For years, the FDA’s approach to compounded peptides has looked less like careful regulation and more like a campaign to eliminate patient access to products that compete with Big Pharma. There may at last be reason for cautious optimism. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this story:

THE TOPLINE

• The FDA’s newly remade Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee will meet July 23-24, 2026, to consider whether key peptides—including BPC-157, KPV, TB-500, MOTs-C, Epitalon, and others—should be allowed for use by traditional compounding pharmacies.
• Unlike past panels that rejected access to peptides such as thymosin alpha-1, the new PCAC includes physicians and pharmacists with real-world experience in personalized, regenerative, and integrative medicine—raising cautious hope for a more balanced approach.
• FDA restrictions are pushing patients toward risky “research use only” gray-market products, while properly regulated compounding offers a safer path through physician oversight, pharmacy accountability, and enforceable quality standards.

For too long, patients seeking personalized peptide therapies have been forced into a cruel choice: go without treatments their doctors believe may help, or turn to the unsafe gray market created by FDA restrictions. Now, a newly remade FDA advisory panel could offer a rare opening to restore common sense, protect patients, and keep safe, natural peptides available through lawful, physician-supervised compounding.

The FDA’s Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee, or PCAC, has been remade with members who appear to understand what patients, physicians, and compounding pharmacists already know: access to properly compounded medicines can be a lifeline, especially when conventional medicine offers limited options. This is almost certainly due to RFK Jr.’s influence, and we commend him for taking this action to protect consumer choice.

That matters because PCAC is preparing to review another slate of peptides for potential inclusion on the FDA’s 503A Bulk Drug Substances List. The committee will meet July 23-24, 2026, to consider BPC-157, KPV, TB-500, MOTs-C, emideltide, Semax, and Epitalon.

PCAC’s Importance

PCAC does not make the final law. It advises the FDA.

For many peptides, however, the committee’s recommendation is a critical step. Under Section 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a traditional compounding pharmacy may compound from a bulk drug substance only if the substance has a United States Pharmacopeia or National Formulary monograph, is a component of an FDA-approved drug, or appears on the 503A Bulks List.

If PCAC recommends adding a substance, the FDA must still go through notice-and-comment rulemaking before formally adding it. In other words, even a favorable PCAC vote is not an immediate green light. But a negative vote can help the FDA justify continued restriction.

That is why the composition of this committee matters so much.

A Needed Departure from the Old PCAC

Past PCAC panels have been dominated by academic and institutional voices that often appeared to accept the FDA’s framing rather than challenge it. The result has been predictable: peptide after peptide, and natural substance after natural substance, have been rejected.

At its December 4, 2024 meeting, PCAC voted against adding CJC-1295, AOD-9604, and thymosin alpha-1 to the 503A Bulks List. Thymosin alpha-1, or Ta1, was rejected by a vote of 17 to 4.

The remade roster looks different. FDA’s current PCAC roster includes physicians and pharmacists with expertise in cellular medicine, regenerative therapies, internal medicine, family medicine, pharmacy, and personalized medicine. Members include Asare B. Christian, MD, founder and medical director of Aether Medicine; Melissa Loseke, DO, owner and physician at Re-New Institute; Joshua Starbuck, MD, owner and physician at Makena Health; Kris Wusterhausen, DO, founder and medical director of The Resurge Clinic; and pharmacists Timothy Fensky and Tennessee State Senator Robert Harshbarger III.

Critics have attacked these appointments because some members work in clinics or businesses connected to peptides, hormone therapy, or regenerative medicine. The Associated Press reported that the new panel includes doctors and pharmacists with ties to the peptide and wellness space and contrasted it with prior panels made up mostly of academics and researchers.

But that criticism misses the point. Patients do not need another committee that treats real-world clinical experience as a liability. They need a committee willing to ask whether FDA policy is pushing patients toward greater danger or denying them access to safe and effective products.

The Thymosin Alpha-1 Warning

Thymosin alpha-1 (Ta1) shows what goes wrong when FDA treats natural peptides as regulatory threats.

Ta1 is a peptide naturally occurring in the thymus and has long been studied for immune-modulating properties. A 2020 review describes thymosin alpha-1 as naturally occurring in the thymus and notes its longstanding recognition for modifying, enhancing, and restoring immune function. The literature also describes Ta1 and thymalfasin as having well-studied safety profiles and being generally well tolerated, with mostly minor side effects.

Yet PCAC still rejected it.

The FDA has cited concerns including immunogenicity, possible impurities, and inadequate safety information for certain compounded uses.

As we’ve argued previously, lack of data does not imply risk. If impurities are the concern, FDA should issue clear quality-control guidance for compounding pharmacies and bulk ingredient suppliers. If route of administration is the issue, FDA should address route-specific safeguards.

For natural peptides with meaningful safety histories, the answer should be better standards, not prohibition.

Restriction Fuels the Gray Market

The FDA’s peptide crackdown has had a predictable consequence: patients have not stopped seeking peptides. Many have simply been pushed out of the medical system.

Products labeled “for research use only” are widely available online. These products—often imported from shady overseas suppliers—may have uncertain purity, questionable sterility, inaccurate labeling, or no meaningful medical oversight.

Properly regulated compounding offers a better path: physician oversight, patient-specific prescriptions, pharmacy accountability, certificates of analysis, and enforceable standards.

The FDA’s own 503A framework recognizes that bulk drug substances used in compounding must meet specific conditions, including valid certificates of analysis and manufacturing by registered establishments.

If FDA’s goal is patient safety, it should prefer licensed pharmacies over anonymous online sellers.

Epitalon Is Next

Epitalon deserves especially close attention at the July 24 meeting.

Epitalon is a tetrapeptide, Ala-Glu-Asp-Gly, also known as AEDG. It was synthesized based on the amino acid composition of Epithalamin, a bovine pineal gland extract, before being identified in pineal gland polypeptide complex solution. Like Ta1, Epitalon sits closer to the natural-peptide end of the spectrum than many new-to-nature compounds.

