What if the information you need to manage or recover from a health condition already exists—but that information is deliberately being concealed from you?

Listen to the audio version of this story:

THE TOPLINE

• U.S. regulations classify foods and supplements as “drugs” if they’re linked to disease claims—preventing companies from sharing vast amounts of high-quality scientific evidence about their benefits and leaving consumers uninformed.
• Because natural substances can’t be patented and FDA approval is prohibitively expensive, the framework reinforces a drug-first healthcare model despite poor national health outcomes.
• Regulatory barriers discourage the funding of research on nutrient-disease interactions and limit public access to findings, creating a structural problem that undermines prevention and consumer empowerment.

Right now, you can walk into a store and buy supplements like curcumin, omega-3s, or vitamin D. But the companies selling these—and hundreds of other supplements—are legally barred from telling you what the science actually says about how they may help restore your body to health. This isn’t because the evidence is weak—it’s because the law says they can’t.

This isn’t just a technicality. The United States spends more on healthcare than any other nation, yet delivers the worst outcomes in the industrialized world with healthy life expectancy currently ranking 80^th globally, with a predicted drop to 108^th by 2050. At the heart of this is a legal framework that effectively writes into law that food cannot be considered medicine. Yes, the statement “Let Thy Food Be Thy Medicine”, often misattributed to Hippocrates, is illegal if associated with an “article” of food or a dietary supplement (i.e., a commercial product).

Speaking to this dilemma, Rob Verkerk, Ph.D., ANH-USA’s executive & scientific director said, “This categorization currently works in favor of both Big Food and Big Pharma, but against the public interest. Big Food gets to make and sell products that generate disease; Big Pharma then gets to maintain its monopoly on the products that can be used to treat the condition or disease. All good if Big Pharma’s products delivered the best outcomes, but the science tells a different story.”

Until these laws can be modernized using the totality of science available in the 21^st century, thousands or even millions of Americans will miss out on treatment or prevention approaches that offer the best trade off between effectiveness and risk.

The Legal Trap

Under U.S. law, a product becomes a “drug” if it’s said to diagnose, treat, or prevent disease. That means if a company tells you curcumin helps with inflammation, that simple statement of fact turns the product into an unapproved drug that can then be removed from the market. This is, by way of example, precisely what happened to cherry and walnut growers who linked to peer-reviewed studies describing the health benefits of those products.

In order to say a food or supplement can treat or prevent a disease, you would need to go through FDA drug approval. For natural substances that can’t be patented, that process, which typically costs in the order of $1 billion and takes a decade, is just not feasible. So companies stay silent, and consumers—and even many physicians and other health practitioners—remain in the dark about how foods and supplements can help people recover their health without using licensed drugs. This classification also prevents nutrients from being reimbursable through insurance, or being prescribed through Medicare or Medicaid. Put simply, it’s a deliberate stitch up.

These laws allow pharmaceutical companies to monopolize healthcare, both in legal terms and in the minds of most citizens and physicians. This is why drugs are our first line of defense even though they are recognized as the third leading cause of death in the US and Europe.

The Research Bottleneck

The system also makes it harder to even study natural substances.

Rules designed for new synthetic drugs are being applied to everyday nutrients. Researchers studying something as simple as probiotics or vitamin D may have to go through the same process as a company developing a brand-new pharmaceutical if the research involves how a natural product can treat or prevent a disease.

Many scientists simply can’t get the funding to pursue this research because it’s too costly and time-consuming—especially early-career researchers. Funders know they won’t be able to get sufficient a return on investment because they know they’ll never be able to use the fruits of the research when linked to specific products.

That means fewer studies and less evidence about how we can use food as medicine.

Editor’s note: In 2022, the FDA issued a proposed rule that would, in certain circumstances, exempt researchers evaluating nutrients or food components from the IND requirement. This is a significant step forward that ANH-USA played a key role in achieving. However, it remains a proposed rule only — it has not yet been finalized. The previous IND requirement remains in effect until a final rule is published.

A Structural Problem—Not a Personal One

We’re often told that chronic disease is the result of personal choices, but that framing overlooks these deeper, structural problems. People cannot make informed decisions when they’re denied access to information in the first place. At the same time, scientists struggle to build the evidence needed to guide better health outcomes when research is blocked or discouraged.

How ANH is Working to Change the Rules

We won’t solve the chronic disease crisis by telling people to “make better choices” while denying them access to truthful, science-based information about the products that may help prevent, manage, or recover from disease. 

Real progress requires three things: scientists must be free to study nutrients and other natural substances without drug-style barriers; companies must be allowed to communicate lawful, evidence-based information about their products; and patients and practitioners must be able to access lower-risk natural options that are affordable and clinically relevant.

That is why ANH is advancing a coordinated reform agenda: modernizing outdated legal definitions, expanding appropriate use of medical foods and compounded medicines, protecting nutrition research from drug-style restrictions, and advancing a genuine right to try for patients and practitioners alike.

This is not just about market access. It is about restoring scientific integrity, informed choice, and a health system that serves people instead of protecting entrenched commercial interests. ANH is working to change that system—and with enough public pressure, it can be changed.

Please share this story widely in your networks, and consider donating to support our work.

The post The Drug Definition Trap: Why US Law Blocks Truthful Information That Could Help You Recover Your Health first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

High blood pressure was something that only affected older people. Now we see levels rising in young people creating both pathology and future risk. In this article, we look at what’s driving it and what parents can do to prevent it.

By Chimnonso Onyekwelu LLB, and Meleni Aldridge BSc NutrMed PgDip CPNI

Edited by Michael Ames-Sikora

Listen to the audio version of this story

In just 20 years, the number of children and young people with high blood pressure (HBP) has nearly doubled. Once seen as an adult problem, it now shows up in classrooms, playgrounds, and routine pediatric visits. According to The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, prevalence rose from 3.4% in 2000 to 6.5% in 2020—over 114 million young people affected. This surge begs a question: are kids truly sicker, or are we simply casting a wider diagnostic net?

A key turning point came in 2017 when the American Academy of Pediatrics updated its guidelines. The new rules simplified blood pressure categories for teens and aligned thresholds more closely with adults. Millions of previously “healthy” teens instantly moved into “at risk” or hypertensive groups.

With blood pressure rising so sharply, shouldn’t prevention take as much priority as treatment? Too often, new drugs arrive faster than efforts to stop children from becoming unwell in the first place.

Understanding High Blood Pressure and The Expanding Diagnostic Net

Simple, HBP, or hypertension, occurs when the force of blood against artery walls remains consistently elevated. Over time, this extra strain forces the heart to work harder, increasing the risk of long-term complications such as heart and kidney disease. In children, hypertension may be silent, often discovered only during routine check-ups, yet its effects can quietly set the stage for lifelong cardiovascular problems.

The 2017 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Clinical Practice Guideline marked a major shift from the 2004 Fourth Report. Among adolescents aged 13 and above, the guideline abandoned percentile-based thresholds, adopting fixed adult cut-points (≥120/80 mm Hg for elevated BP and ≥130/80 mm Hg for hypertension). It replaced “prehypertension” with the broader “elevated blood pressure” label and recalculated percentiles using only normal-weight children, effectively lowering thresholds for younger children. These changes may have simplified the diagnosis but also mean that more children now cross the threshold into elevated or high blood pressure ranges.

