Supplements in the US and Canada: different countries, different rules, same outcome
May 2, 2026
Canada regulates supplements on paper, but the rules are very loose and, in some instances, nonsensical. Worse… in practice, the regulations are poorly, and rarely, enforced. When they are enforced, it is meaningless because the rules are bordering on the absurd.
I won’t cover the US side of things, as it is common knowledge that supplements are considered food South of the border, and, as such, are not regulated. People sometimes get sick or die as a result, but little ever changes despite this. The FDA does not regulate supplements and is not even in charge of keeping track of new ones hitting the market.
In Canada, the letters “NPN”, attached to a series of numbers, stamped on packaging of “health” supplements gives the buyer a sense of safety, and suggests some kind of regulation is taking place.
Like most things, the regulation process started out with the best intentions. Health Canada came up with the Natural Health Products Regulation in 2004. A database was created and each supplement manufactured in Canada was stamped with an identification number (originally, the DIN, which was/is used for drug identification purposes). In 2010 a new numbering system was put in place, the NPN, that was/is reserved for NHP’s only.
To qualify for receipt of the NPN, the manufactures have to attach a health claim to the product in question (for example, a product may be advertised as treatment for the common cold, or a muscle growth enhancer). The manufacturer then has to provide one of two things to support the health claim: evidence in the form of studies, OR, show a history of the product being used as intended.
This means I can put together a supplement that contains ingredients commonly used 2,000 years ago to treat the common cold, and, as long as I can show literature that says our ancestors consumed them in the context of my health claim, I’m good to go. It doesn’t matter if the ingredients actually work as advertised. It is merely enough that someone, somewhere, at some point in time used them and believed them to work.
Traditional use trumps modern evidence in terms of making the health claim.
Surely, this must be exaggeration on my part, right?
Nope.
Here is a quote from the proverbial horse’s mouth:
“2.4 Demonstrating a Long History of Use
There are multiple ways to support a long history of use. Examples of ways to demonstrate a long history of use of a NHP (or medicinal ingredient) includes:
[…]
A time-specific event even though neither a concrete date nor time frame was given (e.g., “used in the time of King Edward II to alleviate coughs“).”
[…]
AND…
“2.5 Traditional Medicines
Products with multiple medicinal ingredients with “traditional use” claims are permitted for assessment as traditional medicines when certain conditions are met:
[…]
Efficacy should be based on the belief systems, theories, and/or experiences specific to the relevant traditional healing paradigm, not on modern evidence;
[…]”
Ok, you might say, this is bad, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with the safety of the product. After all, to get their products stamped with a NHP number, manufacturers are required to list all the ingredients and their dosages on all their product labels, right?
Right.
And, you might then say, Health Canada is in charge of inspecting and confirming the ingredients before they hit the store shelves, right?
Wrong.
You can make up a supplement, write down its imaginary ingredients on the application form, and get your NHP number even though your product doesn’t yet exist. No one is checking. If the product does exist, you would then stamp the number you were given on the label and consumers would look at it and think “this is legit”.
For supplemented foods, the list of ingredients was not a requirement prior to January 2026. Yup, you read that right. 2026.
Supplemented foods include just about every packaged food on the market, from milk to chips, to frozen dinners, cereal, etc.
Canada Health put out this video to inform us about their strides in bridging the information gap, which, by the way, most of us did not even realize existed in the first place. Better late than never I suppose…
Health Canada does not inspect or confirm the manufacturers’ statements. It is up to the manufacturers to police themselves. So… the wolves are guarding the sheep and the sheep herder trusts them not to eat any.
From a 2023 article on muscle building supplements:
“In 2021, the Independent Auditor’s Report concluded that Health Canada “fell short of ensuring that products were safe and effective” (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2021). The Audit demonstrated a failure by product manufacturers to adhere to manufacturing or marketing licensing conditions, potentially exposing consumers to risk. The report determined that Health Canada was “reactive,” capable of responding to, and investigating, claims of adverse reactions but ill-equipped to prevent them. Specifically, the report identified Health Canada’s reliance on the attestations of manufacturers for site licensing as a weakness. Health Canada does not conduct their own inspections of facilities before issuing site licenses (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2021).
[…]
Pre-market testing and evidence for licensing is inconsistent and not working properly. Indeed, the primary responsibility for the safety and efficacy of products and manufacturing sites rests with the industry, leaving consumers at risk as industry aims to increase profits.
[…]
Presently, no random or targeted post-market regulatory testing exists to confirm compliance with the NHPR.
[…]
Health Canada can’t force recalls of NHPs nor order the change of a label of a NHP even if the product presents serious or imminent risk (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2021).“
So there you have it. On paper, Canada protects consumers better than the US. In practice… well…
I leave you with this clip from CBC, ten years ago. Sadly not much has changed since then.
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/1.2993665
mivas.net 