What if cancer isn’t simply something that happens to us, but something that emerges from the biological terrain we’ve been cultivating for decades?

Dr. Nasha Winters, an internationally recognized leader in metabolic and integrative oncology and a member of the Alliance for Natural Health USA Board, joins Mike Ames-Sikora to explore cancer, metabolic health, environmental exposures, informed choice and a radically different vision for cancer care.

In this episode, you’ll learn:

◼ What Nasha means by the “terrain” and why it matters in cancer and chronic disease
◼ Why disease processes may begin long before diagnosis
◼ What basic blood tests can reveal about metabolic, inflammatory and immune health
◼ How environmental exposures contribute to our cumulative body burden
◼ Practical ways to reduce everyday exposures without chasing perfection
◼ Why informed consent and patient choice matter in cancer care
◼ How integrative and conventional oncology could work together
◼ Why regenerative agriculture, food, circadian rhythm and community belong in the healthcare conversation
◼ Nasha’s vision for a terrain-centered cancer hospital and research institute
◼ Why she joined ANH International and the threats she sees facing integrative oncology

The post The Mike Drop Podcast: Dr. Nasha Winters first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

America’s disclosure rules on bioengineered foods leave shoppers guessing—and an approaching court deadline will not close every gap. Action Alert!

THE TOPLINE

• US disclosure rules exempt many foods and ingredients, leaving shoppers without a complete picture of how their food was produced.
• Certain gene-edited foods can avoid US disclosure, and upcoming EU rules will also exempt qualifying foods from GMO labeling.
• Court-ordered changes will address some US labeling gaps, but consumers still need clearer information and stronger scrutiny of genetically engineered foods.

A food package carries no bioengineered disclosure. Does that mean no genetic engineering went into the food?

No. USDA’s bioengineered food disclosure standard leaves entire categories of genetically engineered foods and ingredients outside mandatory disclosure.

Easing restrictions on natural substances with credible histories of safe use makes sense. Yet natural products face persistent calls for tighter regulation, alongside efforts to suppress truthful information about their benefits. Meanwhile, novel technologies that fundamentally alter our food are riding a wave of deregulation—even as their implications demand rigorous scrutiny and full transparency. These priorities are backwards.

A Narrow Definition, Wide Exclusions

Under the current rule, foods generally require disclosure when: 1) they contain genetic material modified through laboratory recombinant-DNA techniques, 2) the modification could not otherwise arise through conventional breeding or nature, and 3) the modified material is detectable.

There are a host of exclusions:

• Restaurants and food service: meals can contain engineered ingredients without this disclosure.
• Very small manufacturers: businesses with annual receipts below $2.5 million are exempt.
• Accidental presence: up to 5% of each ingredient may be bioengineered if its presence is “inadvertent” or technically unavoidable.
• Animal feed: meat, milk, and eggs do not require disclosure solely because animals ate engineered feed.
• Refined ingredients: oils, sugars, and other ingredients can avoid disclosure when modified genetic material is undetectable.
• Processing aids: qualifying incidental additives present at insignificant levels with no final technical or functional effect are excluded.
• Certain meat, poultry, and egg products generally fall outside coverage when those ingredients predominate, including after water, broth, or stock.
• Many alcoholic beverages: products subject to federal alcohol labeling law fall outside this standard.

Nearly A Quarter of Your Chips

Consider a hypothetical bag of corn chips containing 80% cornmeal, 19% refined soybean oil, and 1% salt.

If 5% of the cornmeal is inadvertently mixed-in bioengineered corn, that represents 4% of the chips. Add oil entirely from engineered soybeans that meets non-detectability requirements: another 19% originates from GE crops.

That is 23% of the product’s weight originating from engineered crops, quite legally without a bioengineered disclosure.

This can also allow proteins made using genetically engineered yeast or bacteria (through a process called “precision fermentation”) to avoid disclosure, depending on what remains in the finished ingredient.

“Could Happen Naturally” is Doing Enormous Work

A CRISPR-produced food can escape disclosure if its genetic modification could otherwise be achieved through conventional breeding or found in nature. But who decides if a modification could arise through conventional breeding or nature? Essentially it is the food company that makes the decision, and the federal government can later audit their records to examine the company’s conclusions.

This is scientifically (and ethically) bankrupt. For example, targeting one genetic location does not guarantee only one biological consequence. A study of human cells found that CRISPR targeting of certain genes also altered neighboring genes’ activity. A 2023 plant study found unexpected DNA rearrangements when CRISPR edited multiple sites in rice and Arabidopsis (thale cress, the most widely researched reference plant in modern biology)—changes routine screening could misidentify.

These studies call into question if any genetic editing of foods can really be “natural” if the genetic tinkering produces non-localized effects in the organism. Yet large swaths of foods that have been genetically manipulated escape any kind of disclosure.

Europe’s Parallel Retreat

The European Union’s new genomic techniques regulation will come into effect after July 17, 2028.  As you can see in the table below,both approaches allow certain gene-edited foods to reach consumers without a label disclosing how they were produced.

*The EU’s new rules create a category called NGT-1, covering plants made using “new genomic techniques,” such as gene editing, that meet legal criteria for equivalence to conventionally bred plants; from July 2028, foods from these plants will not require GMO labeling.

What Changes in 2028?

Today, companies can disclose bioengineered ingredients with words, USDA’s symbol on the package, or direct shoppers to a QR code or text-message service. Even then, they do not have to identify which ingredients are engineered.

