What if we had a common language and approach to look at what’s needed to maintain or build health? Might this help turn around the largely preventable chronic and degenerative disease epidemic that threatens to break our health systems? ANH founder, Rob Verkerk, Ph.D., lays out his thoughts on a ‘unified theory of health’.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• Natural health is not “alternative” medicine—it is the foundational framework that supports resilience, energy production, immune balance, and long-term wellbeing in an increasingly toxic and stressful world.
• From ultra-processed food and chronic stress to environmental toxins and sedentary lifestyles, modern living creates evolutionary mismatches that mainstream medicine is poorly equipped to address.
• ANH’s proposed “unified theory of health” identifies four core biological factors that determine whether the body moves toward repair and vitality—or inflammation, degeneration, and chronic disease.

By Rob Verkerk, PhD., executive & scientific director, ANH

The wellness world is full of new tools: GLP-1 drugs, synthetic peptides, repurposed pharmaceuticals, methylene blue, high-dose synthetic vitamins, cold plunges, heat therapy, biohacking routines, and more. Some may have value in the right context. But none of them can do the deeper work if the body’s foundations are neglected.

That’s where natural health comes in.

Natural health isn’t simply about using “natural” products instead of drugs. It’s about understanding the human being as a living system—one shaped by biology, environment, lifestyle, psychology, culture, and personal agency. It asks a different question from conventional medicine. Not only: “What disease does this person have?” But also: “What conditions are allowing dysfunction to emerge in the first place?”

In my full article on ANH International, I explore whether we can move toward a unified theory of health. The idea is not to reduce human beings to a simplistic formula. Quite the opposite. It’s to offer a practical lens that helps both practitioners and individuals understand where to focus attention especially to maintain and build health in an increasingly complex health landscape. It’s about focusing much more on the body and mind’s needs for health, rather than it’s needs once it has become diseased—an approach that often leads to treatments only beginning late in the disease cycle.

We’ve identified at least 18 major influences on health, from diet, sleep, stress, physical activity, toxins, microbiome exposure, light, electromagnetic fields, social connection, economics, culture, healthcare access, information environments, and personal autonomy. In the scientific literature, these are often called “determinants” of health, but that term can be misleading. They do not determine outcomes by themselves. They influence the body’s physiology, psychology and behaviour and, in turn, affect the internal terrain.

That terrain is where health or disease ultimately manifests.

The ‘unified theory of health’ model focuses on four foundational factors:

• Energy — especially mitochondrial function, ATP production, redox balance, and metabolic flexibility, but includes bioelectric and bioelectromagnetic energy. Without enough energy in the system, maintenance and repair of the ‘operating system’ is simply not possible.
• Structure — including cell membranes, tissues, organs, the musculoskeletal system, barriers, and the overall physical integrity of the body. Structures of the body separate elements of nature and organize them in ways that create life. Integrity of these structures is a necessity of healthy life.
• Environmental information — the signals the body receives from food, light, microbes, toxins, relationships, stress, nature, and biological rhythms have a dramatic influence on the terrain of the body. This comprises information that may have positive or negative effects, leading to anabolic (building) or catabolic (breakdown) processes.
• Gene expression patterns — the way genes are switched on or off, and how they are expressed (epigenetically) in response to the internal and external environment ultimately determines the overall pattern of gene expression of an individual that in determines health outcomes.

Together, these four factors shape what I call the human terrain. When the terrain is resilient, coherent, connected, and adaptive, disease has a much harder time taking hold. When the terrain is depleted, inflamed, dysregulated, structurally compromised, or poorly informed by its environment, disease becomes far more likely.

We hope this model may be useful for practitioners from any modality, acting as a common language. A functional medicine doctor, chiropractor, nutrition professional, naturopath, acupuncturist, health coach, or integrative physician may use different tools, but all are ultimately trying to influence the same elements of the terrain. The model, we hope, offers a shared map.

It may also help patients and citizens. It reminds us that health is not readily created in a doctor’s office alone. It is built every day through the food we eat, the light we receive, the way we move, the sleep we protect, the relationships we cultivate, the toxins we avoid, the meaning we find, and the freedom we retain to make informed health choices.

Modern medicine is often brilliant in emergencies. But it is poorly designed to rebuild the foundations of health, resolve evolutionary mismatches, or address chronic disease at its roots. That’s why natural health matters now more than ever.

It gives us a way to move beyond symptom suppression and toward resilience, prevention, and human flourishing.

Read the full ANH International article here: Towards a unified theory of health—and why natural health matters more than ever

The post Could a Unified Theory of Health Solve Our Health Care Crisis? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The chemical industry promised that newer “short-chain” PFAS would be safer—but emerging science suggests these replacement “forever chemicals” may be just as dangerous, and even harder to track. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• While older PFAS chemicals are declining in wildlife following phase-outs, newer short-chain PFAS now dominate environmental contamination—and scientists still don’t fully understand where they accumulate or how they impact human health.
• Research shows short-chain PFAS can cross the placenta more easily, penetrate the skin efficiently, and break down into persistent metabolites that may linger in the body far longer than industry claims suggest.
• Regulating PFAS one chemical at a time has failed. As companies continue introducing new formulations faster than science can evaluate them, we need a comprehensive ban on PFAS as a class.

