3D-printed steaks are reaching supermarket shelves—but are safety reviews and food labels keeping pace with the technologies transforming our food? Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• 3D-printed meat alternatives are reaching supermarkets, joining cultivated meat and precision-fermented ingredients in a growing market of engineered foods.
• Matching selected proteins, taste, or texture does not establish that a substitute offers the nutritional complexity or long-term health effects of traditional foods.
• We need stronger independent oversight, publicly available safety evidence, and clear labels so consumers understand how these products are made, what their composition is, and how healthy or safe they are—all prerequisites of informed choice.

Plant-based steaks built with 3D printers are reaching supermarket shelves across the Northeast. Israeli company Steakholder Foods has launched its Perfecta brand with five alternatives: marbled steak, filet mignon, chicken breast, salmon patties, and white fish patties. The products are reportedly already in approximately 30–35 stores, with plans to expand.

The launch brings yet another version of engineered food to American dinner plates. It also raises questions ANH has been asking about cultivated meat and precision-fermented foods: How were they made? What evidence supports their safety and health benefits? Will their labels tell consumers enough to allow them to make an informed choice?

What the Printer Actually Does

To make 3D printed food, a food printer follows a digital design, depositing edible mixtures in controlled patterns. Plant proteins, fats, and other ingredients can be arranged to imitate muscle fibers, texture, and marbling. The newly launched 3D-printed foods are a blend of plant-based and cultivated ingredients. The goal is to reproduce the experience of eating a whole cut of meat; lab-grown or cultivated meat, by contrast, tend to be in sausage, patty, or nugget form.

The technology with 3D-printed foods may be different, but we’re dealing with similar issues we’ve discussed in relation to lab-grown meat: these companies seem to believe that meat is nothing more than a combination of proteins and fats, when in fact the nutritional profile of real meat is highly varied and far more complex (more on this below).

Different Technologies with Overlapping Possibilities

It’s worth differentiating these different technologies, as it can all get a bit confusing.

Cultivated meat is made by growing animal cells in nutrient media. The harvested cells then become foods like chicken nuggets. The products consist of animal cells, but no animals were slaughtered.

Precision fermentation uses microorganisms, usually genetically engineered, to manufacture selected ingredients, such as milk or egg proteins. Those ingredients are recovered and purified before being added to foods. For example, precision fermentation is used to produce the heme that is added to plant-based Impossible Burgers and the milk proteins that are the basis of “animal-free dairy milk.”

These methods can overlap. A 3D-printed food could contain plant proteins, cultivated animal cells, fermentation-produced ingredients, or a combination. Cultivated meat can also involve genetic engineering: FDA’s UPSIDE Foods review describes both cells selected for continued growth and cells engineered with an added chicken gene to keep multiplying. It also discusses recombinant growth proteins used in the culture medium.

The big issue here is not whether or not these foods reach our supermarket shelves. It’s really much more about transparency or, more specifically, the lack of it: consumers need to know which methods and ingredients were actually used in a given product and how these combinations of ingredients affect the human body when consumed. As we discussed previously, many of these foods will not likely have to be labeled as containing genetically engineered (GE) or “bioengineered” ingredients due to loopholes in the labeling law.

Copying A Protein Is Not Recreating a Food

The promise behind these products is that familiar taste, texture, and selected nutrients can be recreated through industrial design. ANH’s concern is that this approach vastly understates the complexity of food.

Human beings evolved eating complex foods from plants and animals with various combinations of microorganisms. These newly designed substitutes have no comparable history as whole foods in the human diet. Recreating nature’s complexity in a factory is an enormous challenge; matching a few components does not establish that the resulting food will have the same effects on health.

As we have argued previously, meat contains far more than a few proteins and fats. Its physical structure and the interactions among nutrients and other compounds also matter. Likewise, producing one milk protein does not recreate milk. The finished product’s nutrition depends on its full formulation, processing, and the availability of its nutrients to the body.

What Regulatory Review Actually Means

It’s important to emphasize that the entire federal government’s approach to regulating GE products is fundamentally flawed. Other than the sham labeling law, Congress has not passed legislation to address the unique health and ecological impacts of this new generation of GE foods. Instead, the government relies on a decades-old framework that fragments oversight of GE products across multiple agencies, shoehorning a new generation of GE products into laws largely written for other purposes.