But a legal challenge is forcing changes to these provisions. Following Natural Grocers v. Rollins, a court order will end two parts of the current rules on January 1, 2028, unless further court action changes that deadline:

• The “we couldn’t detect it” exclusion. Some ingredients from engineered crops currently avoid disclosure because tests cannot detect modified DNA. The appeals court rejected that reasoning: failing to detect something does not prove it is absent.
• The current QR-code and text-message options. Companies will no longer be able to rely on those provisions as written. USDA will need to address the barriers shoppers face when trying to access that information.

The concrete effects of these changes are uncertain. USDA could adopt a new minimum amount that triggers labeling, and QR codes are not permanently banned. The other exemptions remain.

Consumers deserve clear information about how their food was produced, plain and simple. When companies play God with nature, shoppers should not have to play detective with dinner.

Action Alert!

The post No GMO Label Doesn’t Mean No Genetic Engineering first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

HHS is asking for evidence about wireless radiation and health. Tell the agency to make long-term safety, children’s health, and real-world exposure a priority. Action Alert!

THE TOPLINE

• HHS has opened a public inquiry into wireless radiation and health, with comments due by October 21, 2026.
• Animal findings and new analyses raise questions about existing exposure limits, and the International Agency on Research on Cancer (part of the WHO) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) since 2011.
• Help us urge a thorough, independent review and practical measures to reduce unnecessary exposure.

Your phone is beside you. A router sits across the room. In an apartment building, your device may show a long list of neighboring Wi-Fi networks. Wireless technology is woven into daily life—but how well do our safety standards address the way we actually live with it?

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Communication Commission have opened a request for information on electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency radiation, and wireless exposure. They are seeking scientific evidence and public input on health effects, exposure standards, and research priorities.

This is an opportunity to press for answers to questions ANH has raised for years. The inquiry itself changes no safety limits. What matters is whether it leads to stronger science, meaningful oversight, and better protection.

Broken Safety Standards

US limits on exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR)—the kind emitted by cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, and wireless infrastructure—were set in 1996. These limits are based on a deeply flawed assumption: that RFR only harms the body by heating tissue. In other words, if radiation doesn’t raise your body temperature, regulators assume it’s safe.

That assumption ignores decades of scientific research showing non-thermal biological effects, including links to cancer, oxidative stress, neurological damage, and reproductive harm. Many of these effects occur at exposure levels far below the FCC’s so-called “safe” threshold.

Indeed, a 2025 policy review argues that US standards have failed to keep pace with research and modern exposure patterns. The review calls for independent research, stronger monitoring, and protections for vulnerable populations.

HHS and the FCC must be made to confront the reality that standards developed in 1996 no longer apply given modern exposures.

Warning Signs Deserve a Serious Review

The federal government’s own National Toxicology Program studies found clear evidence of malignant heart tumors in male rats exposed to radiofrequency radiation, and some evidence of brain tumors.

A 2026 analysis by Ronald Melnick, Joel Moskowitz, and ICBE-EMF adds to that concern. Using animal data, the authors calculated exposure levels intended to protect against cancer and male reproductive harm that were substantially below current limits. They called for an independent reassessment.

Taking meaningful action does not require pretending every scientific question is settled. It requires taking unresolved questions seriously.

New Exposures, New Questions

Humans evolved in a world of sunlight, natural electrical activity, and Earth’s magnetic field. Today’s wireless technologies have added a different pattern of exposure: engineered radio signals, repeatedly transmitted and often originating close to our bodies. The fact that electromagnetic radiation exists in nature does not, of course, establish the safety of these novel exposures. Especially given that square-form, digital waveforms offer completely different information to the body as compared with the smooth, sinusoidal waves form natural systems.  Duration and intensity also vary greatly. This means their biological effects must be evaluated on their own terms—including how signals are pulsed, how strong they are, what kinds of biological effects they mediate, and how long exposures last.

Those who live in apartment buildings or neighborhoods can often find long lists of nearby networks. In our own homes it’s common to have several phones, tablets, routers, wearables, and other devices that increase our exposure to electromagnetic field radiation. We must press HHS to support independent research that measures those conditions accurately, follows people over time, and examines children and other potentially vulnerable groups.

The comparison with new-to-nature chemicals is useful as a precautionary principle. We generally don’t introduce new chemicals or substances into our daily lives without some degree of safety testing. Yet we’re doing precisely the opposite when it comes to radiation exposures from ubiquitous wireless devices.

Reduce Your Exposure

Simple precautions are therefore reasonable without implying that harm has been definitively proven, such is the complexity of establishing causal relationships. For example, use speaker mode or a wired headset for lengthy calls, avoid prolonged calls with poor reception, keep an actively transmitting phone away from the head and body when convenient, keep wireless routers some distance from bedrooms, children and work areas, and turn off wireless routers overnight. Distance reduces exposure sharply.

Make Your Voice Heard

Urge HHS to commission an independent assessment of exposure limits, strengthen long-term research, improve public exposure information, and evaluate practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure in homes and schools.

Families should have clear guidance and affordable options, including wired connections where practical. Protecting health should be part of technology policy from the beginning.

Use the form below to submit a comment under docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. We deserve connectivity backed by transparent science and accountable public health oversight.

Action Alert!

The post Wireless Radiation: Washington Wants to Hear from You first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

If you use homeopathic medicines, then you’ll know that changes in FDA policy threaten your access. For more than 30 years, FDA provided clear conditions under which these products could remain on the market. The agency withdrew that policy in 2019, and in its 2022 guidance declared that all homeopathic medicines are in effect illegal because they have not been through a full drug approval process. ANH and homeopathic manufacturer Meditrend have now filed a formal and detailed petition asking FDA to restore clear rules that protect consumer access while targeting products with genuine safety problems.

Our press release below explains what we’re asking for—and why it matters for your health choices.

