Inside Wellington's Push to Replace New Zealand's 1985 Supplement Rules

At 11:59 pm on 2 November 2026, a public submission window closed on New Zealand's Ministry of Health Citizen Space portal in Wellington. Two days later, officials updated the page to confirm that staff had begun analysing responses that will shape Cabinet policy decisions in 2027. For the millions of New Zealanders who buy magnesium at the supermarket, pick up echinacea at the chemist, or order sports powders online, the consultation centred on one practical question: how should the law govern products that sit halfway between everyday groceries and prescription medicines?

Two colliding realities explain the urgency. On one side sits a large consumer market. A nationally representative Consumer NZ survey of 1,001 adults found that 55 percent had taken a multivitamin and 54 percent had taken single vitamins in the past twelve months, alongside magnesium (39 percent), iron (27 percent), zinc (20 percent), and calcium (15 percent). Nielsen IQ scan data cited alongside that survey showed New Zealanders spent NZ$135 million on vitamins, minerals, and herbal extracts in supermarkets alone, while Cabinet papers estimate the wider natural health products sector contributes at least NZ$2.3 billion to the economy, including about NZ$650 million in exports. On the other side sits a domestic rulebook whose core regulations date from 1985, long before gummy vitamins, collagen sachets, and direct-to-consumer online retail reshaped retail shelves.

Between June and November 2026, that mismatch stopped looking theoretical. In late June, New Zealand Food Safety launched an investigation and oversaw an allergen recall of unflavoured creatine powders sold by NZ Muscle after a viral video alleged packaging and labelling lapses. On 23 September, Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard proposed exempting export-only supplements from domestic additive and dose caps to end overseas compliance double-ups. Five days later, on 28 September 2026, Cabinet approved broader engagement on a standalone Natural Health Products regulatory system. Examining why the existing five-law patchwork fails, why Parliament repealed the Therapeutic Products Act 2023 before commencement, and what choices Cabinet put on the table gives buyers the clearest view yet of how supplement oversight across Aotearoa could change.

How Five Different Laws Ended Up Governing One Shelf

Walk down a New Zealand pharmacy or supermarket wellness aisle and the packaging suggests one tidy category. Under New Zealand law, no unified category exists. As the Ministry of Health explains in its regulatory overview, New Zealand has never passed dedicated primary legislation for natural health products. Instead, an ordinary purchase can cross five separate statutes administered by four public agencies, alongside border biosecurity rules.

Most oral vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and nutrition powders sit under the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985, secondary legislation beneath the Food Act 2014. Medsafe administers those 1985 regulations, while the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and local councils enforce food-safety hygiene under the Food Act. Add deer velvet, marine oils, bovine collagen, or bee pollen to a capsule, and the Animal Products Act 1999 applies under MPI oversight. Formulate a herbal tincture or sell a product with a stated or implied therapeutic purpose, and the item crosses into the Medicines Act 1981 and Medicines Regulations 1984 under Medsafe.

Topical products split the map further. A kawakawa balm or herbal cream applied to skin cannot qualify as a dietary supplement because the 1985 regulations cover strictly oral dosage forms (tablets, capsules, powders, liquids, lozenges, cachets, and pastilles) intended to supplement food intake. Unless a therapeutic claim pulls it into the Medicines Act, a topical cream falls under the Cosmetic Products Group Standard 2020 administered by the Environmental Protection Authority under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. Claims printed on cartons or posted online are policed reactively under the Fair Trading Act 1986 and Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 by the Commerce Commission and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Separate Food Act rules govern fortified drinks and bars sold as supplemented food, while imported animal or plant materials must clear Import Health Standards under the Biosecurity Act 1993.