There are gaps in the safety data. But lack of complete data is not the same as evidence of harm, especially when used under the care of a physician through licensed compounding pharmacies.

Access to Epitalon is critically important. It sits at the heart of the life’s work of the pioneer of bioregulatory peptides, the late Prof. Vladimir Khavinson — a field he developed over more than four decades and described as “the future of medicine.” Khavinson regarded the pineal peptide system as a central regulator of biological resilience and ageing, and in his clinical framework Epitalon is often used as a foundational bioregulator alongside organ-specific peptide preparations. Removing physician-supervised access to Epitalon would therefore cut off one of the most important examples of a natural-sequence peptide approach that is biologically targeted, individualized, and fundamentally different from conventional drug intervention.

Stay Vigilant

ANH is preparing to defend access to key peptides through a petition focused on substances that are, above all, safe and natural. The peptide category is broad. Some substances are naturally occurring. Some are natural analogues. Others are essentially new-to-nature compounds that may warrant more caution.

Our priority is to protect access where the safety case is strongest and where patients and integrative physicians have the most to lose from FDA overreach.

The remade PCAC is not a guarantee. FDA career staff may still push the same restrictive assumptions. The agency may still hide behind speculative risks rather than engage with quality-control solutions. And even a favorable PCAC recommendation does not mean the FDA will take the committee’s advice.

But this is an opening.

Patients deserve access to personalized medicine. Physicians deserve tools beyond one-size-fits-all drugs. Compounding pharmacies deserve a regulatory system that rewards quality rather than punishes innovation. And FDA should not be allowed to drive patients into the gray market while claiming to protect them.

Action Alert!

The post Will FDA Panel Shake-Up Restore Access to Compounded Peptides? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The federal government just did something rare in supplement regulation: it drew a line that targets a dangerous opioid adulterant without sweeping away a natural botanical used in its natural leaf form. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• DEA’s proposed action targets highly concentrated, synthetic, or chemically enhanced 7-OH products—not traditional kratom leaf products containing only trace, naturally occurring levels of 7-OH.
• ANH supports this more precise approach because it distinguishes between natural botanicals and drug-like products engineered to deliver stronger opioid-like effects.
• Regulators must also address high-dose mitragynine extracts so bad actors cannot simply replace one risky product with another while continuing to exploit the kratom market.

Bad actors have been hijacking kratom’s name to sell concentrated, opioid-like products that bear little resemblance to the traditional botanical. For once, federal regulators may be drawing the right line: crack down on the dangerous adulterants without destroying access to the natural plant.

On July 1, 2026, the Drug Enforcement Administration announced its intent to temporarily place 7-hydroxymitragynine, or 7-OH, above a specified threshold into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. DEA also moved to temporarily schedule three related synthetic substances: mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16.

This is a move in the right direction.

ANH has long warned that regulators too often use the worst actors in a product category as an excuse to attack the entire category. That is not what appears to be happening here. DEA and HHS have made clear that the action is aimed at highly concentrated, synthetic, or chemically enhanced 7-OH products, not natural kratom leaf products containing only naturally occurring trace levels of 7-OH. We applaud HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and former FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary (who helped spearhead this initiative) and hope this nuanced approach can be applied more broadly across the natural products sector moving forward.

A Dangerous Product Masquerading as Kratom

Kratom comes from the leaves of the Mitragyna speciosa tree, a botanical traditionally used in Southeast Asia. Its primary alkaloid is mitragynine. In natural leaf material, 7-OH occurs only in very small, trace amounts, while it can also be formed in the body following oxidation of mitragynine in the liver. As noted in FDA’s 2025 scientific report, 7-OH is has much greater affinity to opioid receptors than mitragynine and therefore larger, repeated exposures tend to both induce opioid-like, sedative effects, not dissimilar to morphine, while also increasing the potential for addiction.  

None of these problems have been associated with traditional use of kratom leaf in Southeast Asia. It is the explosion of concentrated 7-OH, and more recently mitragynine pseudoindoxyl-based products, sold online and in gas stations, vape shops, convenience stores, and smoke shops in the form of tablets, gummies, shots, powders, capsules, and dissolvable strips that are at the root of all the problems with kratom in the USA.

FDA has warned that these products may contain enhanced or concentrated 7-OH levels and may be inaccurately labeled or marketed as “kratom.” DEA says these products often contain far more 7-OH than naturally occurring botanical kratom.

This is what smarter regulation should look like: protect consumers from deceptive, addictive, chemically manipulated products while preserving access to traditional botanicals.

For once, the federal government appears to be recognizing that a plant, an isolated alkaloid, and a semi-synthetic high-potency product are not the same thing.

The Line DEA Drew

DEA’s proposed threshold would cover botanical kratom material containing more than 0.050 percent 7-OH on a dry weight basis. It would also cover synthetic or further-processed alternative dosage forms, including extracts, concentrates, processed edibles, and pressed pills, when they contain more than 0.050 percent 7-OH or more than 1.00 milligram of 7-OH in the article.

FDA’s report states that concentrated 7-OH products are an emerging public health threat, citing opioid-like effects, dependence, withdrawal, and respiratory depression concerns. The report also notes that 7-OH has shown approximately 13-fold greater potency than morphine in one functional assay, a finding that helps explain why these products should never have been allowed to masquerade as ordinary supplements.

But There Is a Loophole

Here is the next problem: high-dose mitragynine.

Mitragynine is the dominant alkaloid in kratom, and research indicates that mitragynine is readily metabolized by CYP3A liver enzymes into 7-OH. If regulators remove high-7-OH products but ignore highly concentrated mitragynine extracts, bad actors may simply pivot.

That means FDA and HHS should not stop at 7-OH. They should, in our view, develop a science-based maximum mitragynine framework for finished products, especially concentrated extracts. This approach will prevent a marketplace shell game in which sellers replace one high-risk opioid-like product with another product designed to generate similar effects through a different pathway.

Kratom Is Used by Millions. Regulation Must Be Precise.