ANH Petitions FDA to Restore Safe Harbor
for Homeopathic Medicines

Citizen Petition calls for reinstatement of CPG 400.400, formal rulemaking, and a science-based “traffic-light” enforcement framework

ALEXANDRIA, VA., October 1, 2026 — The Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA), together with homeopathic manufacturer Meditrend Inc., has filed a Citizen Petition calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to restore its longstanding safe harbor for homeopathic medicines and halt implementation of its current framework pending formal public rulemaking.

For 31 years, FDA’s Compliance Policy Guide 400.400 provided a clear framework under which homeopathic products meeting specified standards could be marketed without being treated as enforcement targets solely because they lacked new drug approval. FDA withdrew that policy in 2019 and later finalized a risk-based enforcement guidance in December 2022.

ANH-USA and Meditrend argue that FDA’s replacement framework leaves responsible manufacturers unable to know what steps will protect compliant products from enforcement—even where products meet established homeopathic, labeling, and quality standards. The petition further argues that FDA failed to adequately account for decades of industry reliance on CPG 400.400 or undertake the notice-and-comment rulemaking required before adopting a policy with such significant impact on the industry.

“The Administrative Procedure Act prohibits FDA from abruptly ending an industry safe harbor without evaluating the reliance interests of the industry,” said Jonathan W. Emord, General Counsel to ANH-USA. “The agency did not do that, and it also did not provide the regulated class with reasonable parameters to know whether any particular homeopathic drug on the market will be the subject of enforcement action. It should restore CPG 400.400 and engage in proper rulemaking to define those parameters so manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, practitioners, and consumers know what products may safely be sold and purchased.”

Restore clear rules and protect consumer access

The petition asks FDA to take four actions pending completion of formal notice-and-comment rulemaking:

1. Revoke its 2019 withdrawal of Compliance Policy Guide 400.400.
2. Reinstate CPG 400.400 and its conditions for marketing homeopathic medicines.
3. Cease implementation of the enforcement framework adopted in the December 2022 homeopathic drug guidance.
4. Commence a rulemaking to define precisely what kinds of homeopathic products may be safely sold in the United States without threat of FDA enforcement.

Focus enforcement on demonstrated product risks

The petition’s scientific exhibit examines 2,068 adverse event reports associated with homeopathic or purportedly homeopathic products. The analysis concludes that FDA’s own adverse event records do not justify treating properly manufactured, HPUS-compliant, correctly labeled homeopathic medicines as a broad public health risk.

The exhibit argues that FDA has relied heavily on isolated, unrepresentative examples involving improperly manufactured, mislabeled, contaminated, pharmacologically dosed, or otherwise non-compliant products. Such products were never entitled to the protections of CPG 400.400. Their defects support targeted enforcement against specific bad actors or risky products—not withdrawal of the clear compliance framework for responsible manufacturers.

“FDA’s own adverse event record fails to show any evidence of a class-wide safety problem with properly manufactured, correctly labeled, HPUS-compliant homeopathic medicines,” said Robert Verkerk, Ph.D., Executive and Scientific Director of ANH-USA. “The science points to a very different conclusion: enforce against adulteration, mislabeling, contamination, inappropriate routes, and genuinely risky products—but do not use those outliers to threaten the entire category. The FDA’s current stance on homeopathics works in direct opposition to this administration’s MAHA agenda.”

Regulatory uncertainty has concrete consequences

In a sworn declaration accompanying the petition, Meditrend President Seneca Savage describes lost investor support, difficulty sourcing ingredients, and manufacturing disruptions following FDA’s policy change.

ANH-USA warns that this uncertainty threatens consumer access to long-standing homeopathic products. The petition calls for a transparent, enforceable framework that preserves FDA’s authority to act against adulteration, misbranding, and genuine safety concerns while giving responsible manufacturers predictable conditions under which to operate.

The accompanying scientific exhibit proposes a practical “traffic-light” approach. Green products—those meeting defined homeopathic, labeling, manufacturing, and low-risk criteria—would be treated as lowest enforcement priority. Amber products raising unresolved concerns would be subject to additional scrutiny. Red products presenting clear risks, such as adulteration, contamination, misbranding, pharmacologically active exposure, or causally supported serious adverse events, would be prioritized for enforcement.

“FDA should focus its resources where the real risks are,” Verkerk added. “A clear Green-Amber-Red framework would protect consumers, preserve access, and give responsible companies the certainty they need to operate.”

ANH-USA is urging FDA to act without delay and to establish a transparent public process for defining the boundaries of lawful, responsible homeopathic drug marketing.

The post ANH Uplevels the Fight to Protect Your Access to Homeopathic Medicines first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The chemical industry is preparing a new surge in “forever chemical” production to feed the AI economy. Regulators must stop chasing one PFAS at a time and protect the public by acting on the entire class. Action Alert!

THE TOPLINE

• Demand for data-center cooling and semiconductor manufacturing is driving expanded production of PFAS “forever chemicals.”
• Replacing older PFAS with less-studied alternatives risks perpetuating pollution and exposing people to poorly understood health hazards.
• We must fight for a class-wide ban on non-essential PFAS uses, strong drinking-water protections, and requirements that polluters pay for cleanup.

How AI Boom Drives Forever Chemical Boom

Despite the well-documented health dangers associated with PFAS “forever chemicals,” major chemical companies are expanding production to meet the needs of the AI tech boom. Specifically, the chemicals are being used for data-center cooling systems and in semiconductor fabrication.

A new survey from the Swedish chemicals watchdog ChemSec found that most of the world’s largest PFAS producers plan to increase production. The group warns that this expansion could unleash a new “tidal wave” of PFAS pollution even as governments struggle to contain the contamination already in our water, soil, food, air, and bodies.