For shoppers, the main consequence of this patchwork is zero pre-market gatekeeping. Unlike prescription or pharmacy-only medicines, dietary supplements receive no government assessment for safety, efficacy, or label accuracy before hitting shelves. Legal responsibility rests entirely with the "sponsor" placing the item on the New Zealand market. That sponsor must ensure the product contains no controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, no scheduled medicines listed in the First Schedule to the Medicines Regulations 1984, no vitamin or mineral doses above 1985 daily caps, and no therapeutic claims under section 4 of the Medicines Act 1981. Food Act 2014 offences endangering public health carry penalties up to NZ$500,000 or five years' imprisonment, yet oversight activates mainly after a breach or complaint surfaces.

Even New Zealand's own regulator states this hands-off status explicitly on export paperwork. A local manufacturer shipping abroad can pay Medsafe NZ$186 (plus NZ$26 per extra copy) for a Statement to Foreign Governments covering finished goods or bulk supplements packed overseas. Yet every certificate carries a disclaimer warning that under New Zealand law, dietary supplements are not assessed by a government agency, and that the statement provides no assurance of quality, safety, New Zealand origin, or compliance with importing-country rules. Applicants sign a compliance declaration, and Medsafe notes plainly in its guidance that it does not verify whether that declaration is true in all respects.

From the Scrapped Therapeutic Products Act to Cabinet's October Paper

New Zealand already tried once this decade to replace that patchwork with one statute, and the political backlash shaped how Wellington framed its October 2026 consultation. Introduced in November 2022, the Therapeutic Products Bill received Royal Assent on 26 July 2023 as the Therapeutic Products Act 2023 (2023 No 37). Due to take effect on 1 September 2026, it combined pharmaceuticals, medical devices (from hospital beds to surgical instruments), and natural health products under one regulatory regime.

Grouping low-risk vitamins, herbal extracts, and traditional remedies alongside prescription drugs triggered fierce opposition from manufacturers, importers, natural health practitioners, and rongoā Māori advocates. Critics argued pharmaceutical-grade compliance costs would drive small producers out of business, restrict practitioner compounding, and shrink consumer choice. Consumer advocates including Consumer NZ supported tighter pre-market scrutiny, citing persistent mislabelling and adulterated sports products.

Following the change of government, National, ACT, and New Zealand First committed in coalition agreements to scrap the statute. Parliament passed the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill through its third reading on 10 December 2024, and Royal Assent followed in mid-December as the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Act 2024 (2024 No 55), repealing the 2023 Act on 18 December 2024 well before its planned commencement. That left the Medicines Act 1981 and the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985 standing as the interim rules while officials redesigned policy.

Associate Health Minister Hon Casey Costello framed the reset around separating natural health products legally from medicines:

The Government has heard the message that came through loud and clear from the natural health products sector: don’t regulate us alongside medicines and medical devices. — Hon Casey Costello, Beehive ministerial release

In September 2024, Cabinet agreed in principle to build two distinct regimes: updated law for medicines and medical devices, and standalone legislation for natural health products (SOU-24-MIN-0115). Rather than consulting immediately on the full domestic bill, ministers tackled export bottlenecks first. In November 2025, MPI consulted New Zealand's largest dietary supplements industry body, representing roughly 80 percent of the sector. On 23 September 2026, Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard announced proposed amendments to the 1985 regulations, building on 2025 food-exporter exemptions, so export-only supplements can follow the importing country's additive, dose-limit, and therapeutic-claim rules without meeting conflicting New Zealand domestic caps, provided those batches stay off domestic shelves.

Five days later, on 28 September 2026, the Cabinet Social Outcomes Committee approved engagement on the broader domestic framework (CAB-26-MIN-0315 and SOU-26-MIN-0085). Released publicly on 6 October 2026 alongside a Q&A, Hon Casey Costello's Cabinet paper acknowledged that tweaking the 1985 regulations under the Food Act can deliver only partial fixes. Secondary food rules cannot resolve collisions with the Medicines Act 1981, create a coherent domestic health-claims system, or unify recall powers across oral supplements and topical balms. Although the Ministry described the October exercise as targeted engagement (disclosing it may use Microsoft CoPilot to assist with summarising submissions before drafting a Regulatory Analysis Summary), Citizen Space remained open to all submitters until 2 November 2026 ahead of 2027 Cabinet decisions.