A key principle of this approach is that regulators focus on the finished product rather than the process. In plain language: if it looks and smells like a tomato, the government will treat it like a normal tomato even if it was produced through genetic engineering.

All of this is to say that the oversight over these newer GE foods is, in our opinion, rather lax.

For printed plant-based foods, FDA generally does not approve the finished food before sale. Ingredients must have a lawful basis for use, and manufacturing, food-contact materials, and labeling must meet applicable requirements.

Precision-fermented ingredients frequently use the Generally Recognized as Safe, or GRAS, pathway. Companies can currently reach their own GRAS conclusions without notifying FDA, though that is set to change with the FDA’s proposed rule. Some submit notices and receive “no questions” letters, meaning the FDA has reviewed the company’s safety data, seen no issues, and given the company the green light.

Cultivated livestock and poultry products follow a different route: FDA reviews cell production through voluntary premarket consultations, while USDA oversees harvest and subsequent processing, inspection, and labeling. FDA examines manufacturing methods, genetic changes, and potential residues. Much of the safety case, again, depends on manufacturer-provided information and comparisons with conventional foods.

For foods being promoted as replacements for traditional staples, we believe this is too light a regulatory touch. The idea often described as “substantial equivalence” should not become a shortcut for assuming comparable long-term health effects. Similarity of a target protein cannot, by itself, answer every question about the finished food.

Safety Questions Deserve Public Answers

Despite what their proselytizers say, there are some key questions that remain unanswered about the safety of these foods. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) conclusions supplied to international food regulators identify concerns about allergenicity, purification, strain stability, and scaling fermentation to industrial volumes. They also emphasize hygienic printer design and gaps in knowledge about some post-printing treatments.

One established concern is allergy. FDA’s milk-protein review recognizes that fermentation-produced beta-lactoglobulin can cause reactions in people allergic to milk. “Animal-free” does not mean allergen-free.

And what about the 92 previously unknown compounds found in precision-fermented milk? Remember, life depends on gene expression—and gene expression is regulated by epigenetics. Food is one of the most powerful environmental signals affecting gene expression. Introducing novel, engineered proteins into the diet is an open-air science experiment, and we’re the guinea pigs. Low-level inflammation triggered by unfamiliar proteins or contaminants would not announce itself dramatically. It will be a low hum in the background undermining our health if regulators do not take a closer look at these foods.

Will Shoppers Know What They Are Buying?

Not necessarily from the label alone. A printed plant-based product must identify its ingredients, but there is no universal federal requirement for a prominent “3D printed” disclosure. Listing plant proteins does not necessarily explain how the product was assembled.

Cultivated meat has more explicit differentiation: USDA has approved the term “cell-cultivated chicken.” But a production term is useful only if shoppers understand it. It also does not, by itself, explain whether genetic engineering was involved in developing the cells or producing their growth inputs.

Precision fermentation presents another transparency gap. As ANH has reported, an ingredient name can identify a familiar protein while revealing little about the engineered microbes that produced it. Under USDA’s currently operative bioengineered-food rules, disclosure depends on the final product, modified genetic material, and applicable exceptions. Genetic engineering in production does not automatically guarantee a bioengineered disclosure on the package.

The framework is changing: a court ordered key provisions of the GE labeling law, including the exemption for undetectable modified genetic material, vacated effective January 1, 2028. That still does not establish that every precision-fermented ingredient will require disclosure. Consumers need clear information about production methods without having to unravel these legal distinctions.

ANH believes the standard should be straightforward: meaningful independent scrutiny, publicly accessible safety evidence, and plain-language labels explaining how these foods were made. Our previous coverage has challenged the assumption that replacing farming with engineered substitutes improves health or sustainability. Those benefits must be demonstrated for the actual product and process.

A printed steak may look familiar. The decision to eat it should rest on honest information and credible evidence. Consumers deserve to choose foods rooted in nature, and they deserve to recognize an engineered substitute before it reaches their plate.

Action Alert!

The post Health Warning! 3D Printed Meat In US Supermarkets first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

A new Cochrane review strengthens the case for getting drug company marketing out of the exam room and restoring independent medical judgment.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• A Cochrane review of 93 studies associated gifts and payments to doctors with more prescribing and less appropriate prescribing.
• Even gifts as small as company-sponsored meals were associated with more prescriptions for sponsors’ drugs, including opioids.
• Stronger limits on industry interactions may improve prescribing and help protect discussions of all appropriate options, including natural and preventive approaches.