Kratom use in the United States has gained popularity. Survey research by Oliver Grundmann and colleagues reported a 9.1 percent active-use estimate among U.S. adults. Millions of Americans may be affected by how regulators handle kratom.

That is why blanket bans are the wrong answer.

Traditional kratom products, high-dose extracts, concentrated 7-OH, and synthetic derivatives require different regulatory treatment. A one-size-fits-all prohibition would punish responsible consumers and companies while doing little to address the real problem: adulterated, drug-like products sold under the cover of natural health.

Health Freedom Requires Guardrails Against Bad Actors

Health freedom does not mean allowing deceptive products to be sold to vulnerable consumers with no meaningful standards. Adults should retain access to natural health options, with truthful labeling, reasonable safeguards, and enforcement against fraud and adulteration.

FDA already has tools to act against illegal foods, drugs, and adulterated dietary supplements. DEA’s temporary scheduling action, if finalized, gives regulators another tool against concentrated synthetic 7-OH products. The challenge now is to use those tools effectively.

ANH will be watching whether HHS and DEA keep their promise not to sweep natural kratom into this action. We will also be watching whether FDA develops a rational standard for high-mitragynine products, because without one, this crackdown may simply shift the market rather than clean it up.

This is a welcome step. Now regulators must finish the job: ban the harmful, preserve the safe, and stop the cowboys from turning natural health products into unapproved opioid-like drugs.

Action Alert!

The post At Long Last: Regulators Target Dangerous Kratom Knockoffs, Not the Natural Leaf first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

There’s encouraging news in the fight to protect CBD and hemp products. The White House has formally urged Congress to replace the looming hemp ban with a science-based regulatory framework, rather than allowing millions of Americans to lose access to lawful hemp products this November.

This is a significant step—and one ANH-USA has been fighting for. Instead of an arbitrary ban that would eliminate most full-spectrum CBD products, the Administration is supporting a regulatory approach that focuses on product safety, testing, labeling, and consumer protection. The proposal also calls for extending the current moratorium on the ban to give Congress time to get the policy right.

Our work isn’t over, but this is real momentum. We’ll continue pressing Congress to reject the hemp ban and adopt sensible regulations that protect consumers without destroying access to safe, natural hemp products.

Action Alert!

The post White House Backs Regulatory Fix for Hemp first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

In this wide-ranging interview, ANH Founder and ANH-USA Executive and Scientific Director Dr. Rob Verkerk joins naturopath Dr. Z on his podcast to discuss the growing threats to homeopathy, supplement access, truthful health claims, and medical freedom. He also shares how ANH-USA is using good science, good law, and grassroots action to push back against regulatory overreach and protect consumer choice.

Listen to the show here:

Here is a taste of some of some of the issues Dr. Verkerk discusses:

Homeopathy

“Homeopathy is one of the modalities that absolutely works to strengthen the resilience of the human body. It isn’t as much a science as it is an art form—and it is a skill that’s at risk of being lost.”

“They are boiling the frog slowly. Companies are choosing not to sell products because they’re nervous about being jumped on by the FDA.”

“There are millions of people out there who’ve had positive experiences, no adverse effects, great effects—and here they are trying to remove the entire modality of medicine from the United States.”

Health claims / censorship

“They’re trying to create a situation where the only types of products that can be associated with disease are licensed drugs. That flies in the face of the ever-building body of science showing that nutrients, botanicals, homeopathic products, and other natural substances can have distinct effects on disease.”

“The only people who can make the claims are the people who’ve got a drug license, which is essentially a pay-to-play system. If you’ve gone through that door, you can say the product is safe and effective even when it’s not.”

“They want control. That’s what it’s really all about.”

ANH’s role and mission

“Our strapline is good science and good law. We haven’t given up on science, and we haven’t given up on law, but both of these areas have been massively twisted by big corporate interests.”

“We are one of the most active organizations working on correcting some of the legal and scientific frameworks that exist around different areas of natural health.”

Arizona Statement / health freedom vision

“The Arizona Statement is not just for the people of Arizona; it’s for every American. It includes the principles we need to create a situation where consumer choice, practitioner and medical autonomy can survive, where innovation can occur, and where there is no censorship of truthful information.”

“The Arizona Statement is our North Star. If you don’t have a view of where you are going, how can you develop policy, litigation actions, or scientific frameworks that are compatible with that vision?”

“It is the puzzle box top for the initiatives that we’re working on. That’s where we’re going, that’s what the finished picture looks like, and we’re tackling all the different components that get in the way of that.”

Call to action

“The history of freedom shows that it needs to be fought for every step of the way. If you sit back and expect governments to do the right thing, think again.”

“Please be part of the change, sign up and get active, and please respond to our action alerts.”

The post Rob Verkerk Joins Dr. Z to Expose the New Fronts in the Health Freedom Fight first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The Supreme Court just made it harder for Americans harmed by pesticides to hold chemical companies accountable. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that when the EPA has approved a pesticide label, many state-law failure-to-warn lawsuits are preempted, making it harder for people who allege harm from products like Roundup to hold manufacturers accountable.
• Because EPA labeling decisions can now shield companies from certain lawsuits, the agency’s scientific assessments and willingness to require warnings become even more critical. This increases the need for stronger regulatory oversight and greater transparency.
• While the ruling narrows one legal avenue, it does not eliminate all claims against pesticide manufacturers or states’ authority to regulate pesticide use. Future efforts should focus on holding EPA accountable, preserving state protections, and opposing congressional efforts to expand liability protections for pesticide companies.

When government regulators fail, the courtroom has often been the last place ordinary Americans could seek justice. The Supreme Court has now slammed that courthouse door shut for many people harmed by pesticides.

In a 7-2 ruling inMonsanto Co. v. Durnell, the Court sided with Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, and held that federal pesticide law blocks certain state failure-to-warn lawsuits when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved a pesticide label without the warning at issue. The decision is narrower than the full immunity Big Chem has been seeking in Congress and state legislatures, but it is still a major blow to consumers, farmers, groundskeepers, landscapers, and others exposed to pesticides.