For years, chemical manufacturers defended a massive transition away from older “legacy” PFAS chemicals like PFOA and PFOS by arguing that newer “short-chain” PFAS were safer. These replacement chemicals, industry claimed, would accumulate less in the body and break down more easily in the environment.

But a growing body of research suggests this new generation of PFAS chemicals are still a public health threat.

A recent study examining PFAS contamination in pilot whales near the Faroe Islands highlights this reality: while older PFAS are declining in marine wildlife—as expected after these chemicals have been phased out—the newer short-chain PFAS are largely absent. Scientists now find themselves asking an unsettling question: If these chemicals aren’t showing up in whales and the open ocean, where are they—or their metabolites or breakdown products—going?

The “Regrettable Substitution” Problem

For decades, two long-chain PFAS chemicals — PFOA (used in Teflon®) and PFOS (used in Scotchgard®) — were the flagship “forever chemicals.” When mounting evidence linked them to cancer, thyroid disruption, immune damage, and reproductive harm, public pressure and litigation finally forced manufacturers to phase them out in the early 2000s.

The replacements were shorter-chain PFAS compounds — molecules with fewer fluorinated carbons. Industry told us that these newer chemicals would behave similarly in industrial applications but break down faster in the environment and accumulate less in living tissue.

Today, short-chain PFAS now account for 88.8% of total PFAS detected in the water column. They are everywhere. And the science catching up to them is telling a troubling story.

What the Whale Study Found — and Didn’t Find

The whale study referenced above analyzed tissue samples from Faroese pilot whales collected between 2001 and 2023 and found concentrations of legacy PFAS have declined in the whale tissue, confirming that bans on the old compounds are working.

The disturbing news: newer PFAS are essentially absent from the whales — but not because they’re absent from the environment. Production of novel PFAS is higher than ever. These chemicals are going somewhere. But where?

Two possibilities have emerged, and both are alarming in different ways.

One theory is that novel PFAS may be accumulating closer to their sources — near manufacturing facilities, in coastal waters, and in communities near industrial sites. A parallel study of beluga whales in Canada’s St. Lawrence Estuary found increasing concentrations of newer, unregulated PFAS from 2000 to 2017, while legacy PFAS declined. The estuary sits near human communities and PFAS manufacturing sources. What’s in those whales could reflect what’s in nearby people.

Another theory is that short-chain PFAS may actually travel farther and more easily than their predecessors — transported through the atmosphere in rain and snowfall, spreading globally before anyone can track them. For example, short-chain PFAS from the GenX platform, used as replacements for PFOA produced by Chemours (the US spin-off from DuPont, the original inventor of—and current manufacturer—Teflon®), was detected in the Arctic Ocean in 2020. These short-chain PFAS had already spread to the most remote corners of the planet.

Either way, we’re being exposed. Studies of human tissue increasingly show a high proportion of unidentifiable organofluorine chemicals — compounds so new that scientists don’t yet have the tools to name them.

Breaking Down the Science: What Short-Chain PFAS Actually Do in Your Body

The chemical industry’s case for short-chain PFAS rests on data derived from what are called ADME studies — that reveal how a substance is Absorbed, Distributed, Metabolized, and Excreted. On paper, short-chain compounds look less dangerous: they clear the body faster than long-chain PFAS. But when you look closer, the picture becomes far more complicated toxicologically.

They Get In More Easily Than You’d Think

Short-chain PFAS don’t just enter your body through drinking water or food. They’re absorbed through skin contact at surprisingly high rates. With some short-chain PFAS compounds, around half of what touches your skin can enter your bloodstream.

By contrast, older long-chain PFAS are actually less likely to pass through the skin — they tend to sit in skin tissue instead. Shorter chains slide through more readily. If you’re touching PFAS-treated fabrics, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant carpets, or cosmetics (and you almost certainly are), short-chain PFAS have an easier path into your body than their predecessors did.

They Reach Where It Matters Most: Your Blood, Liver, and Unborn Children

Once absorbed, short-chain PFAS distribute rapidly through the body, concentrating in the blood, liver, skin, and kidneys. One key compound, perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), shows a strong preference for whole blood — meaning it travels efficiently throughout the circulatory system. PFHxA has also been shown to cross the placenta at a rate that is six times higher than that of the long-chain PFDA. This means a pregnant person’s exposure to short-chain PFAS translates into significant fetal exposure — at the most vulnerable stage of human development.

“Fast Clearance” Hides a Dangerous Secret

The industry has long pointed to shorter half-lives as evidence of safety. PFHxA, for example, clears from rodents in about 2–3 hours. In humans, estimates range from 14 to 49 days — far shorter than PFOA’s average of 3.5 years or PFHxS’s 5 to 9 years.

But here’s what that talking point leaves out: it’s not just about the parent compound.