When your doctor recommends a medication, you should be able to trust that the recommendation reflects your health needs. But a new review raises a disturbing question: how much influence does the company selling that medication have over the person prescribing it?

A Cochrane review published October 9 examined 93 studies, including 82 from the United States. Its findings reinforce a concern ANH has raised for years: pharmaceutical marketing is associated with prescribing that serves drug company interests at patients’ expense.

The clearest evidence concerned gifts and payments. Doctors receiving them prescribed more medicines and prescribed less appropriately. Advertising and industry education, including sales representative visits, were also linked to more prescribing.

The Influence Can Start with Lunch

The review’s accompanying announcement describes a marketing apparatus that reaches into everyday medical practice: meals, travel expenses, consulting fees, advisory board payments, and visits from sales representatives.

Doctors may believe a free lunch is too trivial to influence their judgment. The evidence gives patients reason to question that confidence. Researchers found a consistent pattern linking more company-sponsored meals to more prescribing of the sponsor’s medicines, across several drug classes.

The opioid findings were particularly troubling. Even inexpensive meals were associated with increased opioid prescribing, while larger payments were linked to a greater likelihood of prescribing dangerously high doses.

Almost all the studies were observational, so they cannot establish that marketing caused the prescribing changes. The review also calls for more research on actual patient health outcomes. But those limitations do not erase the consistent associations it identified. Patients deserve safeguards against influences that can compromise their care.

A Longstanding Problem Across Medicine

ANH has been reporting on pharmaceutical influence for many years, including concerns about industry relationships with researchers and the role of drug company money in medical education.

In 2015, we highlighted federal Open Payments data showing $6.49 billion in payments from drug and device manufacturers to doctors and hospitals in 2014. That total included research payments; it was not a tally of promotional gifts alone. Still, it revealed the enormous financial ties connecting manufacturers with the institutions and professionals patients rely on.

Our 2016 coverage of the American Academy of Pediatrics raised questions about industry funding of professional organizations and the independence of their policy positions. More recently, we examined pharmaceutical funding of patient advocacy groups and the conflicts created when organizations representing patients receive money from companies selling their treatments.

What Gets Left Out of The Conversation

For ANH, this raises a broader concern: whose priorities shape the options patients are offered?

A drug manufacturer has a commercial reason to promote its own products, and that promotion is clearly paying dividends. There is no comparable market force driving doctors to discuss non-pharmaceutical interventions such as nutrition, physical activity, trauma therapy, social or nature prescribing, or any of the dozens of other non-drug approaches that may be scientifically and medically valid for addressing a patient’s needs. Doctors are not getting lunch bought for them by Big Salad. Our concern is about a system in which companies selling medicines have routine access to the professionals deciding which medicines patients receive.

Patients need independent evaluation of all appropriate options, including natural and preventive approaches, with honest discussion of benefits, risks, costs, and uncertainties. Commercial influence makes that independence harder to protect.

Another source of the problem is something we’ve discussed for years: most doctors lack training in nutrition and lifestyle medicine. It’s why we support RFK Jr.’s drive to increase nutritional education in medical schools.

Patients should ask practical questions in the doctor’s office: Why this medicine? Is there a safer or less expensive alternative? What non-drug options are appropriate? And now, the following questions should be added: Do you receive payments from the manufacturer of the drug you’re recommending I take?

Medical decisions should put patients’ health, their needs, and their right to informed choices first. This review gives medical institutions another reason to stop treating pharmaceutical promotion as an ordinary, harmless part of patient care.

Please share this article in your networks and consider donating to support our work.

The post Big Pharma Payments Worsen Doctors’ Prescribing first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

What if persistent fatigue, brain fog and other chronic health problems are being influenced by environmental exposures we rarely consider?

In his new documentary, Body Burden: The Toxins We Carry, environmental health investigator Nicolas Pineault explores the chemicals and pollutants we encounter through our food, water, air and everyday surroundings. Through his own experience and the stories of patients working with environmental medicine practitioners, he examines how identifying exposures, reducing contact with harmful substances and supporting the body’s natural processes may contribute to better health.

The film challenges the tendency to treat symptoms in isolation while overlooking the environments in which we live. It’s a timely reminder that prevention isn’t just about what we put into our bodies, but also what we can keep out.