We cannot go in this direction. The answer is not another slow, molecule-by-molecule review. It is a class-wide ban on non-essential PFAS uses, with only narrow, transparent, time-limited exceptions where no safer alternative yet exists.

PFAS Whac-A-Mole

For decades, concern centered on long-chain PFAS such as perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, or PFOS. As evidence mounted and pressure grew, manufacturers shifted toward newer short-chain PFAS and other replacements, often promoted as safer because they may leave the body faster than some legacy compounds.

But a shorter half-life is not the same as “safe.” As ANH-USA has reported, emerging research raises serious questions about short-chain PFAS: some can move readily through skin, reach blood and organs, cross the placenta, or break down into persistent metabolites. Their greater mobility can also make them difficult to contain and remove from water. The science is still developing, which is exactly why mass production should not race ahead of independent safety review.

Even if short-chain PFAS are safer, those benefits could very likely be far outweighed by the increased exposure we face as companies race to replace legacy chemicals with newer, less well-characterized alternatives.

Why a Class-Wide Ban Is the Only Rational Course

PFAS are a large and chemically diverse family, and individual compounds do not all have identical toxicity or behavior. But scientists have argued that their shared persistence, the hazards documented for studied members, and the sheer impracticality of evaluating thousands of chemicals one by one justify managing PFAS as a class. A class approach also helps prevent manufacturers from swapping a restricted compound for a close cousin that has less data but the same defining persistence problem.

ANH-USA is calling for a federal ban on PFAS as a class for non-essential uses. Any temporary exception should be publicly justified, limited to a use that is genuinely critical, reviewed on a firm timetable, and conditioned on strict controls, full disclosure, and a funded substitution plan.

Manufacturers and major commercial users should also bear the costs of monitoring, cleanup, safe destruction, and health-protective research. Taxpayers and water customers should not bankroll pollution created for private profit.

Innovation Doesn’t Mean Permanent Pollution

Some companies are already showing that exit is possible. ChemSec identifies Archroma as a producer marketing PFAS-free alternatives, while BASF has said it will phase out most PFAS-containing products by 2028. Those moves undercut the claim that expanding PFAS production is the only path forward.

Tell Congress and the EPA to stop the chemical Whac-A-Mole. Ban non-essential PFAS uses as a class, protect strong drinking-water standards, require full public disclosure of production and releases, and make polluters pay to clean up the contamination they create.

Action Alert!

The post AI’s Dirty Secret: Data Centers Are Fueling a New Forever Chemicals Boom first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

EPA’s public comment period on glyphosate closes today. This is the final chance to demand that the agency consider independent science on cancer, reproductive, metabolic, and developmental risks before it updates its human health assessment. Action Alert!

THE TOLINE

• EPA is seeking input on the scientific literature that will inform its updated glyphosate health assessment, following a court’s rejection of its earlier human-health review.
• Animal studies and human observational research raise concerns about cancer, reproductive health, and metabolic effects that warrant rigorous evaluation.
• Submit comments by September 24 urging EPA to consider relevant independent studies, explain exclusions, and transparently evaluate uncertainties and conflicts of interest.

How much evidence of potential harm should accumulate before regulators rethink their assurances about a widely used weedkiller?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking public input on its search of scientific literature about glyphosate, the herbicide associated with Monsanto-Bayer’s Roundup. The search will inform an updated human health risk assessment targeted for late 2026. EPA is asking the public to identify relevant peer-reviewed studies missing from its evidence list. We must weight in: an assessment cannot adequately protect the public if important evidence never makes it into the analysis.

EPA’s Earlier Assessment Failed in Court

As ANH previously reported, farmworker and environmental advocates successfully challenged EPA’s handling of glyphosate. In June 2022, the Ninth Circuit vacated the human-health portion of EPA’s 2020 interim review decision and ordered further analysis and explanation. The court also found that EPA violated the Endangered Species Act.

The ruling established that EPA’s human-health reasoning was seriously flawed.

It’s important to note that this isn’t out of character for this agency. EPA’s pesticide oversight has a deeply troubled record (see, for example, here, here, here, here, and here.)

We’ve reported previously on court documents showing that a top EPA official, Jess Rowland, promised Monsanto he would quash an effort by the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct its own review of glyphosate. He was successful—the HHS review never happened. A letter from a former EPA employee dying of cancer accused Rowland of having intimidated staff, compelling them to change reports to make them favorable to Monsanto.

While EPA claims to be impartially assessing the science, the track record is one where top officials put their thumbs on the scale to favor industry.

Cancer Concerns Have Not Gone Away

In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Its assessment cited limited evidence in humans, sufficient evidence in experimental animals, and strong evidence of DNA-damaging effects.

A 2025 study led by the Ramazzini Institute adds important evidence. Researchers exposed rats to glyphosate or two commercial glyphosate-based herbicides beginning before birth and continuing for two years. They reported increased tumor incidence or dose-related trends at multiple sites, including leukemia. The lowest tested dose corresponded to the EU’s acceptable daily intake.

A 2019 meta-analysis combining six epidemiological studies estimated a 41 percent higher relative risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma among people in the highest glyphosate-based-herbicide exposure groups.

The Questions Extend Beyond Cancer

ANH has also highlighted research following children from farmworker families into young adulthood. The 2023 CHAMACOS study linked exposure measures involving glyphosate and its breakdown product AMPA with indicators of liver inflammation and metabolic syndrome at age 18.