The core message is this: if EPA has not required a warning, injured people may not be able to use state law to argue that the company should have warned them anyway.

Speaking to the ruling, ANH General Counsel Jonathan Emord said, “The Supreme Court correctly determined that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, known as FIFRA, preempts any state cancer warning label requirement on Roundup—and here a Missouri court had previously mandated one—because the EPA had in our view wrongly determined evidence insufficient to justify a warning that glyphosate may cause cancer. The decision reveals the need to amend FIFRA to remove the federal pre-emption provision.”

He continued: “Across the country, for years, evidence has emerged linking glyphosate with cancer. While virtually no proof in science is conclusive, enough exists here to alert the public of the potential risk of cancer arising from the use of this chemical in concentrations sufficient to function as an herbicide. Denying the states or state courts the power to insist on warnings of this kind simply denies consumers full information, depriving them of the chance to weigh for themselves the potential risks.”

What the Court Decided

The case centered on the failure-to-warn case brought by St. Louis gardener John Durnell, who alleged that decades of Roundup use caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. A Missouri jury previously awarded him $1.25 million on his failure-to-warn claim, finding that Monsanto should have warned users about known cancer risks.

However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, said the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, known as FIFRA, preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims that would require a pesticide label different from the one approved by EPA. Because EPA has not required a cancer warning on Roundup’s glyphosate label, the Court said Missouri tort law cannot require Monsanto to add one.

Why This Matters for Consumers

This ruling does not say glyphosate is safe. Nor does it say Roundup cannot cause harm. It also does not decide the science.

What it does instead is shift power away from juries and injured people and toward EPA’s labeling decisions.

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

Remember, too, that the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, based on limited evidence in humans, sufficient evidence in animals, and strong evidence of genotoxicity.

This is the agency we now have to rely on to get pesticide labels right. If EPA is slow, captured, politically pressured, or wrong—imagine that!—ordinary people will have fewer tools to force accountability after they are harmed.

How The Ruling Changes the Accountability Landscape

First, failure-to-warn-based Roundup claims are likely in serious trouble. Bayer has already said the ruling should lead to dismissal of current warning-based claims and block future failure-to-warn claims.

Second, pesticide companies now have a stronger argument in other cases involving EPA-approved labels. The ruling will likely be cited beyond glyphosate, including in litigation involving other pesticide products where plaintiffs argue that companies failed to warn about health risks.

Third, the decision increases the stakes of EPA action. If EPA label decisions can preempt state failure-to-warn claims, then EPA’s failures become more consequential. The agency’s refusal to require a warning will affect whether injured people have a remedy.

Finally, the ruling may reduce incentives for companies to disclose risks quickly. Tort lawsuits have historically served as a backstop when regulators lag behind the science. Weakening that backstop means more pressure must fall on EPA, Congress, states, and public watchdogs.

Are There Any Silver Linings?

Yes, but they are limited.

The ruling doesn’t provide total immunity to pesticide manufacturers. It focuses on failure-to-warn claims that would require a label warning different from EPA’s approved label. Other theories, such as design defect, negligence, fraud, warranty, or claims based on conduct outside labeling, may still be available depending on the facts and state law.

States also retain important authority over pesticide sale and use. The decision does not appear to erase state power to restrict, condition, or ban pesticide uses within their borders. That matters. State and local action may now become even more important.

The Court also emphasized that citizens and stakeholders can petition EPA to modify, suspend, or cancel a pesticide registration and can seek judicial review of EPA’s response. Health advocates must force the agency to confront independent science, disclose its reasoning, and act when risks emerge.

EPA approval should not be treated as a guarantee of safety. Regulatory approval often rests heavily on industry-submitted data. When the agency gets it wrong, the costs are borne by families, farmworkers, applicators, landscapers, and communities living with chemical exposure.

ANH has warned that Big Chem’s liability push resembles vaccine-style immunity, but without even the pretense of a compensation system for those harmed. This ruling moves pesticide law in that direction. It does not finish the job, but it advances the strategy.

Moving Forward

ANH will be watching Congress, where pesticide riders could go much further than the Court did by stripping states and injured consumers of additional protections. Just because we managed to beat back the pesticide immunity provisions that were going to be included in the Farm Bill doesn’t mean Big Chem won’t try again.

Most importantly, this ruling means EPA must be held to a far higher standard. If the agency’s label decisions can shut courthouse doors, then EPA cannot be allowed to rubber-stamp industry science, ignore independent evidence, or hide behind bureaucratic delay.

Consumers deserve clean food, transparency, and the right to protect themselves from toxic exposures. The Supreme Court has narrowed one path to justice. Now the fight must move harder toward EPA accountability and stopping Congress from turning this narrow ruling into full-blown immunity for Big Chem.

People Power vs. Big Chem – What We Can Do Together

The Supreme Court has narrowed one path to justice. Now we must force open another.

Please share this article, and send our Action Alert to your representatives, and join ANH in demanding three things: 1) that Congress reject any pesticide immunity provisions; 2) that EPA be held to a far higher standard on glyphosate and other toxic chemicals; and 3) that FIFRA be amended to remove the federal pre-emption provision that prevents states and state courts from requiring stronger warnings when credible evidence of harm exists.

If EPA’s label decisions can shut courthouse doors, EPA must be made answerable to the public—not to Big Chem. And Congress must restore the ability of states, courts, and injured people to demand the warnings consumers need to protect themselves.

Action Alert!

The post Roundup Ruling Puts Consumers at the Mercy of the EPA first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Real food may be more alive than regulators are willing to admit. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• Research into ultra-weak photon emissions (biophotons) indicates that living foods emit measurable light linked to metabolic activity, with early studies suggesting these emissions could become a new way to assess plant health, food quality, and the benefits of regenerative farming.
• While regenerative agriculture emphasizes healthy soil and biodiversity, recent U.S. and EU policy initiatives could use the language of regeneration to accelerate adoption of gene-edited crops, genetically engineered microbes, and other engineered agricultural technologies without adequate oversight.
• Regulators should require rigorous safety testing, independent research, and clear labeling of engineered agricultural products rather than treating them as “substantially equivalent” to conventional foods, allowing consumers and farmers to make informed choices about the future of the food system.