The impact is striking. A 2023 study shows that under the 2017 guidelines, the prevalence of hypertension in adolescents rose from 8.4% to 12.9%, elevated BP from 6.1% to 13.8%, and overall high BP from 14.5% to 26.7%. While these numbers partly reflect guideline changes rather than an abrupt rise in illness, they show how redefining ‘normal’ can suddenly label millions of otherwise healthy children as needing monitoring and intervention.

Other Drivers of High Blood Pressure in Children

Apart from the apparent rise caused by the 2017 AAP guideline, several well-established factors directly contribute to high blood pressure in children and young people. At the center of this is obesity — consistently identified as the strongest predictor of blood pressure rising above the 90th or 95th percentile (the cut-offs for elevated BP and hypertension). Multiple studies (here and here) have shown that obesity alone significantly increases a child’s risk, with more than 30% of obese boys (and up to 42% in some ethnic groups) and 23–30% of obese girls meeting the criteria for high or borderline blood pressure. A large meta-analysis also found that obese children were six times more likely to have elevated blood pressure than those of normal weight.

A Guide to Children’s Blood Pressure

Physical inactivity and long hours of sedentary behavior add another layer of risk. Children who do not meet the recommended minimum 60 minutes of daily activity, or who sit for more than two hours a day, show higher rates of both pre-hypertension and hypertension during follow-up. 

Diet plays a similar role: high-sodium foods, processed and ultra-processed meals, sugary drinks, and low intake of fruits, vegetables and fiber, all contribute indirectly by promoting weight gain and raising long-term cardiovascular risk. Poor sleep quality and sleep-related breathing problems also play a part, especially in children who are already overweight.

There are also medical causes that, while less common, are important to recognize. These include kidney disease, congenital or acquired heart problems, thyroid or adrenal disorders, diabetes, inherited conditions, and even chronic stress. In such cases, high blood pressure can appear regardless of weight, making proper evaluation essential when readings persist above the expected percentile ranges.

The Hidden Toll of Hypertension in Childhood

HBP in childhood is not a temporary phase that children ‘grow out of’. Research (here and here) consistently shows that children with raised systolic readings have a 3–4-fold higher likelihood of becoming hypertensive adults. Hypertension remains the most widespread non-communicable disease globally, and its earliest footprints are often laid down long before adulthood. Elevated BP in young people already increases their future risk of heart attack, stroke and kidney disease—conditions once thought to belong only to older age.

The structural effects on the body begin alarmingly early. In one study of 130 children and adolescents with BP above the 90th percentile, only 45% had a normal heart muscle size, while 14% had severe thickening linked to a four-fold rise in cardiovascular complications in adults. Other early warning signs—higher urinary albumin, retinal vessel changes, subtle cognitive impacts and early atherosclerotic changes—have also been reported. Short-term risks can be just as concerning, including persistent headaches, vision disturbances, vomiting, seizures and silent kidney strain. All of this confirms that childhood high BP is far from harmless; it is an early signal of a body already under pressure.

Practical and Natural Ways to Lower Blood Pressure in Children

It is worrying that a condition once seen almost exclusively in adults is now showing up in children and at such alarming rates. Somewhere along the way, we normalized reaching for medication before addressing the root causes, even in young people whose bodies are still developing. Children should not be carrying the burden of diseases driven largely by modern lifestyles, nor should drugs become the default solution for every health concern. We owe them better than that. Especially when in many cases, HBP—and the creation of chronic disease—is wholly preventable.

This is why ANH’s work to open a true pathway to prevention is so critical. There is substantial evidence that a range of low-cost supplements—magnesium, fish oil, CoQ10, resveratrol, quercetin, and others—can support healthy blood pressure. Yet, due to the FDA’s restrictive interpretation of the law, this information cannot be communicated on product labels.

Why? Because even accurate, science-backed statements about a nutrient’s role in lowering blood pressure are classified as “disease claims”—and only drugs are permitted to make those claims.

The result is a regulatory double standard that sends a clear, if unspoken, message: supplements can’t help you—turn to pharmaceuticals instead.

ANH is working to change this. We will soon be filing a legal petition aimed at restoring the ability to share truthful, non-misleading information about the health benefits of nutrients. Stay tuned.

So how do we begin to turn the tide and support children in ways that strengthen health rather than simply manage disease? 

Below are practical, research-supported steps to help reclaim a child’s health:

Weight reduction (if overweight or obese): For obesity-related hypertension, even modest weight loss can significantly lower BP. Begin with gradual, sustainable adjustments rather than strict or restrictive diets and pay close attention to the possibility of emotional eating patterns. See ANH’s Food4Kids guidelines for more information and further articles here, here, and here.

Daily physical activity: Children should be active. It’s their natural evolutionary norm. Sedentary behavior is not and will result in pathology. Aim for a minimum of 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity most days. Sports, brisk walking, cycling—anything that raises the heart rate counts and most importantly is fun! Active, fun, play is something that has largely been replaced with digital devices, but is far more important than many parents might realize. Active play influences brain structure, neurological processes and emotional resilience as well as lowering blood pressure and insulin levels and promoting better metabolic health (see studies here, here and here).

Reduce sedentary time: Closely linked to the previous point is the need to limit screen-based activities to less than two hours a day to lower BP and improve overall metabolic health. A child’s brain develops and enhances higher executive function through physical activity, play and learning how to successfully solve their own challenges. None of this happens in front of a digital screen.

Stress management: The effects of stress and trauma are insidious and affect the entire body given that the whole immune system is activated. The body doesn’t differentiate between physical or emotional wounding. In children who are rapidly growing, developing and laying down the neuronal circuitry that will form the foundation for how their respond to challenges through life, managing stress is essential. Story telling, breathwork and mindfulness practice along with physical activity out in nature can be useful antidotes. Helping children to recognize, feel, and process their emotions versus ignoring them, stuffing them deep inside or eating to drown them out, will reap myriad benefits throughout life.

Heart-healthy diet: Increase the child’s intake of fruits, vegetables, and fiber, while ensuring sufficient healthy fats and protein. Limit dairy intake if they show signs of intolerance and replace sugary and fizzy soda drinks with water. See ANH’s Food4Kids guidelines for more information and further articles here, here, and here.

Avoid ultra-processed foods: Limit packaged snacks, fast food, sweetened cereals and processed meats. These are high in sodium, sugar and unhealthy fats that can raise BP and contribute to weight gain. Choosing whole or minimally processed meals makes a noticeable difference.