A 2025 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found reductions in average birthweight and gestational length in regions with higher glyphosate exposure. A 2024 study of 128 men attending a French infertility clinic detected glyphosate in seminal plasma and found that its concentration was approximately four times higher than in blood plasma. Men with detectable glyphosate also had higher measures of oxidative stress, including a marker of oxidative DNA damage.

Our own ground-breaking testing of common breakfast items in 2016 set off a cascade of similar testing that has shown how extensively our food is contaminated with glyphosate. These include many foods that are marketed towards children.

For ANH, preventing chronic disease means examining chemical exposures alongside nutrition and lifestyle. Families should not have to shoulder the entire burden of navigating unresolved pesticide risks.

What EPA Needs to Hear

EPA should comprehensively evaluate independent research on cancer and noncancer outcomes and address vulnerable stages of development. It should explain study exclusions, evaluate funding and conflicts of interest consistently, and make clear how uncertainty affects its conclusions.

Action Alert! Leave a comment on the EPA official docket to include relevant studies on the dangers of glyphosate to human health.

The post Last Chance Today: Tell EPA to Count the Full Glyphosate Evidence first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The federal government publishes information about links between nutrients and disease risk. But when consumers are standing in a store or shopping online, the government blocks you from reading the same information on supplement or food labels. ANH-USA is asking a federal court to put an end to this information blackout. Donate now to support our litigation and advocacy efforts.

THE TOPLINE

• ANH-USA and four supplement companies are asking a federal court to overturn FDA’s suppression of 114 nutrient health claims drawn from federal agencies’ own published statements.
• The challenge argues that FDA has unlawfully restricted a pathway Congress created for sharing government-backed health information on product labels.
• ANH advocates truthful claims with appropriate qualifications so consumers can weigh the evidence when choosing supplements.

ANH Takes the Fight to Court

ANH-USA is fighting for the freedom to share truthful, science-backed information about the benefits of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients. This censorship reflects a deeper failure in our healthcare system: even as preventable chronic diseases take an enormous toll, the government restricts information that could help Americans protect their health. A system that prioritizes pharmaceutical treatment while blocking information about nutritional approaches to prevention has its priorities backward. Our latest court action aims to change that.

On September 16, ANH-USA and four dietary supplement companies filed a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The motion asks the judge to rule that FDA unlawfully blocked 114 nutrient-disease risk-reduction claims derived from statements published by federal health agencies.

These include statements from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The motion is the latest development in ANH-USA’s effort to open a pathway Congress created in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. That law allows certain health claims based on “authoritative statements” from qualified federal scientific bodies to be used after FDA is notified. It was meant to offer an alternative to the agency’s standard pre-approval process.

ANH-USA argues that FDA has restricted that notification pathway by imposing requirements Congress never enacted.

The court has not yet ruled on the motion.

Information Where It Matters Most

This case is not simply about what supplement companies may print on a label. It is about whether consumers can access useful, scientifically grounded information when they are making decisions about their health.

A shopper might be able to find a government webpage discussing a nutrient’s relationship to cardiovascular health, bone health, or metabolic function. But that shopper may never know to search for it. Product labels are where people compare options and decide what may fit their individual health goals.

Preventing relevant information from appearing at that point does not create informed consumers. It leaves them less informed.

That does not mean every nutrient claim should be presented as conclusive. Evidence has different strengths, and responsible claims should reflect those limitations. ANH-USA told FDA it would accept reasonable, accurate, and unbiased qualifying language where needed. Yet the FDA, so far, seems determined to revert to censorship rather than providing consumers with context to make decisions for themselves.

A First Amendment Question

The case also raises a fundamental free-speech issue: Can FDA completely suppress a potentially truthful health claim when a clear disclaimer could prevent consumers from being misled?

In Pearson v. Shalala, the D.C. Circuit concluded that appropriately worded disclaimers may be a less restrictive alternative to prohibiting dietary-supplement health claims outright.

ANH-USA also argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo strengthens the challenge. That ruling curtailed the ability of federal agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes by reaffirming that courts must independently determine what the law means.

Restoring The Link Between Knowledge and Choice

ANH-USA’s original petition identified 118 government-backed nutrient claims. After FDA rejected that effort in December 2025, ANH-USA went to court. The current motion challenges the suppression of 114 claims.

Consumers cannot take greater responsibility for their health while regulators keep potentially useful information out of sight. People deserve truthful claims, appropriate qualifications, and the freedom to decide what the evidence means for themselves and their families.

ANH-USA will continue fighting to restore that freedom and keep you informed as the court considers this landmark challenge.

We Need Your Help to Protect Freedom of Speech in Health

Please donate now to support our litigation and advocacy work. This fight is powered entirely by people like you, and we can only keep pushing back against FDA censorship with your support.

The post If NIH Can Say It, Why Can’t Supplement Labels? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

In its summary judgement motion ANH argues FDA has unlawfully converted a congressionally mandated notification pathway into a pre-approval system — preventing government-backed truthful nutrient–disease information from reaching the public

ALEXANDRIA, VA, September 18, 2026 — The Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA), together with four dietary supplement companies, filed a motion for summary judgment asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to rule that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) violated the First Amendment and the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act when it suppressed 114 nutrient-disease risk reduction claims based on statements published by federal government health agencies.

The motion, filed September 16, 2026, is the latest step in litigation brought by ANH-USA, Living Fuel International, Health Ranger Store, Sanacor International and Evolution Nutraceuticals, doing business as Cardio Miracle.

The case centers on a provision of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA), codified at 21 U.S.C. §343(r)(3)(C). That provision creates a pre-market notice alternative to prior FDA approval for health claims based on nutrient-disease risk reduction statements published by FDA sister government health agencies.