Many short-chain PFAS — particularly fluorotelomers like 6:2 FTOH, used extensively in food packaging — are precursors. Your body metabolizes them into breakdown products, and those breakdown products may behave very differently than the parent compound. One metabolite, called the 5:3 acid, is highly biopersistent. In animal studies, it takes approximately one year to reach a steady state in plasma and liver tissue: hardly “fast clearance.”

Studies published in peer-reviewed journals found that 6:2 FTOH — one of the most widely used short-chain PFAS, found in most plastic coatings on food wrappers — accumulates in the fat, liver, and plasma of rats and persists for over a year. This research also found that chemical industry safety assessments were based on just one metabolite (PFHxA) while ignoring other, more toxic breakdown products.

The result: human health risk from 6:2 FTOH—and shorter chain PFAS more generally—has been significantly underestimated.

Researchers studying PFAS face a “chemical Whac-A-Mole”: by the time scientists understand one compound well enough to regulate it, companies have already moved on to the next formulation. Patent applications are already being filed for PFAS chemistries that scientists say are “nothing like we have seen before” — compounds that could begin entering our environment in the next five to ten years.

There could be millions of possible PFAS formulations. Regulating them one chemical at a time is not a safety strategy. It is a gamble with our health and our lives.

Ban PFAS as a Class

ANH-USA has long called for a comprehensive ban on PFAS chemicals and the development of genuinely safer alternatives. The short-chain PFAS story illustrates exactly why a chemical-by-chemical regulatory approach fails the public.

We’ve documented the backsliding under the current Administration on what few PFAS safety standards have been set. But we must start moving beyond drinking water limits on a handful of named compounds.

It’s time to stop playing chemical Whac-A-Mole. Ban PFAS as a class, and build something genuinely better.

Action Alert!

The post The “Safer” Forever Chemicals That Aren’t: What the Science on Short-Chain PFAS Really Tells Us first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Some readers were confused by our Arizona statement released last month and assumed it applied only to people living in Arizona. To make the broader message clear, we’ve added a roundel to the graphic: “Forged in Arizona for ALL Americans.” While the statement originated in Arizona, the principles behind it—health freedom, informed choice, and accountability—are national issues that affect every American. Momentum is building, and now is the time to keep it going by gathering more signatures, sharing the statement widely, and helping demonstrate the growing public demand for action.

SIGN THE ARIZONA STATEMENT TODAY.

The post Forged in Arizona. Fighting for All Americans: Sign the Arizona Statement first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Dr. Marty Makary is stepping down as FDA Commissioner after just over a year leading the agency, amid reports of mounting political pressure, internal conflict, and ongoing controversy over the FDA’s direction under the Trump administration and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

According to multiple reports, Makary’s resignation was likely not entirely voluntary. Major outlets, including Reuters and POLITICO, describe weeks of escalating clashes with White House and HHS officials over issues ranging from abortion-pill regulation to flavored vaping products. President Donald Trump reportedly pushed the agency to authorize flavored e-cigarette products more quickly, while Makary resisted over concerns about youth vaping.

Trump publicly acknowledged the resignation, saying Makary “was having some difficulty,” fueling speculation that the commissioner resigned in anticipation of being removed.

Kyle Diamantas will now serve as Acting FDA Commissioner. Diamantas previously served as the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Food and is considered a close ally of Secretary Kennedy and the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda.

Diamantas, a former corporate attorney, has already signaled support for major shifts in FDA food policy, including increased scrutiny of ultra-processed foods. His appointment suggests the administration intends to continue reshaping the FDA around Kennedy’s priorities — particularly in food regulation, chronic disease policy, and regulatory reform.

Time will tell whether the FDA’s leadership transition accelerates the kinds of reforms many in the natural health movement have long hoped to see under the broader “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. Whether those expectations translate into meaningful institutional change—or simply more political turbulence at an already unsettled agency—remains to be seen.

The post Makary Out at the FDA first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

A current FDA review of the definition of “dietary substance” could dramatically restrict supplements, limit consumer choice, and reshape the future of natural health in the U.S.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• The FDA has made its own case and is interpreting “dietary substance” narrowly—limiting supplements to what’s already in the typical American diet—despite Congress intentionally defining supplements broadly in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.
• This approach could exclude a wide range of traditional, global, and innovative health products while reinforcing a regulatory system that favors pharmaceuticals and restricts what supplement companies can say about health benefits.
• While being dressed up like a safety measure, this shift is really about control that would reduce access and diversity of supplement products, stifle innovation, and align U.S. policy with more restrictive international standards.

When most people think about regulation, they picture inspections, raids, enforcement actions, or product bans. But one of the most powerful tools regulators have operates quietly in the background: definitions.

Right now, the FDA is deciding how to interpret the phrase “a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake” that makes up a part of the definition of a dietary supplement. We gave a brief overview of this issue last week, but given it’s so important we felt it necessary to go into more detail this week because the outcome of this debate could reshape the entire supplement landscape. We need to make sure that good sense and science, not the anti-supplement agenda of FDA’s paymasters, win the day.