Better sleep practices: Ensure children have the required number of hours of uninterrupted sleep in a pitch-dark room daily. This enhances cellular regeneration, gives the brain adequate rest to promote neuronal health and helps to address sleep issues early as poor sleep can elevate BP.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the American Academy of Pediatrics concur on the following number of hours of sleep for healthy children:

• Infants (4–12 months): 12–16 hours (including naps)
• Toddlers (1–2 years): 11–14 hours (including naps)
• Preschoolers (3–5 years): 10–13 hours (including naps)
• School-age children (6–12 years): 9–12 hours
• Teenagers/adolescents (13–18 years): 8–10 hours

Family-based approaches: Children thrive when the entire family adopts healthier habits together. Shared meals, shared activity, fun, laughter and consistent routines dramatically improve outcomes.

>> See ANH’s Reset Eating book for more detailed information on how to keep the whole family healthy at any age using food as your first and most powerful medicine.

The post Why Are Our Children Developing High Blood Pressure — And How Do We Stop It? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

A new court action in Murthy v. Missouri places rare limits on government influence over online speech—raising major implications for free expression and access to health information.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• A proposed consent decree would restrict certain federal agencies from pressuring major social media platforms to suppress protected speech, creating a narrow but enforceable check if approved by the court.
• The move follows the Supreme Court’s 2024 refusal to rule on the case’s core First Amendment issues, leaving the core First Amendment questions unresolved.
• For health freedom advocates, the case highlights how pushing only “acceptable” narratives can suppress legitimate scientific debate and erode public trust.

A new settlement in the litigation that reached the Supreme Court as Murthy v. Missouri has placed meaningful—but limited—constraints on the government’s ability to influence online speech, marking a notable development in the fight over censorship during the COVID era. The operative restrictions apply only to the Surgeon General, CDC, and CISA; they cover only the plaintiffs, and they are limited to the plaintiffs’ content. They do not apply to social media users’ speech.

A Partial Course Correction

After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on the core First Amendment issues in the case—finding the plaintiffs lacked standing—a lower court has now stepped in with a consent decree restricting how federal agencies interact with social media companies.

The order bars key agencies from pressuring platforms to remove or suppress lawful speech under threat of regulatory or legal consequences. While it applies only to the plaintiffs, if approved, it would create a rare enforceable limit on coercive government pressure in this context.

Commenting on the decree, Jonathan Emord, ANH-USA General Counsel, said, “During the pandemic, the White House, CDC, DHS, CISA, Office of the Surgeon General of the United States, HHS, and FTC all coerced and cajoled social media platforms (Meta, Twitter/X, YouTube/Google, etc.) to alter their content moderation policies to censor criticism of government narratives on vaccine safety, lockdown effectiveness, and the origins of the virus. I was among those whose statements were censored, repeatedly. These First Amendment violations are the most sweeping and extensive in American history. They are more substantial than those imposed by the federal government in the Alien and Sedition Acts (1791); the Espionage Act of 1917; the Sedition Act of 1918; and the Alien Registration Act of 1940. 

“Although the product of a consent decree, and therefore carrying less weight than a decision on the merits,” Emord continued, “the Murthy v. Missouri decree reveals that the current Department of Justice recognizes the federal government violated the First Amendment when its agents induced social media platforms to engage in censorship, shadow banning, visibility demotion, and algorithmic suppression in an effort to deny public access to content critical of government.”

Rob Verkerk, Ph.D, ANH-USA executive and scientific director, commented: “Science evolves through challenge, scrutiny, and open exchange—not through algorithmic suppression of views that fall outside the approved narrative. Social media—one of the most important sources of information for most Americans—must remain a forum for legitimate scientific debate, especially when evidence is still emerging.” Verkerk added, “When emerging science is filtered through censorship rather than debate, truth is not protected—it is delayed.”

Why It Matters

At issue is whether the government can sidestep the First Amendment by leaning on private companies to censor certain speech.

During the pandemic, officials defended these efforts as necessary to combat “misinformation.” But many viewpoints initially dismissed as misinformation—such as on the SARS-CoV-2 origins, lockdowns, immunity, and vaccine risks—later became subjects of legitimate scientific and public debate as evidence evolved.

And that’s the whole point: science advances through debate and dialogue, not through the enforcement of orthodoxy and removal of free speech.

Beyond COVID

This isn’t just about pandemic policy. The same dynamics affect broader health debates—from nutrition and supplements to chronic disease prevention—where non-mainstream perspectives are often marginalized.

For ANH-USA, this case reinforces a major concern: control over information is power. If you can control the information people are exposed to (and social media is now for many Americans the most important information provider), you can control how they think. We believe it is precisely this kind of control that helps keep natural medicine on the margins of healthcare: because the law prevents us from learning about the benefits of supplements, we’re conditioned to think that only drugs can treat or prevent disease when this is far from the case.

The Bottom Line

The Murthy decree is a step in the right direction, but the relief is very narrow, it affects a clutch of Bit Tech social media platforms, and it leaves major questions unresolved. Without a definitive ruling on the constitutional issues, the door remains open to future overreach.

If trust in public health is to be rebuilt, it won’t come from tighter control of information—but from allowing open, even uncomfortable, debate.

If you haven’t already, sign our FreeSpeech4Health petition to fight against censorship and shadowbanning.

The post Settlement in Murthy-Linked Censorship Case Marks a Modest Win for Free Speech—and Health Freedom first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

After years of restriction driven by theoretical risks, momentum is building in Washington to restore access to peptides. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• Signals from RFK Jr. suggest federal regulators could ease restrictions on injectable peptides that FDA have restricted from compounding pharmacies, which have shown significant therapeutic promise, including lifespan extension.
• The agency has limited access to many of these peptides based on theoretical risks and limited data, despite a lack of clear evidence of real-world harm.
• Tight regulation has pushed demand into unregulated online markets. ANH believes that peptides are being steered by the FDA toward patented, pharmaceutical-only pathways at the expense of consumer access.

After years of increasing suppression under the FDA, access to peptide bioregulators may finally be opening up. Signals from RFK Jr. suggest that regulators are preparing to ease restrictions on peptides, which have been caught in a regulatory gray zone for years.

While details remain vague, even the possibility of opening up access is welcome news given the remarkable healing effects that have been demonstrated: therapeutic and bioactive peptides, typically delivered by subcutaneous injection, sometimes also as a sublingual tablet or oral capsule, have been shown to have wide ranging benefits, with an excellent safety profile. For example, thymosin alpha-1 has four decades of evidence on its effect on enhancing the immune response (including to protect against cancer), BPC-157 reduces inflammation and promotes healing from bone and muscular injuries, and peptide bioregulators have been shown to increase lifespan by as much as 40 percent in animal studies. And that’s just a taste of what these short-chain peptides can do.

The Problem: Restriction Without Evidence of Harm

Late in 2023, the FDA released guidance prohibiting the compounding of a group of peptides, including many comprised of essential and conditionally-essential amino acids, like BPC-157, epitalon, LL-37, thymosin alpha-1 (Ta1), Kisspeptin-10, and more.

The FDA has justified this restrictive stance on peptides by pointing to potential risks—impurities, immunogenicity, or theoretical long-term effects. But as we’ve repeatedly highlighted, these concerns are largely speculative. In many cases, regulators have failed to produce clear evidence of real-world harm, even going as far as acknowledging the relatively strong safety profiles for certain peptides in clinical use.