The 114 disputed claims were derived from statements published by federal health bodies including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), its Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS), the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In December 2025, FDA rejected the petition and denied the claims, concluding among other things that the underlying government statements were not sufficiently “authoritative,” and imposing requirements including that statements represent an “official” or “consensus” federal government position.

The plaintiffs argue that these additional tests were never enacted by Congress.

Jonathan W. Emord, counsel for the plaintiffs, said:

“Congress was unambiguous. It created a notice pathway for claims based on authoritative statements of federal health agencies as an alternative to the prior restraint imposed by FDA’s health claims review process.  Against the command of Loper Bright, the FDA has crafted requirements nowhere mentioned in and expressly contrary to the statute.

“FDA is flouting the First Amendment and suppressing at the point-of-sale nutrient-disease information derived from statements the federal government itself publishes to the American people.  Ironically, a consumer with a cell phone can pull up the government web site and read the nutrient-disease risk reduction statement while shopping for the nutrient, but the maker of that nutrient is forbidden by FDA from placing the exact same statement on its product label.  That is not only illogical, it is unconstitutional speech suppression.”

The motion relies in part on the D.C. Circuit’s landmark 1999 decision in Pearson v. Shalala, which held in the context of dietary supplement health claims that disclaimers or qualifications constitute a less restrictive alternative to outright suppression.

The plaintiffs had specifically advised FDA that, if the agency considered qualification of the claims necessary, they were willing to accept reasonable, accurate and unbiased qualifying language.

For ANH-USA, the dispute goes beyond the technical interpretation of a single statutory provision. It concerns whether consumers can receive scientifically relevant information about relationships between nutrients and disease risk at the place where dietary choices are actually made, in stores and online.

Rob Verkerk, PhD, founder, executive and scientific director of the Alliance for Natural Health, said:

“There is an extraordinary scientific contradiction at the center of this case. These are not health relationships invented by supplement companies. They arise from statements published to the American public by some of the U.S. government’s own leading scientific and public health bodies.

“The notification painstakingly linked the proposed claims with the underlying government statements and the scientific references supporting them. Yet information considered sufficiently credible and useful for NIH, ODS, NCCIH or CDC to communicate publicly suddenly becomes unacceptable when consumers encounter substantially the same information at the point of sale.

“That has profound consequences for informed choice. Nutrition science is inherently concerned with the relationships between nutrients, physiological function, health and disease risk. If scientifically supported information about those relationships can be published on a government website but effectively disappears when people are choosing products that supply those same nutrients, consumers are being denied information at precisely the point where it can be most useful.

“This case is ultimately about restoring the bridge between science and informed choice. Consumers should have access to truthful, appropriately qualified information about what the evidence tells us — rather than having scientifically relevant information filtered out simply because it crosses an artificial regulatory boundary.”

The plaintiffs’ motion asks the Court to grant summary judgment on all counts. Among the relief sought is a declaration that FDA’s pre-authorization procedures under the authoritative-statements provision are ultra vires and unconstitutional; that FDA’s December 23, 2025 rejection of the 114 claims be set aside; and that FDA discontinue its suppression of the disputed claims.

The Court has not yet ruled on the motion.

ENDS.

About Alliance for Natural Health USA
www.anh-usa.org

Alliance for Natural Health USA is a nonprofit organization advocating for consumer access to natural health products and healthcare choices through legislative advocacy, public education, regulatory participation and litigation.

ENDS

Media enquiries:
Meleni Aldridge, COO, Alliance for Natural Health USA
Email: mel@anh-usa.org
Tel: 703-301-8916

Case: Alliance for Natural Health USA et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration, Case No. 1:26-cv-01487, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The post ANH-USA asks federal court to overturn FDA suppression of 114 government-backed nutrient health claims first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Listen to the audio version of this article”

THE TOPLINE

• Drug preclusion rules can block supplement sales because of earlier drug approvals or research, putting affordable options at risk.
• The battles over NMN, CBD, and NAC show why consumers need lasting protections.
• Urge your representative to support H.R. 10336, the Dietary Supplement Innovation Act, and your senators to advance companion legislation.

A New Bill to Protect Your Supplements

A new bill in Congress would help protect your access to supplements by making it harder for Big Pharma to create monopolies on natural ingredients—something we at ANH have called the FDA back-channel that allows drug companies to turn supplements into drugs.

The Dietary Supplement Innovation Act, H.R. 10336, would replace confusing, pro-Pharma rules with stronger protections for consumers and supplement makers. Congress needs to pass it.

At stake is a basic question: Should a company’s decision to develop a drug enable it to squeeze supplement versions out of the market? Under current law, that can happen—and it has already led to key natural products being banned.

What the Bill Would Change

H.R. 10336 would not eliminate the back-channel, but it would significantly narrow its scope. It would:

• Protect longstanding ingredients. Qualifying ingredients sold in foods or supplements before October 15, 1994, would receive explicit protection from drug preclusion.
• Stop secret filings from deciding access. Preclusion would depend on publicly disclosed Phase 2 or Phase 3 trials. A confidential filing or early-stage research alone would not be enough, and earlier food or supplement sales would be protected.
• Reopen the door after abandoned research. An exception to drug preclusion would apply when all qualifying trials have been inactive or withdrawn for at least seven continuous years, or the sponsor publicly announces that development has stopped.
• Make exclusions easier to challenge. Certain FDA letters and website statements could be challenged immediately in court, with the government responsible for proving a violation.
• Require FDA to consider meaningful differences. When evaluating prior-marketing protections, FDA would have to consider differences between drug and supplement uses—including dose, composition, how they are taken, and safety.