Scientific research on food quality may have been missing one of the most important attributes of healthy foods all along.

It was back in the in the 1920s, that Russian biologist Alexander Gurwitsch first proposed that dividing cells emit tiny amounts of ultraviolet light—“mitogenetic radiation”—which could stimulate cell division in nearby tissues, planting the idea that living systems produce ultra‑weak light signals. Then, in the 1970s, German biophysicist Fritz‑Albert Popp revived and extended this work by rigorously measuring single‑photon emissions from cells and arguing that these “biophotons” reflect highly ordered, possibly coherent regulatory processes in living organisms, helping to establish biophotonics as a modern research field.

This field of biophoton research has more recently moved to foods and it raises fascinating questions about food quality, plant vitality, and the difference between food grown in living systems and food produced with industrial inputs. At the same time, policymakers and special interests are trying to move us in a very different direction, toward lab-made foods, gene-edited crops, genetically engineered soil microbes, and regulatory shortcuts that treat engineered products as if they are “substantially equivalent” to conventional food.

We face a fork (pun intended) in the road. One path asks how farming can restore soil, plant health, nutrient density, and food vitality. The other asks how quickly government and industry can redefine engineered foods and farm inputs as “green” while ignoring their vitality or healthfulness.

The Hidden Light of Living Foods

Every living cell produces tiny flashes of light as a natural consequence of metabolism.

These ultra-weak photon emissions (UPE) are not visible to the naked eye—they are roughly a thousand times weaker than human vision can detect—but highly sensitive cameras can measure them. Scientists now understand that these biophotons arise when reactive oxygen species generated during normal metabolism create electronically excited molecules that release photons as they return to their resting state.

Far from being fringe science, UPE has become an active area of research in plant biology, food science, and medicine.

What Does This Have to Do with Regenerative Agriculture?

Regenerative agriculture seeks to improve soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem function while producing more resilient crops. Until recently, evaluating those benefits has often required labor-intensive chemical analyses or long-term ecological studies.

Biophoton research offers a fascinating possibility.

Because UPEs reflect ongoing metabolic activity and oxidative processes, researchers are investigating whether these light emissions can serve as a rapid, inexpensive, non-invasive way to monitor plant physiology, oxidative stress, disease, ripening, and food quality without damaging the product being tested.

Commenting on the possible implications of UPE research on foods, Rob Verkerk, PhD, ANH’s executive and scientific director, said, “It’s of course not just the amount of light that is emitted that’s likely to be important, it’s also the quality and coherence of the light. It could be, for example, that unadulterated, natural foods that are free from interference from modern biotechnology—that haven’t been genome-edited, that have been cultivated on real, living soils, teaming with microbes that also haven’t been genome-edited—have different, potentially more coherent emission profiles.”

The science is still developing, but the direction is intriguing: healthier growing conditions may leave measurable signatures that extend well beyond nutrient content alone.

Dr. Verkerk added, “UPEs may also provide in the future another layer of information that could expose additional problems associated not only with GE foods but also with ultra-processed foods.”

Evidence Is Beginning to Accumulate

One particularly interesting study examined eggs produced under different farming conditions.

Researchers compared eggs from conventional battery-caged hens with eggs from free-range hens using ultra-weak photon imaging. They found that eggs from free-range hens exhibited approximately eight times greater biophoton emission than eggs from conventionally raised birds.

The study demonstrated that production methods can produce measurable differences in the biological properties of food that conventional analyses may not fully capture.

The Bigger Picture

For decades, ANH has argued that food should not be evaluated solely by calories or a short list of nutrients.

Healthy soils produce healthier plants. Healthy plants support healthier animals and healthier people. While conventional nutritional testing remains essential, emerging fields like biophoton research suggest there may be additional dimensions of food quality that science is only beginning to understand.

As scientists continue exploring the faint light emitted by living foods, they may also be illuminating a new way to think about the relationship between agriculture, nutrition, and health.

But Washington’s “Regenerative” Agenda Has a Trap Door

On June 25, 2026, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Advancing Regenerative Agriculture and Strengthening American Farm Resilience.” The order uses promising language. It says regenerative practices can strengthen soil health, reduce input costs, improve chemical efficiency, maintain yields, increase market value, and strengthen rural economies. It also directs federal agencies to support regenerative agriculture research and expand public-private partnerships.

That all sounds good, but as always, “the devil is in the details.”

Section 2(d) directs Health and Human Services (HHS), through the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, to prioritize research into “new, innovative, and cost-effective technologies” that reduce reliance on conventional chemical crop protection tools.

That language could support genuinely regenerative approaches. But it could also become a federal green light for genetically engineered soil microbes and other engineered biological inputs marketed as alternatives to chemical pesticides and fertilizers.

This is the danger ANH has been warning about. Big Ag can read the public mood. Americans are increasingly concerned about glyphosate, pesticides, fertilizer runoff, ultraprocessed food, and chemical-intensive farming. The corporate response is not necessarily to move toward real food and living soil. It is to rebrand engineered biology as “regenerative” and “green”.

Genome-Edited Crops and Microbes Don’t Fit With Regen Ag

Genetically engineered microbes are being sold as the next climate-smart agricultural breakthrough: living organisms designed to fix nitrogen, reduce fertilizer use, improve yields, and help farmers lower chemical inputs. But once released into the environment, microbes are not like conventional chemicals. They can reproduce, mutate, spread, and exchange genetic material. ANH previously warned that GE microbes risk becoming “living pollution” because they may persist and move through ecosystems in ways that cannot be recalled.