The 61-minute documentary is available to watch free until October 26. Watch it here: https://bodyburdenmovie.com

The post The Mike Drop: Nick Pineault first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

New federal initiatives are welcome progress toward understanding and recording injuries from vaccination. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• HHS is improving vaccine injury reporting and care through a new NIH clinic, proposed physician reimbursement for reporting, better electronic records, and a VAERS overhaul.
• Underreporting and gaps in safety research limit informed consent. Patients need clear information about benefits, risks, and uncertainties to make informed decisions.
• These reforms need meaningful follow-through. We need transparent research, effective implementation, and a fairer compensation process for vaccine-injured patients.

Patients cannot make fully informed medical decisions when important information about potential harms is missing. That is why ANH welcomes new federal efforts to improve vaccine injury reporting and research. These changes address problems we have raised for years; we must ensure there is meaningful follow-through and implementation.

In an October 8 announcement, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) outlined four initiatives:

• A new NIH clinic will evaluate and care for patients experiencing health problems following vaccination while investigating potential causes.
• A proposed Medicare policy would reimburse physicians for time spent reporting suspected vaccine injuries to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
• Federal standards will require electronic health records to capture vaccine-related adverse events so that information follows patients between providers.
• A VAERS overhaul will make reporting easier, including on mobile devices, and improve tools for investigating potential safety signals.

Major Blind Spots in Injury Reporting

ANH has repeatedly warned that the current reporting system has major blind spots. VAERS depends on someone recognizing a possible problem and submitting a report. Although certain reports are legally required, the system does not automatically capture every concerning health event after vaccination.

We’re not just talking about a few missed cases here or there; this is a substantial problem. A CDC-authored study estimated that VAERS captured only 13 percent of anaphylaxis cases following influenza vaccination. Across the vaccines studied, reporting sensitivity for this potentially life-threatening allergic reaction ranged from 13 to 76 percent.

As we previously reported, an HHS-funded Harvard Pilgrim project explored using electronic medical records to identify possible adverse events and help clinicians report them. Its final report warned that fewer than 1 percent of vaccine adverse events were reported. The project pointed toward a better approach, but researchers said further system testing and evaluation could not proceed because CDC contacts became unavailable or stopped responding. This apparent lack of concern for improving their systems is all the more reason to welcome this recent initiative.

Questions About Long-term Health Effects

There are questions worth exploring. We reported recently on congressional testimony from attorney Aaron Siri on an unpublished study from the Henry Ford Health System that found, among other things, vaccinated children were 2.5 times more likely to develop a chronic health condition than unvaccinated children. This isn’t definite proof of causation, but like any emerging safety signal, the potential of causation is something that can only be evaluated if the signal is not ignored.  Siri told Congress that the study was unpublished largely for political reasons: lead author Lois Lamerato, PhD, admitted she did not want to make doctors “uncomfortable,” while co-author Dr. Marcus Zervos feared he might lose his job if the study was published.

Another largely overlooked issue is the potential for delayed effects from vaccination, which are even less likely to be captured by adverse event reporting systems. UK-based oncology researcher Emeritus Professor Angus Dalgleish has testified before Congress about the connection between COVID vaccination and the high prevalence of ‘turbo’ cancers and relapses in patients that were previously clear.

Longstanding Gaps in Safety Research

The truth is that the need for stronger evidence has been recognized for decades. In 1994, the Institute of Medicine, now part of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), acknowledged: “The lack of adequate data regarding many of the adverse events under study was of major concern to the committee.”

Nearly two decades later, its 2013 review of the childhood immunization schedule said that key elements, including the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at administration of vaccines, “have not been systematically examined in research studies.” It also identified limited evidence concerning children potentially more susceptible to adverse reactions.

Informed Consent and Fair Compensation

Informed consent is a cornerstone of medical ethics and patient-centered healthcare. Patients need understandable information about expected benefits, known risks, and uncertainties relevant to their circumstances. Research gaps should prompt investigation and honest discussion. These pillars of medical ethics are seemingly brushed aside when it comes to vaccination. This has been true for decades but was brought into stark relief during the COVID pandemic, when anyone who dared question the safety or efficacy of the COVID vaccines risked having their career ruined.