Why Importers and Local Factories Play by Asymmetric Rules

While officials drafted consultation options in Wellington, events in Auckland offered a concrete stress test of current enforcement. In late June 2026, a 45-minute YouTube video assembled by a former employee and two rival supplement operators alleged labelling errors, unhygienic packing, and testing gaps at major retailer NZ Muscle. Within days, NZ Muscle withdrew several lines, apologised for labelling and packing issues across No Brand, NZ Muscle, and Shotgun Creatine, and initiated a voluntary recall with New Zealand Food Safety.

On 26 June 2026, MPI and New Zealand Food Safety issued a formal recall covering six unflavoured creatine packs (NZ Muscle Creatine and No Brand Creatine Monohydrate in 200 g, 500 g, and 1 kg sizes marked B/B JUN27) due to possible undeclared dairy. While trace milk residue poses little risk to most adults, undeclared dairy can trigger severe anaphylaxis in people with milk allergies. Acting deputy director-general Mike Inglis advised milk-allergic buyers to return or discard affected packs, noting small amounts had also reached Australia via personal imports, while officers investigated wider online complaints.

Three months later, on 21 September 2026, the inquiry's conclusion highlighted how reactive enforcement operates. According to NZ Muscle's compliance update, MPI closed its investigation with no further action after the business recalled affected lots, audited its recall system, improved batch traceability, shifted interim packing to compliant third-party premises while seeking National Programme Level 3 (NP3) certification, and completed an external audit. Auckland Council separately found no evidence of critical food-safety risk, and New Zealand Food Safety recorded no allergic reactions.

Yet the debate raised in Radio New Zealand (RNZ) reporting on 26 June 2026 reached well past one retailer. Consumer NZ researcher Belinda Castles noted that relying primarily on companies to self-check compliance before launch means problems often surface only after bottles are already in consumers' homes. Food technologist and R-Line Electrolyte Drink founder Phill Dromgool pointed to a deeper structural imbalance inside the Food Act 2014. A factory packing supplements inside New Zealand must register under a Food Control Plan or National Programme and pass independent verification audits. By contrast, a company importing finished overseas supplements pays a fee to register as a Registered Food Importer under MPI's Food Notice and self-assesses its own compositional and labelling compliance.

When a retailer carries more than a thousand imported SKUs from varied overseas contract plants, Dromgool warned, thorough line-by-line self-assessment becomes hard to maintain. University of Otago Senior Professional Practice Fellow in Sports Nutrition Ali Hill told RNZ that overseas supplements follow different foreign regulations yet enter New Zealand easily through local stores and cross-border websites. As the Sport Integrity Commission cautions in its Supplement Decision Making Guide, supplements are made in factories rather than medical laboratories, creating recurring risks of cross-contamination and mislabelling.

Independent testing underscores that risk. A 2022 Consumer NZ mystery-shopping audit of six sports supplement outlets detected seven controlled or prescription drugs across six products, including Class C stimulants (beta-phenethylamine, hordenine, N-methyltyramine), withdrawn decongestant octodrine (DMHA), prescription-level deanol (DMAE), Mucuna pruriens carrying levodopa, and Class B drug gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) in canned drinks. Earlier 2017 testing by University of Otago and University of Technology Sydney researchers found undeclared anabolic steroids in six trans-Tasman sports supplements, while University of Otago emeritus professor David Gerrard reported in the New Zealand Medical Journal that 15 percent of online supplements tested for elite New Zealand athletes contained steroids. Against that record, the 2026 recall reinforced why consumer advocates question a system that audits local packers closely while trusting large import catalogues to self-attest.

Inside the Rules Governing Ingredients, Entry, and Health Claims

Rather than presenting a finished model, Appendix One of the October 2026 consultation paper mapped six building blocks and put competing options out for comment. Together, those options expose the core trade-off facing Cabinet in 2027: stronger pre-market assurance and export credibility raise compliance fees and paperwork that hit small local makers hardest.