The Power of a Definition

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), dietary supplements are defined as products containing one or more “dietary ingredients” (such as vitamins, minerals, herbs or other botanicals, or amino acids). Congress intentionally wrote this definition broadly in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994 to preserve consumer access to a wide range of health-supporting products.

One key part of that definition—in “clause (E)”—adds that a “supplement” is also:

“a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake.”

This is clearly expansive. It reflects a common-sense idea: supplements exist to add to the diet, not merely replicate what is already commonly consumed. But the FDA has taken a very different view.

Freezing the “Diet” in Time

In the agency’s guidance, the FDA has stated that a “dietary substance” must be limited to foods and food components that humans already eat as part of their “usual diet”. In other words, if something isn’t already part of the typical American diet, it may not qualify.

There are significant problems with this interpretation. As ANH founder and Executive Director Rob Verkerk, PhD, stated in ANH’s comments to FDA on this issue, “The American diet is highly variable, increasingly globalized, and in many respects nutritionally poor. Making the modern ‘usual diet’ the limiting benchmark would perversely treat dietary inadequacy and market convention as regulatory boundaries.”

Human diets are diverse and evolving. A legitimate understanding of “dietary substance” must include:

• Foods and practices from other cultures and traditional diets
• Fermented foods, medicinal foods, and food-as-medicine traditions
• Botanicals, fungi, algae, and microbial ingredients
• Nutrients and bioactive compounds present in foods but used in concentrated forms
• Substances that are chemically equivalent to dietary components, even if produced using modern methods

The relevant question isn’t whether a substance appears in the average American grocery store. It’s whether it has a relationship to the human diet—through tradition, composition, or function. With FDA’s planned narrowing of the scope of the definition, thousands of plant, fungi-, and algal-derived ingredients from tropical regions, from the East, from Central and South America, and from the African continent, would be excluded.  

In this move, FDA would drift away from the expansive view of dietary supplements that was the will of Congress in 1994, and towards a view that is central to European regulators: that supplements are there only to maintain levels of micronutrients and have no role to play in warding off, let along remedying, any kind of chronic or acute disease. The subtext that is never stated is that FDA views supplements as competition for drugs and therefore its market must be kept in check.

A Broader Strategy to Restrict Consumer Choice

This debate over “dietary substance” isn’t happening in isolation. It’s part of a broader push to establish control over our health.

The FDA has a vested interest in restricting medicines that aren’t drugs because drug company user fees fund a substantial portion of the agency’s budget. It isn’t a coincidence that natural medicines over which the agency exercises less authority—supplements, homeopathy, and compounded medicines, for example—are frequent targets of FDA attack.

The result? Fewer products, less innovation, and reduced consumer choice.

The Legal Trap: Why Supplements Can’t Be “Medicine”

Zoom out, and an even bigger issue comes into focus.

Under U.S. law, a product becomes a “drug” if it is intended to diagnose, treat, mitigate, or prevent disease. That means a supplement company cannot legally tell you what the science says about how its product affects health—if that effect relates to disease.

This creates a paradox. You can buy supplements like curcumin, omega-3s, or vitamin D, but companies can’t tell you how they may help with inflammation, heart health, or immune function if those claims even hint at crossing into disease territory.

Why? Because making those statements would trigger drug classification—and with it, a regulatory process that can cost upwards of $1 billion and take a decade.

For natural substances that cannot be patented, that pathway is a dead end.

So companies stay silent. Consumers stay uninformed. And healthcare remains dominated by pharmaceutical interventions—not because they are always superior, but because they are the only legally recognized option for treating disease. (This is why we’re preparing a petition to the FDA to change that).

The Global Angle: Regulatory Harmonization

There’s also an international dimension to consider.

The United States has long been an outlier in allowing relatively broad access to dietary supplements. In contrast, the European Union imposes stricter limits on ingredient types and dosages.

Efforts like the FDA’s current interpretation of “dietary substance,” combined with its pre-approval framework for “new” supplements and Sen. Durbin’s bill for mandatory product listing, can be understood as steps toward harmonization—aligning U.S. rules with more restrictive standards from other countries.

For large multinational corporations, this makes business easier: one set of rules across multiple markets. For consumers, it means fewer choices and less access.

A Better Path Forward

ANH-USA is not arguing for a regulatory free-for-all. Safety and transparency matter. The FDA already has the authority to remove unsafe products from the market—and it should use that authority where appropriate.

But redefining “dietary substance” in a way that excludes legitimate, diet-related ingredients is less about safety and more about control.

A better approach would:

• Respect the broad definition Congress enacted in DSHEA
• Recognize the diversity and evolution of human diets
• Allow for innovation in how dietary ingredients are developed and delivered
• Focus regulatory efforts on safety—not arbitrary categorical restrictions

What’s at Stake

At a time when chronic disease is at historic highs, restricting access to safe, health-supporting tools is the wrong direction.

Definitions may seem technical. But in this case, they determine what products you can access, what information you can receive, and ultimately, what options you have to support your health.