These changes will improve supplement access and make it harder for Big Pharma to create monopolies on natural ingredients.

Speaking to the bill, ANH General Counsel, Jonathan Emord, said, “Overall, this is a good bill, but it should be revised in several respects. I would expand the grandfather provision to make clear that the substance does not have to be labeled as a food or dietary supplement but instead must be shown to have been ingested for its taste, aroma, nutritive value, or effect on a body structure or function without reference to a disease before October 15, 1994, to be eligible for grandfathering.”

He continued: “I would also reduce the 7-year requirement to one year for inactive investigations. I would strengthen the provision on routes of administration, dosage, concentration or composition to state that there would be no drug preclusion if the dietary supplement or food did not have the same route of administration, an effective drug dose such that it would produce a treatment effect, and the same or a worse safety profile as the drug. I would specify not only that FDA has the burden of proof to establish drug preclusion—as it currently provides—but that FDA must prove its case by clear and convincing evidence.”

How Pharma’s Back Channel Works

In plain English,“drug preclusion” simply means that FDA, invariably following pressure from a drug maker, has the right to ban an ingredient as a supplement if it was approved or qualified for investigation as a drug before it was sold as a food or supplement.

We’ve been calling for this broken policy to be reformed for a long time. For starters, recall that, for any supplement that is considered “new”—that is, it came to market after 1994—the manufacturer must submit a “new dietary ingredient” notification (NDIN) to lawfully market that ingredient. But the FDA has yet to issue a final guidance describing which supplements are considered “new.” In fact, one of the major problems the FDA’s interpretation so far is that even minor “chemical alterations” that occur with modern manufacturing would be enough to make your vitamin D a “new” supplement. Supplements marketed before 1994 are grandfathered and do not require a NDIN, but the FDA has issued no definitive list of those products.

The bottom line is this: it is not always clear what counts as a NDI or what has been grandfathered, so drug companies can use this confusion to claim that supplements which have been around for decades have been sufficiently “altered” that they can be claimed as drugs.

So, here’s what Big Pharma can do: a drug company begins the process of studying an ingredient as a drug. If that process predates food or supplement sales—and clinical trials begin and become public—FDA can block the ingredient from being sold as a supplement. Because the initial drug filings are confidential, supplement makers may not know they are entering a race someone else has already started.

No Supplement and No Medicine

Worse still, drug preclusion can shut consumers out of an ingredient even when the drug being developed never reaches the market.

This is what happened to pyridoxamine, a form of vitamin B6. FDA banned the supplement version because of earlier drug investigations that ended up leading nowhere.

Consumers can then be left with neither option: no supplement and no medicine. Meanwhile, the threat of exclusion gives supplement companies less reason to invest in new products that could face the same fate.

Why should an unsuccessful drug project keep an ingredient out of consumers’ hands indefinitely? As ANH and the Natural Products Association explained in a 2023 citizen petition, supplement companies may have no way to know that a drug filing already exists. They can spend years developing a product and building a business, only to learn that an earlier, unseen filing threatens their ability to sell it.

We’ve seen access to several other natural ingredients be threatened by the drug preclusion clause, including NMN, CBD, and NAC. You can read our previous coverage of those issues for more information. Fortunately, in the cases of NAC and NMN, ANH and other stakeholders successfully pushed back against bans on those ingredients.

It is high time to close this back-channel that allows Big Pharma to ransack nature to make monopoly drugs.

Tell your representative to cosponsor and support H.R. 10336. Urge your senators to advance companion legislation. Help close the back channel.

The post Stop Letting Drug Companies Push Supplements Off the Shelf first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

New research shows that the way food is grown may influence its nutritional value—and that healthy food begins with healthy soil. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this story:

THE TOPLINE

• Growing practices and soil conditions can affect crop compounds such as polyphenols, vitamins, and pigments.
• Regenerative and organic practices—cover crops, crop rotations, lower disturbance—produce healthier soil, reduced pesticide/herbicide use, and more nutrient-dense foods that support the gut microbiome and other human health factors.
• Congress must support soil health measures in the Farm Bill, including the Agriculture Resilience Act, Soil CARE Act, and SCALE Act, with pesticide oversight and safeguards for contaminated amendments.

You can fill your cart with vegetables, cook meals from scratch, and do everything you are told is healthy. But what if the food itself is not as nourishing as it could be?

Two vegetables that look identical may contain contrasting levels of the very compounds that help protect our health. Emerging research suggests that these differences may begin with how plants are grown—and with the condition of the soil within which they’re cultivated. For families trying to eat well and prevent chronic disease, that raises a fundamental question: Are we growing food simply to fill our stomachs, or to truly nourish our bodies?

Organic Rocks While Regen Ag Data Emerges

Organic agriculture can be regarded as a subset of regenerative farming. Buit because it’s been studied for a long time the data is more mature and there are some strong evidence that, compared with conventional agriculture, it produces crops with consistently higher levels of key compounds that are beneficial to health and reduce inflammation and oxidative stress—key drivers of chronic disease—such as polyphenols, flavonoids, anthocyanins, carotenoids and other biologically active secondary metabolites.

Large systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicate that organic production can materially alter food composition, particularly by increasing concentrations of health-relevant phytochemicals: Barański et al. found markedly higher levels of several antioxidant/polyphenol classes in organic crops, while Brandt et al. reported around 12% higher secondary plant metabolites overall and about 6% more vitamin C in organic fruit and vegetables. In animal foods, meta-analyses found substantially higher omega-3 fatty acids in organic milk and meat, while emerging regenerative-agriculture research suggests that soil-building practices may also increase selected vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals in crops.