We’ve also reported on the broken vaccine injury compensation system (you can read our previous coverage for more details). The current system fails to track vaccine injuries effectively and then creates a Kafkaesque nightmare for patients to receive just compensation for the injuries that arise from following government-issued public health advice.

HHS should publish clear implementation timelines and show whether these initiatives improve reporting and patient care. ANH supports stronger independent safety research, transparent findings, and a process that gives injured patients timely help. Informed consent and fair treatment of injured families are obligations that public health policy must fulfill.

Action Alert!

The post HHS Moves to Improve Vaccine Injury Reporting first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Stronger border checks for personal imports can protect Americans from unsafe foreign products, but the same rules could also shrink consumer access and choice. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• New customs requirements could mean higher prices, delayed deliveries, and fewer natural health choices for consumers buying products from overseas.
• Stronger scrutiny can protect consumers from unsafe products, but added costs and paperwork could also drive responsible small suppliers out of the U.S. market.
• We support practical, risk-based import procedures that target illegal products while preserving access to compliant products from reputable companies.

Consumers who buy natural health products from overseas could soon face higher prices, delayed deliveries, and fewer choices. A new Customs and Border Protection (CBP) rule that comes into force on October 22, 2026 adds hurdles that may discourage smaller companies from supplying American customers. Our concern is that responsible businesses could be caught alongside sellers of unsafe or illegal products. Additionally, patients who import life-saving medications for personal use that are not currently manufactured in the US may find there are delays or even barriers at US borders which could endanger lives.

What’s Changing

Low-value packages (under $800) imported for personal use previously benefited from a customs exemption that simplified their entry into the United States. The new CBP rule removes that exemption for international mail and adds stricter requirements for mailed products overseen by agencies such as FDA.

CBP offers an electronic option for some shipments, but it still requires detailed information, someone legally responsible for the import, and a financial guarantee called a customs bond. Suppliers may need specialist help, adding costs that consumers could ultimately pay.

The rule does not itself ban all imported medicines or abolish FDA’s personal importation policy. But administrative barriers can make an established supply route unusable.

Scrutiny Should Target Unsafe Products

There are good reasons to examine imports carefully. Unapproved, poorly controlled injectable peptides sold online, including products sourced from China, deserve scrutiny. ANH supports action against reckless suppliers. The concern is what happens to responsible companies that have supplied Americans with high-quality products for years.

Consider oral dietary supplements derived from animal organ extracts (e.g., desiccated thyroid or adrenals). If the products meet U.S. supplement requirements, suppliers should have a practical way to reach American customers.

These additional customs hurdles will likely make importing some supplements and medicines more costly or difficult. Animal-derived products can require extensive documentation of animal origins and processing. Depending on the product, suppliers may need to trace materials through multiple stages of the supply chain. These animal-source requirements vary by product, and many predate the customs change. The new entry procedures can make complying with them more burdensome.

A small producer may lack the staff, expertise, or money to manage the process. It may simply stop exporting to America. Consumers then lose an option, even without evidence that the product is unsafe.

Supply-chain information can also be commercially sensitive. Many natural ingredients cannot be patented as they occur in nature. A company’s valuable know-how may lie in its sourcing relationships and production methods. Disclosing that information could therefore undermine the commercial viability of some companies and thus further shrink consumer choice.

Fewer Suppliers Means Less Choice

Large businesses can spread compliance costs across many products. Smaller innovators often cannot. Our concern is that added red tape will favor established players over emerging competitors, leaving consumers with a less diverse marketplace and fewer affordable options.

These changes came through agency rulemaking under existing law, rather than new legislation passed by Congress. Following Loper Bright, courts must independently determine whether an agency has acted within the authority Congress granted it. Rule changes are, then, more open to legal challenge than they have been in the past.

A better approach would enforce existing laws against contaminated, mislabeled, and unlawfully marketed products while providing manageable entry procedures for compliant suppliers. FDA already has authority to act against illegal or harmful products. Clear guidance, requirements matched to actual risks, and practical help for smaller businesses could protect consumers without unnecessarily narrowing their choices.

If you depend on an imported product, ask your supplier about continued availability, new fees, and delivery times. For prescribed medicines, plan with your clinician before supplies run low.

We will address the business implications separately for our Corporate Leadership Circle (CLC). Natural health companies seeking regulatory insight and a voice in protecting consumer access can learn more about joining the CLC.