If the FDA succeeds in narrowing the meaning of “dietary substance,” it could change the future of natural health in America. And that’s something we can’t afford to ignore.

Please share this widely among your network and help support our work to defend access to supplements with a donation.

The post FDA’s War of Words on Supplements first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Strong evidence of the impact of fluoridated drinking water on cognitive development was a major reason for HHS’s altered stance on fluoride. A widely cited new fluoridation study—relying on old data—claims there are no risks to brain development; but its flawed design and failure to address available evidence make its value limited.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• The study concludes fluoridated water doesn’t affect IQ, but relies on indirect, county-level estimates of exposure rather than measuring actual fluoride levels in individuals.
• Key methodological issues—including grouping different types of fluoride exposure, poorly timed variables, and use of a decades-old cohort—undermine its relevance and reliability.
• The findings conflict with more recent and comprehensive research using stronger data, raising concerns that the study may reflect policy advocacy more than rigorous science.

A newly published paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is already being touted as definitive proof that water fluoridation poses no risk to brain development. The paper represents an effort to counter a ‘gold standard’ systematic review and meta-analysis published last year in one of the most influential journals, JAMA Pediatrics, which evaluated 74 cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies and found significant inverse associations between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ scores. This study, along with others showing how fluoride in drinking water disturbs the gut microbiota impacting children’s immunity, were key to the change in stance on fluoride of HHS under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership. 

In his Substack article, James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, reveals a catalogue of problems with the supposed debunking of the JAMA Pediatrics study that is being used for all it’s worth by the pro-fluoride, anti-Kennedy brigade. Beneath the headline-grabbing conclusion lies a study design that raises more questions than it answers and may ultimately obscure, rather than clarify, the real science on fluoride and cognition.

What the Study Claims

The study, drawing on data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, concludes that exposure to community water fluoridation (CWF) is not associated with lower IQ in adolescence or reduced cognitive function later in life.

At first glance, that sounds reassuring. But the reliability of any scientific conclusion depends entirely on how the study was conducted. And that’s where the problems begin.

The authors present their work as a replication of earlier findings. But it’s not independent replication—the gold standard for building scientific consensus. Instead, it’s the same lead researcher, working with essentially the same dataset, confirming a prior result.

The Core Problem: Exposure Was Never Measured

Perhaps the most significant issue is this: the study never directly measures fluoride exposure in any individual.

There are no urine or blood fluoride levels, no measurements from participants’ drinking water, no clinical indicators like dental fluorosis. Instead, exposure is inferred from county-level records—essentially guessing who was exposed based on where they lived and when fluoridation began.

This kind of shortcut introduces what researchers call the ecological fallacy: assuming that group-level data accurately reflects individual experience.

A Critical Category Error

The study also treats all fluoride exposure as equivalent—but it isn’t.

Participants categorized as “exposed from birth” often lived in areas with naturally occurring fluoride in well water, not water treated with fluoridation chemicals used in modern systems.

These are chemically distinct substances with potentially different biological effects. Combining them into a single “exposure” category undermines the validity of the comparison from the start.

Timing Matters—and It’s Off

Another major flaw: the study measures “confounding variables” after years of supposed fluoride exposure have already occurred.

But if you’re trying to isolate cause and effect, your baseline measurements need to come before the exposure—not in the middle of it. Otherwise, you risk adjusting away the very effects you’re trying to detect.

A Study from a Different Era

There’s also a fundamental mismatch between the study population (high school graduates from 1957) and today’s reality.

Participants were born in the early 1940s—before widespread fluoridation standards, fluoride toothpaste, and modern dietary fluoride exposure.

Today’s children are exposed to fluoride from multiple sources simultaneously, creating a total exposure profile that simply didn’t exist in mid-20th century Wisconsin.

Using this cohort to answer today’s policy questions is like using 1950s air pollution data to evaluate modern emissions standards. It doesn’t work.

What About the Broader Evidence?

This study stands in contrast to more recent analyses, including:

• A 2024 review by the National Toxicology Program, which found moderate evidence linking fluoride exposure to lower IQ in children
• A 2025 meta-analysis in JAMA Pediatrics reporting similar concerns

These analyses rely more heavily on individual-level exposure data—the kind missing from the PNAS paper.

Policy Framing Raises Concerns

The study explicitly positions itself as a response to recent policy decisions to roll back fluoridation in some states.

That doesn’t automatically invalidate the research—but it does raise an important question: Was the study designed to investigate a question—or to defend a position?

The rapid publication timeline and methodological problems—each tending toward a null result—suggest the latter.

Why This Matters

Public health decisions affect millions of people—especially children. They should be grounded in the best possible science, not studies with built-in blind spots.

Let’s not forget: in a 2024 ruling, a federal court determined that fluoride levels in U.S. drinking water present an unreasonable risk to public health. The court found compelling evidence from human studies, including a review of over 70 epidemiological studies, which confirm that even lower levels of fluoride can have detrimental effects on children’s cognitive development.

One flawed study to the contrary doesn’t change this.