We are seeing a similar effort from Big Ag and regulators to portray gene-edited crops as a natural extension of regenerative agriculture. These crops are marketed as tools to increase yields, strengthen resilience, reduce pesticide use, and improve nutrition. Because many are developed without inserting foreign DNA, they often avoid the more rigorous oversight applied to earlier genetically engineered crops and are sometimes presented as effectively “GMO-free.” This regulatory shortcut overlooks the fact that gene editing is still a form of genetic engineering and leaves important questions about long-term environmental effects, transparency, and consumer choice unanswered.

Current U.S. oversight of this new generation of genetically engineered microbes and gene-edited crops remains fragmented across outdated statutes, with no comprehensive federal framework specifically designed to assess their unique environmental and ecological risks.

If federal “regenerative” programs end up subsidizing or accelerating engineered microbial inputs or gene edited crops without robust long-term safety testing, transparency, and labeling, consumers and farmers could be pushed from one form of dependency to another: from chemical inputs to patented biological inputs.

The “Substantial Equivalence” Problem Is Spreading

This same logic is now reshaping food law internationally.

In the European Union, new rules for plants produced by certain New Genomic Techniques were adopted by the European Parliament and Council. The European Commission says Category 1 NGT plants are “equivalent to conventional plants” and will be treated like conventional plants rather than subject to GMO legislation. Category 2 plants, involving more complex modifications, remain under GMO rules.

This is the heart of the problem. “Equivalent” becomes the magic word that removes the consumer’s right to know.

For decades, regulators and biotech companies have argued that many engineered products should be treated like conventionally bred foods if they appear similar by selected criteria. But consumers are not asking only whether a gene-edited crop fits a technical equivalence test. They are asking whether it was engineered, who owns it, whether it is patented, whether it was tested for long-term ecological effects, whether it can contaminate organic or non-GMO supply chains, and whether they can avoid it if they choose.

Real Regeneration or Engineered Substitution?

If policymakers truly want regenerative agriculture, they should support farmers who build soil organic matter, reduce toxic inputs, protect biodiversity, improve nutrient density, and produce real food for real communities. They should fund independent research into soil health, plant vitality, nutrient quality, biophoton science, cumulative chemical exposure, and the long-term effects of agricultural practices on human health.

But they should not use the language of regeneration to fast-track engineered microbes, gene-edited crops, precision fermentation foods, or other “green” technologies without transparent labeling and precautionary oversight.

Regenerative agriculture is not just another branding opportunity for biotech. It is a chance to rebuild the relationship between soil, food, farmers, and health.

The question is whether government will protect that future, or hand it to the same entrenched interests that helped create the chemical food system in the first place.

ANH will be watching closely. Consumers should demand full transparency, independent safety review, labeling of gene-edited and engineered biological products, and policies that protect farmers’ and consumers’ right to choose real food grown in living soil.

Action Alert!

The post Is the Future of Food Real Food That Emits Light? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Q: What do some of the most powerful medicines available to us have in common? A: They cannot be patented. Find out more about these non-pharma medicines and why they need to be protected. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• A 21-year study of adults with prediabetes just published in JAMA found that participants who received intensive lifestyle support had a significantly lower risk of developing multiple chronic conditions compared with placebo, while metformin did not show a statistically significant benefit.
• The findings suggest that structured lifestyle programs can help reduce multimorbidity—the accumulation of multiple chronic diseases—which is a major driver of healthcare costs, disability, and loss of independence among older adults.
• Healthcare systems often reimburse medications more readily than prevention programs, despite growing evidence that nutrition counseling, exercise, weight-loss coaching, and other lifestyle interventions can improve long-term health outcomes and should be treated as core components of healthcare.

A new long-term study just published in JAMA gives prevention advocates a rare and important data point. Among adults with prediabetes followed for more than two decades, those originally assigned to an intensive lifestyle intervention had a significantly lower risk of developing multiple chronic conditions than those assigned to placebo. Metformin, by contrast, was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in multimorbidity risk compared with placebo.

This is not an argument against medication. It’s an argument against a health system that often pays more readily for a pill than for the intensive, supported prevention that helps people avoid disease in the first place. Better understanding how to curb the rise of prediabetes and diabetes should be a crucial public health concern given that over 60% of all adults are affected, with prediabetes affecting roughly one-third of adults.

What the JAMA Study Found

The study examined 1,173 Medicare-linked participants from the Diabetes Prevention Program and its long-term follow-up, the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Participants were originally randomized to one of three groups: intensive lifestyle intervention, metformin, or placebo.

The lifestyle program included 16 individual sessions followed by monthly sessions for roughly two years, with goals of reducing calories and fat, achieving at least 150 minutes of physical activity per week, and losing at least 7 percent of baseline body weight. During the follow-up period, all participants were offered lifestyle sessions, and the original lifestyle group also received booster sessions.

After 21 years, multimorbidity, defined as having two or more of 15 chronic conditions tracked in Medicare data, occurred in 82 percent of the original lifestyle group, 85 percent of the metformin group, and 87 percent of the placebo group. After adjustment for relevant factors, the lifestyle group had a lower risk of multimorbidity than placebo. The metformin group did not show a statistically significant reduction versus placebo.

NIH summarized the finding bluntly: the long-term trial found no difference between metformin and placebo for multimorbidity risk, while lifestyle intervention lowered the risk of developing multiple chronic conditions.

Why This Matters

Multimorbidity may sound like an abstraction, but it is the lived reality of millions of older Americans: diabetes plus hypertension, heart disease plus kidney disease, arthritis plus depression, dementia plus frailty. Once chronic conditions start stacking up, people often face more specialists, more prescriptions, more side effects, more medical bills, and less independence.

That is why this finding is so timely and important. It suggests that intensive lifestyle support may do more than delay diabetes. It may help reduce the long-term burden of chronic disease itself.

This should be a wake-up call for policymakers and insurers. If nutrition counseling, physical activity support, weight-loss coaching, and structured prevention programs can reduce downstream disease burden, they should not be treated as optional extras. They should be treated as core healthcare.