Please share this article in your networks and consider donating to support our work.

The post New US Customs Rules Threaten Your Access to Natural Health first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

California’s new supplement restrictions mark another advance in a growing state campaign that threatens access to affordable nutritional support. Action Alerts!

THE TOPLINE

• California joins New York in restricting sales of supplements marketed for weight loss or muscle building to minors, while similar proposals continue spreading across other states.
• Broad restrictions rely on misleading safety narratives, while creating barriers for consumers to health-promoting products.
• Join us in opposing these state bills and urging Congress to advance H.R. 7366, the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act, to preempt these misguided laws.

New restrictions on supplement sales draw strength from familiar scare stories—and threaten access to affordable nutritional support.

On September 28, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2030, restricting sales of over-the-counter diet pills and supplements represented for weight loss or muscle building to people under 18, with a prescription exception. California joins New York in adopting this approach.

The campaign is spreading: Ohio introduced HB 943 earlier this year, and New Jersey introduced A5487 in September. A slew of other states considered similar bills, but they ultimately did not move forward.

Protecting young people from eating disorders and dangerous products is a goal we share. But these measures restrict broad categories of lawful supplements that offer scientifically-proven benefits without requiring evidence that they cause harm.

A Broad Reach Beyond Diet Pills

California’s law allows courts to consider ingredients, claims about metabolism or strength, and even product placement in stores or online. Online sellers must use database age verification, verified adult delivery, or both. Retailers may limit access to covered products. These requirements can make it more difficult for all consumers, not just minors, to purchase these supplements.

ANH has warned for years that loosely defined restrictions can sweep in products supporting ordinary nutrition and fitness. Meanwhile, differing state rules create uncertainty and increased costs for smaller businesses.

Proponents cite associations between diet-pill use and later eating-disorder diagnoses. But an association does not establish causation—or demonstrate that broad supplement restrictions will prevent eating disorders.

How Headlines Distort the Evidence

The more important point is that these bills gain traction in an environment where supplements are repeatedly portrayed as dangerous, ineffective, and unregulated.

ANH has challenged that narrative again and again and again. Our coverage of poison-control reports explained why calls about exposure and accidental ingestion should not become evidence that supplements used appropriately are broadly unsafe.

Consider the often-used estimate of 23,000 supplement-related emergency-room visits annually. Lost amidst alarmist headlines is the fact that roughly one-fifth of these ER visits involved unsupervised children; among adults 65 and older, about 38 percent involved choking or other swallowing problems. Many more cases likely involve sexual enhancement or exercise supplements spiked with illegal ingredients. These findings support specific responses: secure storage, suitable pill formulations, and scrutiny of misbranded or illegal products which the FDA already has the power to remove. Presenting the total 23,000 visits as a measure of toxicity from ordinary supplement use is, in our view, a lie by omission.

Harvard Health’s recent blog titled “Don’t buy into brain health supplements” offers another example. Despite sweeping statements about absent evidence, the article acknowledges that the Harvard-led COSMOS trial found cognitive benefits from a daily multivitamin in older adults.

This is another familiar trope: “Supplements don’t work!” True, supplements are not a silver bullet that will cure all your ails. But the idea that they have no positive effect on the body is ludicrous. We found around 450 scientifically supported nutrient-disease statements on the government’s own websites at places like the CDC and the NIH. These form the foundation of our lawsuit to open up speech about these claims. “Supplements don’t work,” then, is not an idea supported by the health officials of the US government—even if they don’t want you to be able to learn about the benefits at the point of sale.

Supplements also have a strong overall safety record. They are federally regulated: manufacturers must meet safety, labeling, and manufacturing requirements; FDA can act against adulterated or misbranded products; and FTC oversees advertising.

Not to mention that young people face mental health challenges such as anxiety and depression at an unprecedented scale. Those seeking to have agency in their health journeys in an effort to become fitter and healthier shouldn’t face obstacles to using products that have established benefits. They should be encouraged to make informed choices, not hindered.

The notion that supplements are somehow a public health menace is simply not true. What is true, however, is that properly prescribed drugs cause an estimated 128,000 deaths each year in the US along with 1.9 million hospitalizations. Where are the calls to regulate drugs more stringently?

The Financial Interests Behind the Narrative

ANH sees these recurring attacks within a larger struggle over who controls healthcare.