The first choice covers scope and ingredient definitions. Cabinet proposed uniting three groups under one regime: current Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985 products, other edible items making health claims outside standard food rules (including herbal remedies under the Medicines Act 1981), and inedible products making health claims such as herbal balms, creams, and patches. Joint food standards, infant formula, plain cosmetics without health claims, and medical "boundary products" such as sunscreens earmarked for the Medical Products Bill stay outside. To govern permitted ingredients, officials floated three options: - Approach 1 builds a positive list of recognised ingredients, offering high certainty while requiring slow regulatory updates for new compounds. - Approach 2 automatically recognises ingredients approved by specified overseas regulators, speeding market entry while linking New Zealand partly to foreign risk judgements. - Approach 3 uses a negative list of prohibited ingredients, preserving broad choice while forcing regulators to identify emerging hazards after launch.

The second choice sets pre-market entry for importers, suppliers, and exporters. Today, MPI's public database lists Registered Food Importers by company rather than every individual product SKU. For domestic importers and wholesale or retail suppliers, Wellington offered three tiers: business registration with zero product notifications; import licensing plus notification of "higher-risk" products only; or import licensing plus notification of every product sold. A parallel three-tier menu was proposed for commercial exporters, alongside "no requirement" combinations. SKU-level notification would give Food Safety a live recall directory, yet retailers with broad catalogues warn per-product fees could raise shelf prices.

The third battleground is health claims. Because the 1985 regulations bar therapeutic claims, brands rely on vague wellness phrasing policed reactively under the Fair Trading Act 1986. Officials floated four paths: keeping that Fair Trading Act status quo; automatically recognising approved claims from named foreign countries; letting industry self-substantiate claims using defined scientific or traditional-use evidence; or publishing an official pre-approved claim list. Self-substantiation could help New Zealand producers validate native botanicals without drug-scale trials, while a pre-approved list offers shoppers stricter protection against exaggerated marketing.

How Manufacturing, Practitioner Exemptions, and Fees Might Shift

The remaining three consultation blocks turn from what sits on the label to who makes the product, who sells it in clinic rooms, and who pays for oversight.

The fourth component weighs manufacturing standards and New Zealand-specific labelling. On manufacturing, Approach 1 introduces risk-tiered rules where higher-risk products and export-certified lines meet Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) while mid- and lower-risk goods follow food-style hygiene standards; Approach 2 sets uniform standards with exemptions for small producers and exporters meeting foreign rules; and Approach 3 sets uniform standards exempting small producers only. On licensing, officials contrasted pre-approval suitability checks with registration-only obligations for lower-risk firms. On labelling, Approach 1 mandates New Zealand rules (allergen warnings, advisory statements, poison helpline, domestic manufacturer details, with export exemptions), whereas Approach 2 allows lighter rules for imports so long as labels are in English and show a poison helpline, testing whether buyers accept fewer local disclosures to preserve access to overseas brands.

The fifth component protects practitioner and small-scale exemptions. Backlash over rongoā Māori, herbalist, and naturopath compounding helped sink the 2023 Act. The October 2026 paper explicitly proposes exempting small-scale makers and consultation-based supply (naming rongoā Māori practitioners), asking whether exemptions should cover only practitioner-made remedies or also commercial imported products resold during a consultation.

Sixth, officials consulted on regulator structure, user-pays funding, and transition timing. Options include housing oversight inside an existing agency or creating a new statutory body with recall, investigation, penalty, appeal, and advisory powers, potentially funded through user-pays fees and export-certificate charges. Transition proposals split between notifying higher-risk products within 12 months and securing licences within two years, or a single compliance window of two years or more once legislation takes effect.