The Bigger Picture: Prevention Is Medicine

This JAMA finding fits with a larger body of evidence showing that movement and lifestyle interventions can have serious health effects. A 2018 study, for example, found that 80 percent of chronic disease and premature death “could be prevented by not smoking, being physically active, and adhering to a healthful dietary pattern.”

A British Journal of Sports Medicine study published online in earlier this month followed 147,374 participants for up to 30 years and found that 90 to 119 minutes per week of resistance training was associated with a 13 percent lower risk of death from any cause, a 19 percent lower risk of cardiovascular death, and a 27 percent lower risk of neurological disease death. The lowest mortality risk was seen among people combining aerobic activity with resistance training.

That study was observational, so it cannot prove cause and effect. But taken alongside the randomized Diabetes Prevention Program evidence, the message is hard to ignore: lifestyle is foundational medicine.

The policy problem is that our system still privileges interventions that can be packaged, billed, and patented. A person can sit on the couch and take metformin. Sometimes that may be appropriate. But if the system makes that path easy while making prevention hard to access, poorly reimbursed, or unavailable, it is steering people toward disease management instead of health creation.

Conclusion

The JAMA study does not mean lifestyle eliminates chronic disease. In fact, multimorbidity remained common in all three groups, underscoring the scale of America’s chronic disease crisis.

But it does show something important: intensive, supported prevention can move the needle over decades.

That should be enough to demand serious attention from policymakers. Prevention cannot remain a slogan while reimbursement systems reward late-stage disease management. If Washington is serious about lowering healthcare costs and improving health, it must stop treating lifestyle medicine as a nice add-on to drugs and surgery and start treating it as a central pillar of care.

Consumers deserve more than a prescription pad. They deserve access to the tools that help keep them well.

Our Arizona Statement—the emerged from a meetings earlier this year in Arizona but applies to all Americans—provides a litany of reforms that could help center natural health and prevention in the fight against chronic disease. Read the statement, add your name to it, and help us demonstrate that Americans are tired of business as usual.

The post JAMA: Some of the Most Powerful Medicine is Natural first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Federal agencies are dragging their feet—or even walking backwards—on PFAS “forever chemicals” in drinking water and food, leaving consumers to wonder why clean water and safe meals are still negotiable. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• EPA is proposing to delay compliance with drinking-water limits for PFOA and PFOS while rescinding rules for several other PFAS chemicals.
• FDA faces a June 30, 2026 deadline to respond to a petition seeking enforceable PFAS limits in certain foods.
• ANH-USA is calling for real protections, not more agency delay, weak guidance, or voluntary action.

PFAS “forever chemicals” are already in our water, food, soil, and bodies. For parents mixing infant formula, families pouring a glass of tap water, or anyone trying to make healthy choices at the grocery store, this is not an abstract regulatory debate. It is the quiet fear that the basic things we rely on every day may be carrying contaminants we cannot see, taste, or easily avoid.

Yet the federal response is starting to look less like a public-health emergency plan and more like an exercise in delay, deflection, and regulatory retreat.

Two federal agencies are now at the center of the PFAS fight. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to delay or roll back parts of the first national PFAS drinking-water protections. Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is under a court-imposed deadline to finally respond to a citizen petition asking for enforceable PFAS limits in certain foods.

For consumers, the message is simple: clean water and safe food cannot wait.

EPA Wants More Time for Water Systems and Fewer PFAS Covered

On May 18, 2026, EPA announced a proposed rule that would keep federal drinking-water limits for PFOA and PFOS, two of the most studied PFAS chemicals, but allow eligible water systems up to two additional years, until 2031, to comply with those enforceable limits. EPA says the extension is meant to address practical implementation challenges for water systems, including testing, treatment, construction, financing, and staffing.

EPA is also proposing to rescind regulatory determinations and drinking-water rules for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA/GenX chemicals, and Hazard Index mixtures involving several PFAS. EPA says this rescission is about correcting an allegedly flawed legal process under the Safe Drinking Water Act, not about abandoning future regulation.

We must not let these actions become an excuse for narrowing protections and endangering the public’s health to protect industry interests.

The Public Is Still Drinking the Problem

The threat from forever chemicals is very real. The U.S. Geological Survey estimated in 2023 that at least 45 percent of U.S. tap water could contain one or more PFAS. The study tested for 32 PFAS, even though thousands of PFAS exist.

EPA itself says many PFAS break down very slowly and can build up in people, animals, and the environment. EPA also recognizes food, drinking water, dust, soil, household products, food packaging, and biosolids as exposure pathways. Peer-reviewed studies, according to EPA, have linked certain PFAS exposures to reproductive effects, developmental effects, increased risk of some cancers, immune effects, hormone disruption, and cholesterol changes.

This is exactly why a narrow chemical-by-chemical approach is inadequate. Consumers are not exposed to one PFAS in one tidy regulatory box. They may be exposed through drinking water, food, cookware, packaging, dust, and contaminated soil. A public-health response should reflect that reality.

FDA Is Still Treating PFAS in Food as a Future Priority

FDA’s own PFAS page acknowledges that PFAS in the environment can enter the food supply through crops and animals grown, raised, or processed in contaminated areas. FDA says it has tested more than 1,900 food samples since 2019, provided technical assistance to states, and taken some action on PFAS in food packaging. It also says it is considering future risk-management actions for bottled water, seafood, and infant formula, including allowable levels or action levels.

That sounds active. But it is not enough.

An October 2023 citizen petition asked FDA to establish enforceable temporary tolerances for 26 or 30 PFAS in or on foods such as lettuce, blueberries, bread, milk, eggs, salmon, clams, corn silage, and corn snaplage (an animal feed). The petitioners argued that FDA’s case-by-case approach leaves consumers without meaningful protection. The petition also argued that environmental PFAS contamination can transfer into foods through contaminated water, soil, air, crops, livestock, and other pathways.

After litigation, a federal court in Arizona gave FDA until June 30, 2026, to issue a final response to the petition. 