Affordable nutritional support can promote prevention and therefore competes with pharmaceutical approaches. Reducing illness can reduce demand for long-term treatment, creating turmoil for a system built around selling drugs to manage chronic disease.

Alarmist coverage builds distrust, distrust helps sell restrictions, and restrictions weaken access to affordable alternatives. The pharmaceutical model benefits when nutritional options are marginalized.

ANH supports targeted enforcement against adulteration and fraudulent claims, meaningful help for eating disorders, and H.R. 7366, the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act, to address conflicting state requirements.

Consumers need reliable information and access to nutritional tools. Lawmakers should resist turning recurring scare stories into permanent barriers to choice.

Action Alerts!

State based alerts

Alaska

Illinois

Massachusetts

Michigan

New Jersey

Ohio

The post California Joins Push to Restrict Teen Supplement Access first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

A new study found an average of 31 pesticide-related compounds in young children, raising urgent questions about how well federal oversight protects developing bodies. Action Alert!

THE TOPLINE

• Researchers detected widespread pesticide exposure in infants and young children; although the study did not measure health effects, other research links exposure to developmental problems and serious diseases.
• Pesticide oversight fails to adequately address the chemical mixtures and complete formulations people encounter in everyday life.
• Congress can help reduce exposure by supporting the Paraquat Prevention Act and the Opportunities in Organic Act, which would ban paraquat and help farmers transition to organic production.

Before many children have learned to read, their bodies are already carrying evidence of a chemical world they never chose. A new biomonitoring study found an average of 31 pesticide-related compounds in each child tested. Some children had as many as 50.

Our pesticide system is failing a basic reality check: children encounter mixtures, not one chemical at a time, and they do so while their brains, immune systems, metabolism, and reproductive systems are still developing.

A Chemical Mixture in the Youngest Americans

Researchers analyzed 438 urine samples collected from 187 children. The children ranged from 10 days to seven years old.

Researchers reported 215 pesticide and pesticide-metabolite identifications, corresponding to 160 distinct active substances. Each child had an average of 31 different pesticides, with a range of 21 to 50. Sixteen were found in more than 60 percent of children. Forty percent of the detected compounds were classified as metabolites; the rest included insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, repellents, and other or unclassified compounds.

The authors note: “Accumulating evidence has associated chronic low-dose pesticide exposure with a range of adverse health outcomes, including cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, and impaired neurodevelopment.”

The Health Questions Regulators Keep Missing

The new study did not test whether the detected chemicals made these children sick. But other research gives ample reason to take early-life exposure seriously.

• A 2026 meta-analysis of 46 studies involving nearly 26,000 participants associated prenatal organophosphate exposure with poorer cognition and other adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.
• A prospective study of more than 1,000 mother-child pairs also associated prenatal exposure to a mixture of organophosphate, pyrethroid, and neonicotinoid insecticides with lower mental-development scores among two-year-old boys.
• Meta-analyses have linked pesticide exposure with childhood leukemia and respiratory conditions including asthma and wheezing.

The negative health effects go beyond young children:

• A 2015 study found men eating fruits and vegetables classified as having high pesticide residues had 49% lower total sperm counts and a 32% lower proportion of normally shaped sperm than those eating the least.
• A 2020 study found those with the highest levels urinary levels of a pyrethroid breakdown product had a 56% higher rate of death form all causes than those with the lowest levels. Pyrethroid insecticides are the third most widely used insecticides in the world.
• A 2013 study found that frequent household pesticide use was associated with 47% higher odds of Parkinson’s, rising to 71% higher odds for organophosphorus products.
• A 2025 laboratory screen found that many environmental chemicals inhibit at least one of 22 common human gut bacterial strains. Pesticides and herbicides, then, are disrupting the gut microbiome, which is intricately connected with our overall health.

ANH-USA has repeatedly warned that pesticide oversight does not match real-world exposure. Federal reviews generally assess active ingredients and specified risks, while consumers encounter multiple pesticides, their metabolites, and complete commercial formulations.

In 2023, ANH reported that the Environmental Protection Agency denied a petition asking it to assess so-called inert ingredients more fully. These undisclosed formulation ingredients can act as solvents, surfactants, and preservatives. The work of Professor Séralini and his colleagues shows just how dangerous these pesticide adjuvants can be. His team found that eight out of nine pesticides tested were up to 1,000 times more toxic to human cells than just the active ingredient. 