The agency often points to a lack of data as a reason to ban peptides, but as we’ve repeatedly said, lack of data is not evidence of a lack of safety. It increasingly became clear to us that the FDA was simply looking for a pretense to ban these medicines and reserve them for Big Pharma.

The Inevitable Consequence: The Rise of the Gray Market

When regulators restrict access to substances that patients and clinicians believe are beneficial, those substances don’t disappear—they’re pushed into the shadows where unscrupulous actors thrive.

That’s exactly what has happened with peptides. As compounding pharmacies faced mounting restrictions, a sprawling gray market emerged. Products labeled “for research use only” are widely available online, often of questionable quality and without medical oversight. This was predictable. FDA policy has driven consumers away from licensed compounding pharmacies with quality controls and good manufacturing practices to the grey market where anything goes.

A Familiar Pattern: Regulatory Capture and Market Control

The peptide debate also fits into a broader and troubling pattern. We believe the FDA’s broader objective is to reserve these and other valuable natural peptides for pharmaceutical development—while eliminating competition from compounding pharmacies.

Peptides are particularly attractive drug candidates. They are the building blocks of proteins, central to countless biological processes, and increasingly important in precision medicine. The global market is projected to grow rapidly, driven in part by the success of GLP-1 drugs. A search of the government’s clinical trials database shows dozens of trials looking at how these peptides can address a wide range of conditions.

What the FDA wants is for peptides to become patented, monopoly drugs. Big Pharma makes a killing selling them, and the FDA collects its user fees. It’s a win-win, except if you’re a health consumer.

Bottom Line

Patients deserve better than a system that withholds promising therapies based on uncertainty, only to drive them into unregulated markets.

If we are serious about advancing health freedom and innovation, widening access to peptides—responsibly and transparently—is a step in the right direction.

Action Alert!

The post Compounded Peptides at a Crossroads: Will Regulators Finally Get Out of the Way? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Remember when FDA tried convincing us there were no “forever chemicals” in our food? Well, a new analysis has uncovered that residues of these incredibly dangerous chemicals are showing up on a large share of fruits and vegetables grown in the United States. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• A new Environmental Working Group analysis found PFAS pesticide residues on 37% of tested California produce, with especially high contamination in fruits like peaches, strawberries, and grapes.
• PFAS “forever chemicals” persist in the environment and human body, and are linked to serious health risks, yet are still intentionally used in pesticides applied directly to crops.
• Despite growing evidence of harm, the Environmental Protection Agency is moving to weaken reporting requirements while approving new PFAS pesticides, increasing exposure and shifting the burden onto consumers. And FDA that is tasked with ensuring our food is safe is turning a blind eye.

Why are regulators allowing pesticides made with PFAS chemicals onto our food supply?

A recent analysis from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that 37 percent of tested samples of conventional California-grown produce contained residues of PFAS pesticides.

Out of 930 samples of fruits and vegetables:

• 37% of California produce samples tested contained detectable PFAS residues
• 17 different PFAS pesticides were detected
• PFAS residues were found across 40 different types of produce
• Crops with especially high contamination included peaches, nectarines, plums, strawberries, grapes, and cherries

In some cases, contamination rates were extremely high. More than 90 percent of peaches, nectarines, and plums tested positive for the PFAS fungicide fludioxonil. Strawberries contained residues from ten different PFAS pesticides.

This is a critical issue because California produces more than half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the United States, meaning the exposure potential is nationwide. It adds significantly to the exposure burden from drinking water, house dust, other indoor exposures, consumer products, and occupational environments.

These latest results from EWG, like our own analyses of kale in 2023, are somewhat at odds with what the FDA has been reporting through the Total Diet Study (TDS). Through the TDS, the FDA has been testing foods for PFAS since 2019. Referencing the agency’s results, you’d think PFAS contamination of the food supply isn’t a big deal: their data sets consistently show a low percentage of foods with detectable levels of PFAS. In foods collected in 2024 under the TDS, one or more PFAS were detected in just 39 of 542 samples (7.2 percent). Since 2019, the FDA has tested 1,352 food sample for PFAS; according to the agency, 95 percent had no detectable levels of PFAS.

This gap between what independent testing is finding and what the FDA is reporting raises serious questions about whether the agency is asking the right questions, using the right methodology, and, most importantly, protecting Americans’ health or special interest profits. There also appears to be a lack of coordination between the three agencies involved, namely EPA (that regulates pesticides), FDA (that monitors the quality and safety of the food supply), and CDC (that monitors the causes and drivers of disease).

The “Forever Chemical” Problem

PFAS—short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—are often called “forever chemicals” because they are extraordinarily persistent. This is due to the carbon–fluorine bond that makes them resistant to degradation, allowing them to accumulate in soil, water, wildlife, and the human body.

Scientists have linked PFAS exposure to a growing list of health concerns, including immune system disruption, developmental and reproductive harm, hormone disruption, and cancer.

Many Americans already carry measurable levels of PFAS in their blood, largely due to contamination of drinking water and food. Yet despite this mounting evidence, PFAS continue to be intentionally used in pesticides applied directly to crops.

The Invisible Driver of Chronic Disease

There’s a deeper challenge underlying the PFAS crisis: the known health effects of these chemicals closely mirror the conditions driving today’s chronic disease epidemic—immune dysfunction, hormone disruption, reproductive harm, and cancer. Because exposure to PFAS is now so widespread, we’ve effectively lost a true control group, making it extraordinarily difficult to prove direct cause-and-effect in real-world populations. Regulatory systems tend to require that level of proof before acting on health concerns—but with ubiquitous exposure and overlapping disease patterns, that standard becomes nearly impossible to meet.

Yet the biological mechanisms are clear: the carbon–fluorine bond that makes PFAS so persistent also interferes with normal biological processes. This is precisely where policy must come in—shifting from waiting for definitive proof to acting on strong mechanistic evidence and replacing these chemicals with less persistent, safer alternatives.

The Regulatory Contradiction

Federal regulators are moving in the opposite direction of what optimal human health requires.

As ANH-USA recently reported, the EPA is proposing to weaken PFAS reporting requirements, limiting the data needed to understand the scale of contamination and approving new PFAS pesticides, allowing more of these chemicals into the environment. Before that, the EPA scrapped several standards to lower PFAS in drinking water.

That combination—less transparency and more contamination—is the worst possible regulatory response to a rapidly growing environmental health crisis.

What This Means for Consumers

While washing produce may remove some residues, PFAS pesticides are designed to be persistent, meaning they can remain even after rinsing.

For consumers trying to reduce exposure, one option is choosing certified organic produce, which prohibits the use of synthetic pesticides—including PFAS-based ones. But ultimately, the burden should not fall on consumers to navigate a chemically contaminated food system.

PFAS contamination is already being detected in drinking water, wildlife, soil, and human blood. Allowing these chemicals to be sprayed directly onto crops only deepens the crisis.

Until policymakers confront this issue head-on, the PFAS crisis will continue expanding—contaminating ecosystems, food, and future generations.

ANH-USA will continue pushing for a ban on these dangerous “forever chemicals” before the damage becomes truly irreversible.