Science isn’t a fixed set of conclusions—it’s a process. The strength of the scientific method lies in its willingness to be challenged: to revisit assumptions, refine methods, and update conclusions when new data emerge. That means questioning isn’t a threat to science—it’s the engine that drives it forward.

On complex public health questions like fluoride exposure, where evidence is developing and stakes are high, that principle matters even more. Conflicting findings shouldn’t be dismissed or spun into certainty; they should prompt better research, more precise measurement, and a deeper look at what we may be missing.

If science is doing its job, the conversation doesn’t end with a single study—or even a consensus moment. It continues, evolves, and corrects itself over time. And public policy should remain open to that same process: grounded in evidence, but always ready to adapt as our understanding grows.

Please share this article widely in your networks.

The post Flawed Fluoridation Study Fails to Debunk Kennedy IQ Reduction Claim first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

While the FRESH Act promises GRAS reform, a closer look reveals a shift toward burdensome FDA gatekeeping that could restrict access to safe, natural ingredients. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• The bill eliminates the long-standing “self-GRAS” pathway, effectively transforming GRAS into a pre-market approval system rather than a flexible safety standard.
• It introduces a two-tier review process that still expands federal control, including FDA-influenced third-party panels and increased reporting requirements.
• It imposes significant administrative burdens without adopting a risk-based approach, potentially stifling innovation and limiting access to low-risk, natural ingredients.

We’re inching closer to policies that will restrict access to natural ingredients you rely on.

At first glance, the FRESH Act looks like a measured attempt to modernize the “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) pathway. It is less disastrous than some of the other proposals we’ve seen introduced in Congress. Yet a closer look shows that this bill, too, fundamentally reshapes GRAS into something much closer to a pre-market approval regime that will negatively impact our access to safe, natural ingredients.

The Elimination of “Self-GRAS”

The most consequential change in the FRESH Act is that, moving forward, a substance can no longer be considered GRAS unless the FDA has been notified.

In other words, the longstanding “self-GRAS” pathway—where qualified experts can determine an ingredient is safe without mandatory FDA submission—is effectively eliminated.

Proponents argue that self-GRAS is a loophole that allows unsafe substances into the food supply. But that characterization doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. As we’ve documented before, many of the ingredients frequently cited in media reports as problematic were actually reviewed by the FDA—not slipped through via self-GRAS.

The real issue with self-GRAS isn’t that companies can reach GRAS conclusions independently. It’s that these determinations are generally not transparent.

Transparency, Not Pre-Market Gatekeeping

ANH-USA has consistently argued that GRAS reform should focus on transparency—not expanding FDA gatekeeping authority.

Our proposed solution, as documented in our April 2025 white paper, is straightforward: a comprehensive, publicly accessible transparency register of all GRAS determinations. This would allow independent scientists, researchers, and watchdogs to evaluate the evidence behind safety conclusions.

Increasing the FDA’s pre-market authority over food ingredients risks replacing one perceived problem with a far more restrictive system that slows innovation without meaningfully improving safety.

A Two-Tier System—With Strings Attached

The FRESH Act outlines two pathways for new GRAS ingredients:

• Full Notification: Companies must submit detailed information, including identity, manufacturing process, specifications, and a scientific rationale. The FDA has 90 days to review and can request more data or reject the submission.
• Third-Party Review Pathway: Ingredients reviewed by an “established scientific panel” can bypass full notification—but only if the panel is accredited by the Secretary and submits basic information to the FDA.

On paper, this second pathway appears to preserve some flexibility. In reality, it adds a new layer of federal control: scientific panels must be formally accredited, and their conclusions still have to be reported to the FDA. When the agency is effectively shaping who gets to serve on these panels, it’s reasonable to expect a narrow range of viewpoints—ones that tend to lean towards ever more EU-style, precautionary approaches. The result risks becoming more “government science” that is inherently skeptical of natural products, especially those that could compete with drug-based interventions.

Existing Ingredients: Not a Tsunami—But Still a Tidal Wave

To its credit, the FRESH Act does not require all existing GRAS ingredients to undergo full FDA review. Instead, companies must meet one of two conditions:

1. Submit a basic notification (identity and intended use), or
2. Ensure the substance is already listed in the FDA’s Substances Added to Foods database.

Basic notifications are automatically accepted and take effect after 30 days unless the FDA intervenes.

This avoids the worst-case scenario—a regulatory “tsunami” overwhelming both industry and the agency. But it still represents a massive administrative burden: a tidal wave of filings that smaller companies may struggle to manage.

The Missing Piece: Risk-Based Reform

One of the biggest shortcomings of the FRESH Act is its one-size-fits-all approach.

Not all ingredients pose the same level of risk. A synthetic chemical with no history of human consumption should not be treated the same as a vitamin co-factor, botanical ingredient or mushroom used safely for generations.

At ANH-USA, we are advocating for a tiered, risk-based system, where:

• Low-risk, natural ingredients with a long history of safe use face minimal regulatory burden
• Higher-risk, novel, or synthetic substances receive more rigorous evaluation

This approach protects public health and preserves access to beneficial products. The FRESH Act, by contrast, casts too wide a net.