This is why public-health policy must be able to evolve with the science. Congress should reject efforts to freeze warnings or shield manufacturers from accountability when new evidence emerges. Consumers have a right to truthful risk information and meaningful ways to reduce exposure.

Two Bills Offer Two Paths to Prevention

TheParaquat Prevention Act, H.R. 9357,is the most direct exposure-reduction measure. Introduced by Reps. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME), it would cancel every registered use of paraquat, revoke food-residue tolerances and exemptions, prohibit sale and use of existing stocks, and bar future reregistration.

The Opportunities in Organic Act, S. 3717 and H.R. 7318,takes a broader, upstream approach. It would expand organic certification cost-share assistance and fund technical support, market capacity, and four-year transition and resilience projects. Eligible transition activities include eliminating synthetic pesticides, adopting crop rotations and cover crops, supporting beneficial predators and pollinator habitat, and conducting soil testing and on-farm research.

Congress Should Reduce Exposure at the Source

Families can wash produce, avoid routine pesticide use at home, follow product labels, and choose organic foods when feasible. Those choices may reduce exposure, but that should not replace system-wide solutions. Prevention works best when policy removes dangerous uses, supports safer farming, protects workers and neighboring communities, and keeps regulators free to respond to new evidence.

Young children should not serve as the passive monitoring system for a pesticide regime that acts only after harm becomes undeniable.

Action Alert!

The post New Study Reveals Children’s Alarming Pesticide Burden first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

What happens when government agencies charged with protecting public health become the very institutions restricting access to natural health information and choices? Jonathan Emord, ANH-USA’s General Counsel and one of America’s leading constitutional and administrative law attorneys, joins Mike Ames Sikora to explore health freedom, the First Amendment, FDA and FTC overreach, and the legal battles defending access to natural health.

The post The Mike Drop Podcast: Jonathan Emord first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Families facing complex childhood health challenges deserve opportunities to ask questions and explore emerging research. Our friends at Documenting Hope are bringing together researchers, practitioners, and families for the Health & Healing Expo, November 21–22, 2026, at Rosen Shingle Creek in Orlando, Florida, with an online attendance option. Below, we explore some of the questions shaping these conversations.

ANH-USA is an event affiliate and will receive a portion of registration proceeds when you sign up through our link.

Why are so many American families navigating autism and sudden, debilitating changes in their children’s behavior? Why has the medical mainstream got so few answers?

CDC surveillance identified autism in approximately 1 in 31 eight year-olds in 2022, compared with just 1 in 150 in 2000. Greater awareness, broader diagnostic criteria and improved identification contribute to this increase; but clinicians and families across America are aware something untoward is going on that cannot be explained only by changes in diagnostic patterns.

PANS—pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome—and its strep-associated subtype, PANDAS, present a different picture: abrupt obsessive-compulsive symptoms, restricted eating and other dramatic changes. While official figures are lacking, clinicians and families are again on the front lines of what appears to be a dramatic increase in such conditions among America’s children.

Whether we’re talking about autism or PANS/PANDAS, most theories point to the causes being related to a disruption of the deeply interconnected nervous, immune, endocrine and gastrointestinal systems.

Asking whether these conditions are “genetic or environmental” misses the interplay between biological and genetic susceptibility and modern life’s exposures—in other words epigenetic mechanisms. Research is beginning to identify an increasing range of factors associated with our 21^st century lifestyles that contribute to the rise of these conditions, including genetic predisposition, parental age and health, pollution and toxins, certain medications, and infections. 

Understanding these connections opens important questions about prevention, earlier recognition, treatment, and personalized support.

Join the Documenting Hope Health & Healing Expo, November 21–22, 2026, in Orlando or online, to explore emerging research connecting the microbiome, immunity, nutrition, cellular energy and nervous system. Bring your questions, connect with researchers, practitioners and families, and help build a more informed, hopeful future for children.

ANH community members save $50 on general admission through October 15: use code 50OFF to bring the current $389 ticket price to $339.

Learn more and register through ANH-USA’s affiliate link.

ANH-USA will receive a portion of the proceeds from registrations made through this link, supporting our advocacy for natural health.

The post Seeking Answers To Your Child’s Health? Join Documenting Hope first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

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.