Action Alert!

The post PFAS Pesticides Are Showing Up on Our Food—And Regulators Are Still Looking the Other Way first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

A federal court in Boston has temporarily halted several of RFK JR.’s vaccine policies, setting up a legal and political clash over who gets to shape U.S. immunization policy—and how.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• A federal judge in Boston has temporarily blocked Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s overhaul of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee, pausing new appointments, policy changes, and an upcoming meeting.
• A key aspect of the ruling concerns whether the restructured ACIP met standards for expertise, but the court may have overstepped by substituting its judgment for the executive branch and reinforcing an entrenched, closed network that has long shaped vaccine policy.
• Beyond the immediate legal fight, the case highlights deeper tensions over scientific authority, transparency, and evidence gaps in the childhood vaccine schedule—raising broader questions about who controls vaccine policy and how decisions affecting millions are made.

What Happened

U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy issued a ruling that pauses multiple actions taken by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the body that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine recommendations. The decision blocks ACIP from holding its scheduled March meeting and suspends both the appointment of 13 newly named committee members and recent changes to the CDC’s recommended childhood immunization schedule made under Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 

The ruling stems from a lawsuit brought by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other medical organizations. They challenged Kennedy’s overhaul of ACIP, including his decision to dismiss prior members and appoint new ones, as well as policy changes affecting COVID-19 vaccines and the broader childhood schedule. Rather than issuing a full injunction, the court imposed a “stay.” For now, federal vaccine policies revert to those that were in place before RFK Jr. took office.

ACIP recommendations directly shape which vaccines are covered by insurance, purchased by the federal government, and required in practice for school attendance.

Speaking to this ruling, ANH General Counsel Jonathan Emord said, “The decision rests on a misapplication of the Administrative Procedure Act. The actions enjoined are well within the discretion of the HHS Secretary and do not constitute final agency rules under the APA.

“Moreover,” Emord continued, “even if they were subject to the APA’s prohibition on arbitrary and capricious agency action, they were decisions backed by sound science and reasonable exercise of discretion, thus not constituting the kind of dereliction required to prove that relevant factors were not taken into account and weighed. 

“From a broader public policy perspective,” Emord added, “the Judge has invaded a sphere of political discretion in the executive branch that is a form of activism that violates the separation of powers. Judges are not to decide the prudence of policy decisions but their legality and, in doing so, are to base their decisions on the plain and intended meaning of the statutory law, not on what they fancy the law ought to be. Judge Murphy failed to perform his proper role and invaded the province of the executive branch.”

Pictured left: Jonathan Emord, Esq., ANH-USA General Counsel

A Court Stepping into Scientific Governance

Central to the judge’s ruling is the idea that the reconstituted ACIP does meet statutory requirements for expertise and balance. But in reaching that conclusion, the court effectively substituted its own judgment for that of the HHS Secretary—deciding which credentials and perspectives count as “relevant” to vaccine policy.

The court’s dismissal of Robert Malone, MD, is a case in point. The judge’s ruling states that, although Dr. Malone and several other ACIP members have “some experience arguably relevant to ACIP’s function, [they] appear to lack the qualifications and experience to constitute expertise in vaccines and immunization.”

A pioneer of mRNA vaccine technology, Dr. Malone holds early patents underlying today’s COVID-19 vaccines and has spent decades working on vaccine development, clinical trials, and infectious disease response. Over the past three decades, he has remained continuously engaged in vaccine and infectious disease research, development, and oversight. His résumé includes leadership roles in influenza vaccine development, work on Ebola and Zika countermeasures, and participation in dozens of clinical trials across all phases.

Pictured left: Robert Malone, MD.
Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

He has advised the World Health Organization, chaired and reviewed vaccine-focused NIH study sections, and contributed to approximately 100 peer-reviewed publications spanning vaccine technology, immunology, and emerging infectious diseases.

Dr. Malone brings both foundational scientific insight and decades of hands-on experience in vaccine development—more than enough to qualify for ACIP.

What seems to trouble the court is not a lack of expertise, but a lack of alignment. For decades, vaccine policy has been shaped by a relatively closed network of agencies, academics, and organizations with ties to pharmaceutical interests. That system has coincided with a steadily expanding childhood vaccine schedule.

Kennedy’s reforms sought to open that system to broader perspectives. You don’t have to agree with every change to see the value in that goal—unless you believe those connected to vaccine makers should exclusively shape vaccine policy.

By freezing these reforms, the court preserves the status quo. And in a system where recommended vaccines carry liability protections, that status quo comes with powerful incentives—ones that may not always align with our health.

“Controversial” Votes?

It’s also worth looking at the changes made to ACIP’s recommendations that are part of the subject of this lawsuit.  

The three votes made by the new ACIP committee were as follows:

• June 2025: Recommended removing thimerosal from flu vaccines for children, pregnant women, and adults. Thimerosal is a mercury-based compound. There is no safe level of exposure to mercury, which has been linked to severe neurological and cardiovascular issues.
• 2025: Shifted COVID-19 vaccines from routine recommendation to “shared clinical decision-making.”
• December 2025: Recommended individualized decision-making for the hepatitis B vaccine (including the birth dose) for low-risk infants.

None of these changes ban vaccines or prevent those who want them from getting them. Instead, they introduce a greater role for clinical judgment and patient choice.

Reasonable people can debate these changes. But characterizing them as an assault on science is quite a stretch. If anything, they represent modest efforts to reform vaccine policy in light of uncertainty, risk tolerance, and the need for informed consent—principles that should be at the heart of any medical decision-making framework.

The Bigger Issue: Evidence Gaps and Public Trust

This case brings up an uncomfortable truth: the evidentiary foundation for the full childhood vaccine schedule remains incomplete.

As ANH-USA has long emphasized, the cumulative schedule—now encompassing dozens of doses across numerous vaccines—has never been studied as a whole for long-term safety or efficacy. This is not a fringe claim; it reflects findings acknowledged by government advisory bodies, including the National Academies of Sciences. In a 2013 report, the Academy concluded, “Key elements of the schedule—the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at administration of vaccines—have not been systematically examined in research studies.” 

Yet for years, ACIP has rubber stamped new vaccine requirements that function as de facto mandates. In most states, children must follow the CDC schedule to attend school, with limited exemptions. Policies with sweeping real-world consequences are built on a patchwork of evidence that does not fully address how the entire schedule performs in practice.

Where This Goes Next

The court’s ruling is not the final word. Appeals are likely, and the legal battle over ACIP’s composition and authority will continue. But the broader debate over vaccine policy will not be easily resolved.

At its core, this is a contest over who controls the framework of vaccine policy in the United States—and whether that framework is open to meaningful scrutiny and reform.

If there is a path forward, it lies not in entrenching one side or the other, but in committing to higher standards of evidence, greater transparency, and genuinely balanced oversight. For policies that affect millions of children and families, anything less is not good enough.

