their teenagers eat. It’s simple to understand why the worry is relevant when you watch high school athletes browse TikTok workout videos in between sets. Beside fat burners and pre-workout supplements that contain a lot of stimulants, protein powders have bold labels that promise change. Aspiration and nutrition are no longer clearly separated.

Leaders in the industry respond that the law stifles honest marketing and stigmatizes legitimate goods. They contend that while eating disorders and pressures related to body image are worthy of attention, regulations centered on messaging run the risk of becoming arbitrary. Their mistrust betrays a deeper concern: if marketing language can lead to restrictions in this context, where else might it be applicable?

Additionally, the Second Circuit dismissed arguments that ID checks compel retailers to warn that supplements are dangerous for children. The court pointed out that age verification is already commonplace in everything from energy drinks to cold remedies. Watching a cashier pause at the register and ask a teenage athlete for identification, however, has a subtle psychological impact. Whether or not it is stated explicitly, it indicates risk.

In the meantime, the industry is requesting that the U.S. Supreme Court review the case. The law is still in effect, and retailers who violate it risk fines. A confused teenager holding a tub of pre-workout powder was given an explanation of the rule by a Queens clerk one recent afternoon. With a shrug, the boy put it back on the shelf and grabbed a sports drink. Maybe a little behavioral prod. or the start of a change in culture.

Whether other states will follow New York’s example is still up in the air. Lawmakers appear to be keeping a close eye on things, balancing concerns about youth mental health with the right to free commerce. The billion-dollar fitness industry is based on aspiration, and aspiration is frequently created with words just as much as formulas.

It’s difficult to ignore how the controversy goes beyond supplements as you watch this play out. It discusses body image, teen identity, parental authority, and the unsettling role of the government in influencing consumer choice. The mirrors in the gym are still the same. However, one label at a time, the regulations governing what sits next to them are starting to change.