Reform Without Overreach

There are problems with the current GRAS system. Bad actors can exploit gaps, and greater accountability is needed.

But eliminating self-GRAS and replacing it with a quasi pre-market approval system is not the answer.

GRAS has long served as an essential pathway for thousands of safe, health-promoting ingredients to reach consumers. Weakening that pathway risks reducing access, stifling innovation, and consolidating control over the food supply.

We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

A Better Path Forward

If lawmakers are serious about improving GRAS, they should focus on:

• Full transparency: A universal registry of all GRAS determinations
• Risk-based oversight: Tailored requirements based on an ingredient’s safety profile
• Preserving flexibility: Maintaining pathways for safe, natural ingredients to enter the market efficiently

The FRESH Act takes a step toward reform—but in doing so, it risks creating a system that is more restrictive, more bureaucratic, and ultimately less effective.

We can do better.

Action Alert!

The post The FRESH Act: Reforming GRAS—or Replacing It? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The FDA is signaling a narrower definition of “dietary supplement” that could sideline innovative natural products and limit consumer choice—unless it’s challenged.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• The FDA is considering a narrow interpretation of “dietary substance” that could exclude many natural, traditional, and innovative ingredients from qualifying as dietary supplements.
• This shift could push a wide range of products into regulatory limbo or the costly drug approval pipeline, reducing access and favoring pharmaceutical pathways.
• ANH is urging the FDA to follow the law as written, prioritize safety over restriction, and preserve consumer access to a broad range of health-supporting products.

What if the FDA could quietly redefine supplements in a way that puts many of your go-to health products out of reach?

At a time when Americans are facing a chronic disease crisis of historic proportions, you’d think federal regulators would be doing everything possible to expand access to safe, health-promoting tools. Instead, the FDA is moving in the opposite direction—quietly advancing an interpretation of the law that could restrict access to a wide range of dietary supplements.

That’s why ANH-USA has stepped in.

In a recent regulatory submission, ANH urged the FDA to stick to the law as written and reject efforts to narrow what qualifies as a “dietary supplement.” At stake is your ability to access innovative, natural products that can support your health.

What’s the Fight About?

The issue centers on how the FDA defines a “dietary substance”—a key part of the legal definition of a dietary supplement. Congress intentionally wrote this definition broadly in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994 to ensure consumers would have access to a wide variety of safe products.

Section 201(ff)(1) defines a “dietary supplement” as a product, other than tobacco, intended to supplement the diet and bearing or containing one or more dietary ingredients, including vitamins, minerals, herbs or other botanicals, amino acids, “a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake,” or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of such ingredients.

The FDA is signaling it may interpret the “dietary substance” portion of the definition (bolded above) narrowly—essentially limiting it to substances already commonly consumed in the typical American diet.

Why This Matters

If the FDA adopts this narrow view, it could shut the door on a huge range of beneficial ingredients, including:

• Compounds used in traditional diets from around the world
• Concentrated forms of naturally occurring nutrients
• Innovative ingredients produced through modern, safe technologies
• Emerging natural compounds that support health but aren’t part of the standard American diet

In other words, many of the most promising tools for improving health could be pushed out of the supplement category altogether and into a regulatory limbo—or worse, into the drug approval pipeline, where costs and barriers are so high that only pharmaceutical companies can compete.

The Bigger Picture

Why is the FDA doing this – especially now, while HHS Secretary Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Makary are ostensibly in charge? Dietary supplements are overwhelmingly safe. Serious adverse events are extremely rare—especially compared to pharmaceuticals. Yet the FDA stance appears unchanged under Kennedy and Makary’s leadership, the agency consistently adopting an aggressive posture towards supplements with the goal of not just limiting access, but creating the impression that supplements are not a legitimate way to maintain health. That’s what drugs are for!

A Better Approach

ANH is not arguing for a free-for-all. Safety and transparency matter. Bad products should be removed from the market.

But the law already gives the FDA the tools it needs to do that.

What ANH is advocating for is simple:

• Follow the statute: Congress deliberately created a broad definition that isn’t limited to constituents of the standard American diet.
• Focus on safety, not restriction: Evaluate whether products are safe, rather than excluding them outright.
• Allow innovation: New technologies and ingredients should be judged on their merits, not dismissed because they’re new.
• Protect consumer choice: People should have access to a wide range of safe options to support their health.
• Preserve our Constitutional rights: First Amendment protections should enable consumers to have full access to relevant health information about natural health products to allow them to make informed choices.

Why Now?

We are living through a surge in chronic illness—conditions like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease that are often preventable or manageable with better nutrition and lifestyle choices.

Dietary supplements can play a critical role in that effort. They’re not a cure-all, but they are an important part of a broader strategy to stay healthy and reduce reliance on drugs.

Restricting access to these tools at this moment is misguided and counterproductive.

The Bottom Line

This debate may sound technical, but its impact is very real.