The Folic Acid Precedent and the Export Credibility Bind

Risk-tiered GMP is not pure theory in New Zealand; Medsafe already operates a working miniature version for folic acid. General dietary supplement rules cap daily folic acid at 300 micrograms. However, Medsafe permits supplements delivering up to 500 micrograms per day if the product is made in a facility holding Good Manufacturing Practice certification aligned with New Zealand's Guideline for Therapeutic Products: Manufacture of Medicines.

To use that higher dose cap, a sponsor cannot rely on casual self-attestation. It must lodge a signed Sponsor Declaration Form and independent GMP audit evidence less than three years old with Medsafe's Compliance Management Branch, wait for verification before selling a single pack, keep records for one year past batch expiry, and re-submit before changing product name, dose, manufacturer, or packer. Sites without accepted certification can pay Medsafe for a fee-for-service GMP audit. That rule shows tiered verification can target higher-potency products without burdening low-risk food-style supplements.

Export credibility poses a harder problem. Minister Andrew Hoggard's September 2026 export proposal eliminates conflicting 1985 dose and additive limits for export-only runs. Yet as the Ministry of Health's Q&A notes, Food Act regulation tweaks cannot solve domestic claim rules or allow Medsafe to certify safety and quality on overseas paperwork. As long as Medsafe's NZ$186 export certificates disclaim any government assessment, New Zealand's NZ$650 million export sector remains at a disadvantage when overseas buyers expect formal national assurance.

What Shoppers Can Check Before New Rules Arrive in 2027

Even if Cabinet finalises policy in 2027, passing legislation and completing a twelve-to-twenty-four-month transition means New Zealanders will keep buying under the 1985 regulations well into the late 2020s. Five practical checks grounded in Medsafe, MPI, Sport Integrity Commission, and University of Otago guidance help shoppers cut risk immediately.

1. Match the batch code to third-party testing, and check what was actually tested. University of Otago's Ali Hill recommends looking for Informed Choice, HASTA, or NSF Certified for Sport seals and matching bottle lot numbers to published Certificates of Analysis. Food technologist Phill Dromgool adds that banned-substance screening checks for WADA stimulants and steroids, whereas compositional potency testing confirms whether the powder delivers the active milligrams claimed on the label.
2. Verify the local sponsor address and Registered Food Importer status. Under the Food Act 2014, commercial importers must appear on MPI's public Registered Food Importer register, and reputable packs list a traceable New Zealand or Australian sponsor street address.
3. Inspect allergen statements and avoid opaque proprietary blends. The June 2026 creatine recall demonstrated that dairy cross-contamination can occur on shared packing lines even in unflavoured single-ingredient powders. Shoppers with food allergies should check batch traceability and allergen warnings carefully, while treating blends that hide individual doses behind one combined weight with caution.
4. Subscribe to New Zealand Food Safety recall notices. MPI's public recall alerts post exact batch numbers, best-before dates, and refund steps as soon as a contamination or allergen risk is confirmed.
5. Apply the food-first filter before spending money. Consumer NZ's survey showed 49 percent of buyers shop at supermarkets and 47 percent at pharmacies (compared with 18 percent online, 15 percent at health food stores, 8 percent at chain stores, 6 percent via GPs, and 5 percent via natural health practitioners). Yet 59 percent turn to the internet for information, only 33 percent often or always research claims before buying, and just 11 percent act on a GP's recommendation. While 49 percent spend under NZ$20 monthly, 42 percent spend NZ$20 to NZ$50 and 9 percent spend NZ$50 or more. University of Auckland registered dietitian Dr Rajshri Roy reminded Consumer NZ readers that vitamin pills cannot rescue a poor diet, and whole fruits, vegetables, legumes, and grains deliver nutrient combinations capsules rarely replicate. Targeted supplements remain valuable when a life stage or clinical need calls for them, such as the Ministry of Health's advice on folic acid-only and iodine-only tablets during pregnancy, or clinician-guided care for older adults and restrictive diets.