The post Court Halts Vaccine Policy Overhaul, Leaving Bigger Questions Unanswered first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

By Chimnonso Onyekwelu LLB and Rob Verkerk PhD (edited by Michael Ames-Sikora)

Despite leading the world in natural health innovation, America spends trillions on a failing system while sidelining proven alternatives. Discover the six major factors—from regulatory capture to media manipulation—that keep natural therapies on the margins. It’s time to reclaim true health freedom.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• Despite massive healthcare spending producing poor health outcomes, entrenched special interests keep preventive, non-drug approaches marginalized in favor of pharmaceutical-driven care.
• ANH identifies six major forces constraining natural health, including regulatory control over health claims, financial and market incentives favoring drugs, strict definitions of “standard care,” media and information gatekeeping, weaponized law and regulations, and cultural conditioning toward symptom-based treatment.
• Meaningful reform requires addressing these structural forces simultaneously—expanding evidence standards, transparency, and consumer choice to integrate natural health into mainstream care rather than keeping it on the margins.

America is the R&D capital of natural health. The range of dietary supplements and other natural health products available on the US market dwarfs that in many other global markets, especially the European Union that has long used regulation as a tool to remove products that compete with drugs.

But anyone with keen eyes on the US market will recognize that the diversity of products on the US market has flatlined in recent years, especially when compared with the boom that followed the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).

Why has innovation declined? Why has natural health not assumed its rightful place as the mainstay of health care, as distinct from disease management?

In this article, we investigate the intricate, multi-factorial manner by which special interests work to keep natural health at the margins of health care.

America’s health crisis

The United States spends more on healthcare than any country in the world by a wide margin. In 2024 alone, spending reached an estimated $5.3 trillion, about 18% of GDP, averaging over $15,000 per person. Yet despite this extraordinary investment, the US consistently ranks near the bottom of high-income nations for life expectancy, chronic disease burden, and preventable deaths. Put simply, the industrialized country that spends the most on healthcare is also the least healthy.

Prescription drugs are the go-to treatments for chronic disease, yet they’re also now recognized as the third leading cause of death in industrialized countries.

At the same time, research suggests up to 80% of chronic disease could be prevented or reduced through nutrition, lifestyle changes, supplements, and other low-cost interventions. So why aren’t these approaches central to care?

The answer lies in how our health system is structured. Health outcomes are shaped by who sets the rules, who controls the market, and who defines “misinformation.” When information is filtered and the role of foods and nutrients in prevention can’t be legally communicated, truly informed health choices become far more difficult.

We pointed several AI engines at ANH’s library of information to come up with what the major obstacles to health freedom are. From a long laundry list of items, we’ve distilled it down to six interconnected macro-drivers that work to constrain natural health in the US.

The ‘Big 6’ Macro-Drivers Constraining Natural Health

1. Who Writes the Rules?

Beyond genetics, health is largely shaped by how and where we live, how we move, what we ingest and inhale, how we work and recreate, and other aspects of our behavior and choices. But choices, especially as they related to health, are greatly affected by the information we receive from the various channels to which we are exposed. Whoever writes the rules decides what counts as “food”, as “food ingredients’, or what gets labelled a “drug.” These classifications control what can and cannot be communicated to us about the benefits of these products.

A blueberry can be packed with antioxidants that can reduce your risk of heart disease, phytosterols may support heart or hormonal health, chia seeds metabolic health, and compounds like curcumin or berberine show incredible therapeutic promise. Yet any claim that suggests these and the thousands of other natural products out there can be used to treat or prevent disease are illegal. Such claims are the sole domain of drugs—a regulatory architecture that has been crafted over decades by Big Pharma.

Consumers may indeed be urged by public health authorities to choose what they eat or consume wisely, yet they are denied a complete picture of what is known scientifically about natural products, especially where these are natural alternatives to drugs.

When rules, language, and evidence thresholds are written this way, natural health is constrained, not by science, but by those who write the rules and set the narrative around human health care.

2. Who Controls the Money and Markets?

Natural health is constrained at the level of evidence, where money determines what qualifies as “science.” In 1991, about 80% of industry-funded clinical trials were conducted in academic medical centers; by 2004, that figure had fallen to 26%, replaced by for-profit research organizations contracted by drug companies. This shift has untold impact: study designs, publications, regulations, and medical education reflect pharmaceutical interests, leaving natural therapies– without comparable capital– unable to produce the forms of evidence regulators, insurers, and clinicians are structurally conditioned to demand.

Markets then reinforce this imbalance. Just four retailers control around 65% of grocery sales, while seeds, meat, and grain trading are 60–90% concentrated. Online gatekeepers such as Amazon and Walmart determine visibility, pricing pressure, and data access. Natural brands must pay for shelf space, surrender customer data, and risk rapid imitation, while pharmaceutical and ultra-processed products benefit from scale, marketing budgets, and preferential placement across supply chains and pharmacies.

Finally, the squeeze extends into innovation and medical culture. Following the Myriad case, naturally occurring substances are largely excluded from patent protection, leaving high research costs with little legal protection. Without IP protection, investors see little upside, research dries up, and innovation slows. Combined with regulatory capture and heavy pharmaceutical lobbying, control of money and markets systematically prioritizes pharmaceutical over natural health and substances long before consumers are offered a real choice.

3. Who Decides “Standard Care”?

Natural health is further squeezed by who defines “standard care.” Evidence-based medicine has elevated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to a near-exclusive gold standard, despite clear limits. One analysis found 36% of highly cited RCTs were later contradicted or shown to have weaker effects, while RCTs routinely exclude older, multi-morbid, and real-world patients. Because industry funds most large trials, the hierarchy is skewed: 69% of industry studies focus on drugs, while a mere 1.5% examine behavioral changes. When RCTs are treated as the only valid evidence, therapies without patent-driven funding struggle to generate the evidence required to be recognized as “standard care.”

Professional policing then locks these standards in place. In 2024 alone, the pharmaceutical industry spent $294 million on lobbying, while industry funding now covers about 70% of doctor training. Guidelines built on this evidence base are enforced through reimbursement rules and medical boards that determine acceptable practice. During the pandemic, clinicians prioritizing nutrition, prevention, or off-guideline approaches were suspended or barred from practice, signaling that deviation carries real risk. By controlling the evidence, the education, and the licenses, the system ensures that “standard care” remains drug-centered while systematically marginalizing natural health.

4. Who Controls What You’re Allowed to Hear?

Natural health is constrained not only by evidence rules, but by visibility itself. As the saying goes, “he who pays the piper dictates the tune.” Legacy media is structurally dependent on pharmaceutical advertising: between January and October 2024, pharma brands spent $7.9 billion on ads, with over $5.3 billion going to national and local TV, accounting for roughly 10–12% of all TV ad revenue. Prescription drug ads alone drove 11.6% of national linear TV spend. This dependence creates incentives to avoid narratives that challenge drug-centered models while marginalizing alternatives that do not buy airtime.

Beyond commercials, the flow of information is constrained through biased “fact-checking” and algorithmic suppression. Platforms including Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter use downranking, demonetisation, shadow banning, and deplatforming to suppress health content that diverges from “authoritative sources.”