The regenerative evidence is less mature than the organic literature, so there’s less to shout about in terms of its benefits. But a 2022 paired-farm study and a 2023 scoping review both support the proposition that farming practices which improve soil health can, in some circumstances, enhance the micronutrient and phytochemical density of food

What Beets Reveal About Food Quality

An August 2026 study from Utah State University compared conventional, organic, and Regenerative Organic Certified beets from southwestern Oregon. The fresh organic and regenerative-organic samples contained approximately 53 percent more polyphenols than conventional samples. These are compounds plants manufacture that have antioxidant and other biological activity.

Regenerative beets also contained more betalains—the pigments responsible for their distinctive color—than organic beets, although their advantage over conventional beets was not statistically significant. Mineral levels showed no consistent winner.

The study was small, with only one farm or source representing each system. Differences in varieties, growing conditions, and collection years prevent firm conclusions about what caused the results. Nevertheless, it raises a crucial question: does our chronic disease crisis have its roots (no pun intended) in the very way we grow our food?

How We Feed Plants Changes What They Give Us

Another study published in January 2026 provides further support for this notion. Researchers growing Chinese broccoli found that moderately reducing nitrogen increased vitamin C, phenolic compounds, and several minerals without sacrificing yield. Excessive nitrogen produced the lowest phenolic concentrations.

This experiment used hydroponics, so it does not demonstrate the benefits of healthy soil. It does show that how we nourish plants can fundamentally alter their composition and thus change what those plants offer us. When we give plants lots of soluble nitrogen by applying fertilizers, they direct more energy toward rapid growth and less toward manufacturing certain secondary compounds. Lower or more gradually available nitrogen can sometimes stimulate phytochemical production without necessarily reducing yield.

Connecting Soil Health to Food Quality

Soil, then, does much more than hold roots in place. Its organisms help cycle nutrients, while its physical and chemical properties influence water availability and plant growth.

• A review of 60 studies found that planting cover crops—plants grown to protect and enrich the ground between harvests—increased the abundance and activity of soil microbes compared with leaving fields bare.
• In a separate 21-year farming experiment in Switzerland, organically managed plots had more stable soil structure and more earthworms.
• A 2022 study comparing regenerative and conventional farms, that we mentioned in passing above, found that fields managed with cover crops, reduced disturbance, and diverse rotations generally had more soil organic matter and better soil-health scores. Their crops also contained higher concentrations of certain vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals. 

Plants respond to healthier soil by changing their chemistry in ways that protect them better against pests and diseases, while also providing more benefits to us as consumers.

ANH has previously examined declining nutrient concentrations in food that coincided with the rise of industrial agriculture. A comparison of USDA data from 1950 and 1999 found declines in six nutrients across 43 crops considered as a group.

The upshot is this: As industrial agriculture has become the dominant form of growing food, nutrient levels in fruits and vegetables have declined. This has had profound implications for human health.

Feeding the Gut Microbiome

For example, the nutritional quality of food matters to the trillions of microorganisms that make up the gut microbiome. Different microbes depend on different dietary compounds, particularly diverse fibers and polyphenols from fruits, vegetables, herbs, nuts, and other whole plant foods. Beneficial bacteria ferment certain fibers to produce short-chain fatty acids that help nourish the intestinal lining and regulate immune and inflammatory responses.

If farming practices influence the variety and concentration of phytonutrients in food, soil health could therefore affect more than the plant itself: it may also help determine the range of compounds available to support our internal microbial ecosystem.

The effects go beyond the microbiome. We’ve written previously about how large portions of the American public are not getting the nutrients they need and that these micronutrient inadequacies can increase the risk of chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.

Reduced Reliance on Pesticides and Herbicides

Greater diversity on farms can also help reduce dependence on pesticides. In a nine-year Iowa experiment, researchers added small grains and legumes to the familiar corn–soybean rotation. The more diverse systems used 88 percent less herbicide while maintaining effective weed control and comparable or better yields and profitability. Once those systems were established, their estimated potential to harm freshwater ecosystems through herbicide use was dramatically lower.

In the Swiss study mentioned above, the organically managed plots used a whopping 97 percent less pesticide input while supporting greater biodiversity.

Carefully designed crop rotations can help farmers control weeds while reducing chemical inputs that negatively effect the environment and human health.

The Push Away from Real Food

The evidence is showing the power of regenerative agriculture approaches to improve human health and planetary health, yet special interests are pushing in another direction. We’re seeing a new wave of foods created in a lab like gene-edited plants, plant-based proteins, and precision fermented foods. A massive wave of deregulation has opened the floodgates to these products based on the principle of “substantial equivalence.” In essence, the FDA has said that it doesn’t matter how a food gets created. If the finished product looks and smells like a tomato, then it gets regulated like a conventionally-grown tomato.

These technologies, while distinct, prompt the same question: how much of food’s value can we capture by assembling selected ingredients? The crop studies demonstrate why nutritional equivalence should never be assumed from a few numbers on a label.

Rebuilding Health from the Ground Up

Congress can help farmers adopt practices that rebuild soil, protect biodiversity, and reduce reliance on pesticides. The Soil CARE Act (H.R.7474) would strengthen training in regenerative farming practices. The Agriculture Resilience Act (H.R.3077/S.1507) also has positive provisions on soil health and agroforestry. The SCALE Act would provide $50 million a year for state and Tribal soil health and wildlife habitat programs. The bill would leave substantial flexibility to local programs, however, rather than requiring organic production or reductions in pesticide use.

Tell Congress that these investments must include safeguards against contaminated soil amendments, preserve meaningful pesticide oversight, and support research connecting farming practices with food quality.

Action Alert!

The post Is Human Health Rooted in the Soil? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.