Safety Boundaries, Interactions, and When to Consult a Clinician

The October 2026 consultation repeatedly calls natural health products "generally lower risk than medicines." That phrasing guides proportional lawmaking; it never means supplements are risk-free for every person. In its public Q&A, the Ministry of Health emphasised that natural health products have been caught containing undeclared heavy metals and hidden prescription drugs, and that legitimate botanicals can interact seriously with medical treatments.

Supplements are not medicines and cannot diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease. Consumer NZ found that 25 percent of surveyed adults mistakenly believed you cannot take too much of a natural remedy or supplement, ignoring how excess fat-soluble vitamins, concentrated minerals, or potent herbs can stress the liver, kidneys, or thyroid. Seek personalised advice from a general practitioner, pharmacist, registered dietitian, or midwife before starting or combining products in these situations:

• Pregnancy, breastfeeding, or trying to conceive: Follow clinician-advised single nutrients such as folic acid and iodine rather than multi-herb blends, high-dose vitamin A, or weight-loss products.
• Infants, children, and adolescents under 18: Consumer NZ reported 41 percent of surveyed parents gave supplements to children, 55 percent as chewy gummies. Paediatric dose margins are tight, and adult formulas or imported online gummies should not be given to under-18s without medical guidance.
• Prescription medications and chronic conditions: Herbs such as St John's Wort alter liver drug-metabolising enzymes, minerals such as iron, calcium, and magnesium block thyroid hormone and antibiotic absorption, and concentrated botanicals require caution with kidney, liver, or cardiovascular illness.
• Suspected adverse reactions or mislabelling: Stop the product and seek medical advice or call Healthline (0800 611 116) if unexpected symptoms occur. Suspected side effects can be reported to Medsafe, and suspected allergen omissions or misleading claims can be reported to New Zealand Food Safety (MPI) or the Commerce Commission.

When ministers revisit the Natural Health Products file in 2027, the hardest call will be closing the gap between self-assessing importers and audited domestic factories without pricing small local practitioners off the market. Replacing a 1985 rulebook will not turn pharmacy vitamins into prescription drugs, nor should it. Done well, a standalone law simply brings what is checked behind the scenes closer to what New Zealand shoppers already assume is printed on the bottle.

Sources: New Zealand Ministry of Health, Natural Health Products: Current Work and Engagement (updated 4 November 2026), Consultation Document: Purpose, Principles and Elements of a Natural Health Products Regulatory System (October 2026), Questions and Answers on Engaging on a Future NHP Regulatory System (2026), and Regulation of Natural Health Products Overview; Office of the Associate Minister of Health, Cabinet Paper: Natural Health Products Regulation, Approval to Engage (SOU-26-MIN-0085, released 6 October 2026); Beehive Releases by Hon Casey Costello (Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill Passed, December 2024) and Hon Andrew Hoggard (Improvements Proposed to Level Playing Field for Dietary Supplements Exporters, 23 September 2026); New Zealand Legislation, Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Act 2024 (2024 No 55); Medsafe, Regulation of Dietary Supplements (updated October 2024); Ministry for Primary Industries / New Zealand Food Safety, Creatine and Creatine Monohydrate Recall Release (June 2026); Radio New Zealand (RNZ), Explainer: How Safe Are Supplements and Who Regulates Them? (26 June 2026); Consumer NZ, Why Are Natural Health Products So Popular? (2023) and Does Your Sports Supplement Contain Illegal Drugs? (2022); Sport Integrity Commission New Zealand, Supplement Decision Making Guide.

This article is for general educational purposes and does not replace personalised medical, nutritional, or legal advice from a qualified professional.

Sources

www.health.govt.nz

www.health.govt.nz

www.health.govt.nz

www.health.govt.nz

www.health.govt.nz

www.beehive.govt.nz

www.beehive.govt.nz

www.legislation.govt.nz

www.medsafe.govt.nz

www.mpi.govt.nz

www.rnz.co.nz

www.consumer.org.nz

www.consumer.org.nz

sportintegrity.nz

This article is for general education and does not replace advice from a qualified healthcare professional.