By framing natural health as “unproven” and using coordinated reporting campaigns to stigmatize non-drug interventions, the system ensures that what the public hears is not the full scientific truth, but a carefully curated pharmaceutical narrative.

5. How Risk and Law is Weaponized

Legal and liability pressures have become another mechanism through which natural health is squeezed. Regulators increasingly rely on a “risk-based” enforcement framework that magnifies isolated incidents to justify broader restrictions on entire categories of natural products.

A clear example in the US relates to FDA’s 2019 withdrawal of Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) 400.400, which for more than three decades allowed homeopathic products to be lawfully marketed. Removing that policy exposed traditional remedies to the same “new drug” approval standards applied to pharmaceuticals– an impossible threshold for non-patentable substances that cannot recover the roughly $2.6 billion cost of modern drug development. The disparity is striking: conventional pharmaceuticals account for more than 99% of adverse drug events reported to the FDA, while homeopathic products represent only a minute fraction of one percent. That’s why we’re engaged in a lawsuit to correct this wrong that is, otherwise, likely to eliminate an entire modality of alternative medicine.

Regulatory scrutiny is further reinforced through a steady stream of investigations into products marketed as natural. State Attorney General actions frequently target categories such as foods and dietary supplements, weight-loss and wellness products sold online, and CBD or cannabis-derived supplements. Of course, oversight of adulterated or misbranded products is a legitimate consumer-protection function. However, enforcement often concentrates disproportionately on natural health categories, with highly publicized investigations and warning campaigns that shape public perception even when issue stem from isolated violations. The result is selective pressure: the entire sector face reputational damage, regulatory uncertainty, and the high cost of compliance or litigation.

Meanwhile, pharmaceutical drugs, including prescription and over-the-counter medicines, are responsible for nearly 2 million emergency-department visits annually in the United States. Despite this significant safety burden, pharmaceuticals continue to be framed as the default “safe” option. The resulting asymmetry is clear: natural health products face heightened scrutiny and legal exposure, while pharmaceutical interventions retain institutional credibility and market dominance.

6. How Our Minds Are Manipulated

Natural health is also squeezed at the level of mindset, through cultural conditioning that reshapes what people consider “normal” health. When the average American develops a headache, the instinct is often to reach for paracetamol [acetaminophen] (Tylenol) or ibuprofen (Advil). Rarely is the first question: Am I dehydrated? Did I sleep poorly? Is stress, posture, or diet contributing to my problem? This reflex reflects a shift from addressing causes to suppressing symptoms. Over time, it narrows the solutions people consider, pushing nutrition, lifestyle change, and other preventive approaches to the margins before they are explored.

We see this also in the rise of polypharmacy, those who take five or more prescription medications. What might once have signaled systemic health failure is increasingly treated as simply part of modern life.

At the same time, key drivers of poor health are normalized. Ultra-processed foods now make up about 60% of daily calories in the US, while studies show nutrient levels in some vegetables have declined since the mid-20th century. The result is a population that is often overfed yet micronutrient deficient. Rather than addressing these underlying causes, the dominant response remains pharmaceutical management. The cycle reinforces itself: unhealthy environments produce chronic illness, illness fuels drug dependence, while natural health is pushed to the background.

The Future

The future of natural health in the US—as well as in other parts of the world with elaborate, Big Pharm and Big Food controlled regulatory systems—will not be decided by science alone. All six of these macro-drivers must be tackled simultaneously if we’re to restore balance, allowing nature to be reinstated as the most important influence on our health, an interaction that is the product of our co-evolution with natural systems over millennia.

This matters because the current health trajectory is unsustainable and millions are destined to suffer and receive substandard support of their health. With aging populations and spiraling rates of chronic disease that now affect the majority of adults, together with ever growing costs of healthcare that fails to address the underlying causes of disease, prevention can no longer remain peripheral.

The goal is not to replace modern medicine but to remove the prejudices against natural medicine and offer choice. A future where natural health is protected, researched, and accessible would not only expand choice, it would help move healthcare from a system built around managing disease through largely synthetic, chemical interventions, to one capable of sustaining human health because natural systems tend to work in concert with our bodies and minds, not against them.

ANH Action Plan in the US

Since leading US constitutional attorney Jonathan Emord (who has been gifted the moniker the “FDA Dragon Slayer” given he holds the record for lawsuit wins against the FDA) joined ANH-USA as General Counsel in mid-2024, we have embarked on a radical plan involving over 30 distinct legal and regulatory initiatives to combat the problems we describe in this article. We are unfolding this plan by way of an array of lawsuits, other legal initiatives, campaigns, and political Action Alerts about which you can find out more on our website.

You can sign up to our free weekly newsletter and be kept abreast of our implementation of this unique plan, which centers on bringing in natural health from the margins, and embracing it at the heart of human health care. We are also very grateful for any donations to help support this work.

Please circulate this article widely among your networks to help address the censorship that affects the communication of our work.

The post The Big Six Barriers: The Hidden Forces Suppressing Natural Health in America first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The federal government just revealed, once again, where its priorities lie.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• The FDA is moving to approve many new drugs based on just one clinical trial, lowering the evidentiary bar for pharmaceuticals in the name of speeding patient access.
• At the same time, federal regulators are pressuring supplement companies to support health claims with expensive randomized controlled trials—sometimes even two—creating a far higher standard for natural products than for drugs.
• Because nutrients and botanicals generally cannot be patented, requiring pharmaceutical-style trials effectively suppresses communication about natural health options and limits consumers’ access to information about their potential benefits.

In a move announced in the New England Journal of Medicine, the FDA says it will drop its long-standing expectation that new drugs be supported by two clinical trials, shifting instead to a “default” of just one trial for many new medications. FDA leadership says the change will cut red tape and accelerate patient access to new drugs.

For advocates of natural approaches to health and healing, this raises an obvious contradiction: while the FDA relaxes standards for drug—new to nature molecules that come with dangerous side effects—federal agencies are simultaneously tightening the screws on the natural health sector, products with long histories of safe use. It is regulatory capture—and crony capitalism—at its peak.

Drugs Get Flexibility—Supplements Get Censorship

In 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), working closely with the FDA, sent hundreds of warning letters to supplement and natural product companies explaining that health claims must be backed by randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—the same expensive standard used for pharmaceuticals.

In some cases, regulators have even suggested two RCTs may be required to substantiate health benefits in advertising.

That’s right: Drugs that can cause serious side effects—even death—may soon be approved with a single clinical trial. Natural products with decades or even centuries of safe use are being forced to meet an even higher bar just to discuss their benefits. It is an outrageous double standard.

A “Backdoor Ban” on Natural Health Information

Clinical trials are incredibly expensive, often costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

Drug companies can afford them because their products are patent-protected monopolies that can be sold for enormous profits. Nutrients and botanical products are different. They generally can’t be patented, meaning the costs of large-scale trials cannot be recouped.

Regulators know this, which means demanding pharmaceutical-style trials for supplement claims functions as a de facto ban on most health claims about natural products. And when companies can’t communicate the science behind their products, consumers are left in the dark about options that could support their health.

