Consumer Freedom Protection Act - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to deem a dietary supplement to be misbranded if a claim is made in the labeling which characterizes the level of any nutrient or characterizes the relationship of any nutrient to a health-related condition. Includes under the latter claim claims to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent any disease or health-related condition.Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, within 100 days of receiving such a claim, to promulgate regulations authorizing such claims in a form that accurately reflects the degree of scientific evidence supporting the claim, unless the Secretary determines that no scientific evidence supports such claim and that the claim is inherently misleading. Allows judicial review of claims denied by the Secretary. Allows on such labeling statements made by a scientific body of the U.S. Government about the relationship between a nutrient and a health-related condition. Prohibits the Secretary from denying claims based on such statements.Approves the health claims references in the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Pearson v. Shalala. Directs the Secretary to publish a notice granting each of such claims with the following disclaimer: "The Food and Drug Administration has determined that the evidence supporting this claim is inconclusive." Makes null and void: (1) the interim final rules concerning health claims based on the authoritative statement published in the Federal Register of June 22, 1998; and (2) all orders issued by the FDA after April 20, 1999, and before this Act, that have denied health claims. Requires reevaluation of claims included under such orders.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.4604 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.4604 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.4604 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.4604 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.