A narrow definition of “dietary substance” means fewer choices, less innovation, and more barriers between you and the tools you use to stay healthy.

ANH is pushing back to ensure that doesn’t happen. In a country struggling with chronic disease, the last thing we need is less access to safe, effective, natural health solutions.

Please share this article widely in your network.

The post FDA Tries to Redefine Supplements—And Limit Your Access to Them first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

A federal court dismissed ANH’s homeopathy lawsuit on procedural grounds—so we’re taking the fight directly back to the FDA.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• The court did not rule on the merits, dismissing the case instead for lack of standing.
• This leaves unresolved the core question of the FDA’s tightening restrictions on homeopathic medicines.
• ANH and Meditrend will file a new citizen petition within 30 days to press the case directly with FDA leadership.

On April 24, 2026, a federal court in Washington, D.C. dismissed ANH-USA and Meditrend’s lawsuit challenging the FDA’s crackdown on homeopathic medicines.

Importantly, the court did not rule on the merits—it never decided whether the FDA’s actions were lawful. Instead, the case was dismissed on a technical issue called “standing,” meaning the court found there wasn’t enough evidence directly linking the FDA’s specific actions to the harms claimed by the plaintiffs.

Speaking to these latest developments, ANH General Counsel Jonathan Emord said, “After holding standing present earlier in the case, the Judge did a volte face and ruled no standing present, doing so immediately before a decision on the merits of whether FDA acted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). FDA did indeed violate the APA arbitrary and capricious decision-making standard when it presumed homeopathic drugs unsafe without requisite evidence. Because an appeal would add years to an already delayed decision on the merits, we are going back to FDA to demand the needed reforms, providing the reasons for, and the way to achieve, a reversal of the guidance FDA issued that revoked CPG 400.400 (the safe harbor for entry of homeopathic drugs into the market). We seek to reinstate CPG 400.400 as a first major step to save homeopathy in America.” 

What This Means

This is not a ruling against homeopathy. It simply means the case couldn’t move forward in its current form. The bigger issue—how the FDA regulates homeopathic products—remains unresolved.

What ANH Is Doing Next

Rather than pursue a lengthy appeal that could take years and still avoid the core issues, ANH and Meditrend have decided on a more direct path: filing a new citizen petition with the FDA within the next 30 days.

This approach puts the issue directly in front of FDA leadership and offers a faster opportunity to challenge the agency’s current stance.

Bottom Line

This is a procedural setback, not the end of the road. ANH remains actively engaged in protecting access to homeopathic medicines and is moving quickly to press the case through new channels.

More updates soon.

The post ANH Campaign to Protect Homeopathy: Update first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

A seemingly simple supplement registry could quietly reshape the entire natural health market—and limit what consumers can access. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• The proposed Dietary Supplement Listing Act is framed as a transparency measure, but it would effectively create a premarket approval system.
• The compliance burden would likely hit small and innovative supplement companies hardest, leading to market consolidation and fewer niche or practitioner-grade products for consumers.
• A centralized FDA registry could become a tool to target and remove certain supplements, while doing little to stop illegal or adulterated products that already evade existing laws.

Imagine walking into your local health store—or opening your usual online shop—and finding that a supplement you’ve relied on for years is suddenly gone. No warning, no clear explanation. It’s just gone.

For millions of Americans who use vitamins, minerals, and other supplements as part of their daily health routines, this could be the reality if Congress enacts the latest version of Dietary Supplement Listing Act, the bill long championed by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), but this time introduced by Representative Maxine Dexter, MD (D-OR).

On its face, the Dietary Supplement Listing Act sounds like a simple transparency measure. Who could oppose a basic product registry? But the reality is, as we’ve argued for years, this bill is the first step towards eliminating supplements you care about.

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act—the law governing how supplements are regulated in the US—was designed to treat supplements as a category of food, not drugs, with regulators stepping in when problems arise. This bill flips that logic, creating a de facto premarket approval system akin to how drugs are treated.

The burden won’t fall evenly. Large multinational firms will absorb the compliance costs; smaller companies—the ones driving innovation and offering specialized products—may not. The likely result is market consolidation and reduced consumer choice, particularly for practitioner-grade and niche formulations that don’t fit a mass-market model.

Supporters argue this will improve safety. But FDA already has robust authority to act against adulterated or misbranded supplements. The most serious risks in this space typically stem from illegal products that ignore existing law—not from a lack of paperwork. A sweeping new registry does little to address those bad actors, while imposing new hurdles on responsible companies trying to comply.

More concerning is what comes next. Once a centralized database is in place, the FDA can use the registry as a hit-list to go after supplements it doesn’t like. Maybe high-dose supplements are the first target. Maybe the FDA uses the list to go after supplements that haven’t complied with its over-expansive “new dietary ingredient” guidance (a policy that has yet to be finalized).

At stake here is whether consumers retain broad access to supplements and the freedom to make informed choices about their health. This bill may be framed as modest reform, but its real impact would be anything but modest.

Action Alert!

The post Durbin Bill Reappears: New Threat to Supplement Access first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.