A Pattern of Suppression

The government’s crackdown on truthful health speech is part of a long-standing campaign to steer consumers away from natural options in favor of pharmaceutical drugs:

• Cherry and walnut growers were threatened by the FDA for linking to peer-reviewed studies on their websites.
• Doctors were silenced during COVID for recommending vitamin D and zinc.
• Xlear, a nasal spray company, was dragged into litigation for sharing results of over a dozen studies on its product’s potential benefits—litigation the DOJ finally dropped with prejudice in March 2025.

And the problem goes beyond our borders. US regulators are pushing to “harmonize” with the European Union’s oppressive model, where nearly all botanical claims have been banned and only a few vitamin/mineral claims are allowed. We cannot let that happen here.

The Fight for Scientific Integrity

That’s why the Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) has filed a petition challenging the FTC’s censorship regime and demanding a return to a “totality of the evidence” standard—one that considers the full body of scientific research, not just expensive clinical trials.

Science doesn’t begin and end with randomized trials.

Epidemiological studies, mechanistic research, observational data, and centuries of real-world use all contribute to scientific understanding—especially when it comes to nutrients and foods.

Consumers deserve access to all the evidence, not just the evidence that benefits pharmaceutical companies.

Stand with ANH in the fight for free speech and health autonomy by donating to our legal war chest!

The post FDA Lowers the Bar for Drugs—While Raising It for Natural Health first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

EWG warns that “secret” chemicals are slipping into the food supply through the GRAS pathway. This alarmist framing paves the way to FDA pre-approval, which will curtail access to thousands of natural ingredients. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• The EWG report misleadingly groups naturally derived ingredients like green tea extract, grape skin extract, cinnamon extract, and coenzyme Q10 with novel synthetic additives, exaggerating potential risks.
• FDA approval does not automatically guarantee safety, as several additives cleared decades ago—such as tartrazine (Yellow #5), Blue #1, and methyl paraben—were later linked to health concerns.
• Policymakers should focus on improving transparency and adopting a tiered, risk-based regulatory system rather than imposing blanket FDA pre-approval for all food ingredients.

A new report from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) claims that more than 100 “secret” chemicals have entered the food supply without federal safety review through the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) pathway. The implication is clear: without greater FDA scrutiny, consumers are at risk.

But, as we’ve been saying for some time, the story is far more complicated, and EWG’s framing risks pushing policymakers toward the wrong solution.

First, FDA approval is not a guarantee of safety. History is full of examples of substances that went through formal FDA regulatory review and were later found to cause harm. Take Yellow #5 or tartrazine, associated with ADHD in children. Or Blue #1. These were both approved for use by the FDA during the flower power era in 1969. Another example is methyl paraben, which was last assessed in 1972, yet has more recently been found to be an endocrine disrupting chemical.  

In other words, the mere fact that the FDA has reviewed something does not automatically make it safe.

Second, EWG’s list of “secret GRAS chemicals” includes many ingredients that are hardly mysterious industrial compounds. Green tea extract, grape skin extract, mushroom extracts, cinnamon extract, and coenzyme Q10—some of the examples highlighted in the report—are naturally derived substances that have been consumed for decades and studied extensively. Lumping these ingredients together with novel synthetic additives and portraying them all as unknown hazards is misleading and scientifically irresponsible.

Why? Because many foods and supplements—unlike synthetic chemical additives—contain ingredients that at certain levels are helpful, even essential, but at other levels can create injury, notably for a small subset of the population that is more sensitive. That’s why we have argued for a regulatory approach grounded in the Paracelsian principle (“the dose makes the poison”) rather than the precautionary principle (“keep it out until you prove [the ingredient] is safe”).

This is not to say the GRAS system is perfect. It isn’t. Greater transparency is needed. Companies that make GRAS determinations should publicly disclose the evidence supporting safety. Expert panels evaluating GRAS status should be independent and free of conflicts of interest.

But replacing the current system with a blanket pre-approval regime for every food ingredient, as some lawmakers have called for, would be a mistake. Such an approach would dramatically slow innovation, create a regulatory tsunami that would overwhelm the FDA, and could inadvertently restrict access to beneficial natural compounds with long histories of safe use.

A better approach would be a tiered, risk-based regulatory framework that we detailed in our 2025 white paper. Novel synthetic chemicals or ingredients produced through new industrial processes should face higher levels of scrutiny. Meanwhile, natural compounds with extensive safety data and centuries of dietary exposure should not be treated as if they were newly invented chemicals.

Consumers deserve transparency about what’s in their food and how safety determinations are made. But they also deserve regulatory policies grounded in science and proportional risk—not alarmist narratives that equate green tea extract with hazardous industrial additives.

The real goal should be smarter oversight: more disclosure, better post-market monitoring, and risk-based regulation that protects public health while preserving access to beneficial natural ingredients.

Action Alert!

The post EWG’s “Secret GRAS” Alert Misses the Real Problem first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

From James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

Listen to the audio version of this article:

Editor’s note: For years, ANH-USA has warned that chemical-intensive agriculture and corporate influence over our regulatory system are putting public health—and consumer choice—at risk. From our advocacy on glyphosate to our broader push for transparency, accountability, and safer food systems, we’ve consistently argued that Americans shouldn’t have to choose between access to food and protection from harmful chemicals.

That’s why we’re sharing this excellent commentary from scientist James Lyons-Weiler. In it, he breaks down Bayer’s attempt to secure sweeping legal immunity over its flagship herbicide, Roundup herbicide, and explains why the fight isn’t just about one company or one chemical. As he argues, the real solution lies in challenging the deeper system of chemical dependency in our food, homes, and communities—and empowering citizens to demand healthier alternatives.

Read the article below.

Bayer’s recent threat to pull Roundup from the American market unless granted sweeping immunity from liability lawsuits isn’t a business decision—it’s a carefully crafted political maneuver designed to trap us in a false choice. The company wants us to believe we’re caught between corporate immunity and agricultural chaos, between chemical dependency and empty grocery shelves.

But this is an illusion—and it’s precisely the stalemate Bayer wants.

Here’s the truth: Glyphosate-based herbicides won’t disappear even if Bayer pulls out. The United States already imports generic glyphosate, and research consistently shows these alternatives perform equally well. Moreover, most glyphosate-treated corn isn’t grown for direct human consumption. A significant portion is directed toward livestock feed and ethanol production. Most critically, our food system is robust enough to adapt quickly without disruptions to the American food supply.

Best of all? We hold the power of the purse. Literally. Consumer demands drive supply.

Bayer’s real goal isn’t to protect food security—it’s to protect itself from accountability.

Currently, Bayer is pursuing a $7.25 billion settlement structured specifically to discourage plaintiffs from opting out, while simultaneously pushing for a Supreme Court ruling that could broadly preempt state-law failure-to-warn claims. This legal maneuver would effectively insulate the company from meaningful accountability for harm caused by its products. Understanding this legal nuance helps reveal precisely why the fight against “liability-free pesticides” is critical.

Read the rest of the article here, and take action below.

Action Alert!

The post Bayer’s Threat Is a Stalemate Trap. Here’s How We Win. first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.