Action Levels Are Not Enough

The FDA’s likely escape hatch is familiar: more study, more monitoring, more “future risk management,” and perhaps nonbinding action levels—not enforceable protection.

The petition’s core argument is that enforceable limits are needed so contaminated foods above those limits can be kept off the market. Consumers should not have to rely on agency discretion after contamination has already occurred.

The public should not have to wait for another round of agency “prioritization” while infants, pregnant women, and families continue to face avoidable exposures.

The Bigger Picture: Two Agencies, One Pattern

EPA is asking for more time and proposing to remove several PFAS from current drinking-water rules. FDA is under court pressure to answer a food petition it has had since 2023.

Together, these moves reveal the deeper problem: federal agencies are managing PFAS as a regulatory inconvenience rather than a toxic-exposure crisis.

Industry will argue that compliance is expensive. Water systems will argue that treatment takes time. Food producers will worry about testing, supply chains, and liability. Some of those concerns are real. But the answer cannot be to keep the public exposed while agencies reopen, delay, narrow, or soften protections.

A serious response would include enforceable limits, transparent testing, public notice, accountability for polluters, support for small and rural water systems, and a clear plan to phase out nonessential PFAS uses while protecting genuinely critical applications.

What ANH-USA Is Watching

ANH will be submitting comments to the EPA urging the agency not to weaken drinking-water protections or allow implementation delays to become prolonged exposure windows. If extensions are granted, affected consumers deserve clear notice, transparent PFAS testing data, and short-term mitigation. Those who wish to comment on the rule can do so here.

Forever chemicals should not be met with forever delays. Americans deserve clean water, safe food, and agencies willing to put the health of the American people ahead of bureaucratic convenience and industry pressure.

Action Alert!

The post Forever Chemicals, Forever Delays? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

A new Senate bill could help stop the FDA’s slow-motion elimination of homeopathy in America—but while Congress deliberates, HHS has the power to restore access to these traditional remedies immediately. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• S. 4692, the Senate version of the Homeopathic Drug Product Safety, Quality, and Transparency Act, has been introduced by Sens. Tommy Tuberville and Mike Lee.
• The bill would create a clear statutory framework for homeopathic medicines, recognizing them as a distinct category rather than forcing them into the pharmaceutical drug approval system.
• But legislation can take years—or never eventuate. The fastest immediate solution is for HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to reverse FDA’s revocation of Compliance Policy Guide 400.400—the safe harbor that once gave homeopathic medicines a workable path to market.
• ANH is pursuing a new Citizen Petition to press FDA and HHS to act now.

Imagine walking into your local pharmacy for the homeopathic remedy your family has relied on for years only to find an empty space on the shelf. No vote in Congress. No dramatic announcement. Just one more trusted product gone. Well, this isn’t imagination—it’s already happening.

This is the FDA’s “boil the frog slowly” strategy for homeopathy. Under the agency’s current position, homeopathic medicines are technically illegal, but FDA isn’t enforcing against the whole category all at once. Every product exists only at the pleasure of regulators. For some homeopathic businesses, this regulatory environment is just too risky and they’re closing shop.

We’re fighting the FDA on this on multiple fronts. ANH has focused on a legal strategy to protect homeopathy. We recently updated you on that lawsuit and our plans to file a new Citizen Petition with the FDA to put the ball back in the agency’s court. But to ensure we have multiple eggs in our basket, we’re also supporting the efforts of our allies at Americans for Homeopathy Choice to pass a bill that protects access to homeopathic medicines. Earlier this year, their bill was introduced in the House; now, we’re excited to share that it has also been introduced in the Senate.

Why This Matters

For more than 200 years, Americans have used homeopathic medicines as affordable, low-risk tools for common health concerns. These products are part of a long tradition of self-care and practitioner-guided care—not patented pharmaceuticals.

Yet that is exactly how FDA is treating them.

In 2022, FDA finalized guidance asserting that homeopathic medicines marketed without FDA approval are “unapproved new drugs.” Because homeopathic medicines cannot realistically go through the same New Drug Approval process as conventional drugs, the agency effectively put the entire category in legal limbo.

FDA says it will focus enforcement on higher-risk products. But once the agency declares an entire category illegal, the damage begins even without enforcement letters. Retailers get nervous. Manufacturers stop investing. Consumers lose access one remedy at a time.

What the Senate Bill Would Do

The Senate bill would restore common sense by recognizing that homeopathic medicines are distinct and require a framework suited to their nature.

The bill would:

• Recognize homeopathic drug products as a distinct category under federal law;
• Clarify that homeopathic products are not subject to conventional premarket drug approval;
• Require safety and quality standards appropriate to homeopathy, tied to the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States;
• Create labeling rules allowing traditional homeopathic indications with transparency for consumers; and
• Withdraw FDA’s 2022 homeopathic drug guidance.

Homeopathy should meet standards for quality, safety, labeling, and transparency—but those standards must fit homeopathy. They should not force traditional, low-risk medicines through a pharmaceutical approval system built for patentable drugs.

Congress Is Important—But HHS Can Act Faster

ANH supports the Senate bill. It is a critical long-term solution. But it is not the emergency brake that is needed to protect access right now.

Even if the bill gains momentum, legislation takes time. After passage, FDA would still need to implement rules. Homeopathy cannot wait years while access continues to erode.

That is why, in the short-term, ANH is continuing to press forward on the legal front to get HHS to reverse FDA’s revocation of CPG 400.400. This could be done by the stroke of a pen, restoring the safe harbor that allowed responsible homeopathic products to remain on the market.

In the medium-term, ANH will push the FDA and HHS to modernize CPG 400.400. The old guidance is out of date. It should be updated to reflect current manufacturing practices, labeling standards, quality controls, and adverse-event reporting—not discarded to make homeopathy effectively unlawful.

Third, the long-term fix: Congress should pass the Homeopathic Drug Product Safety, Quality, and Transparency Act so future administrations cannot wipe out access with another guidance document.

A Century-Long Pattern

This fight did not begin with FDA’s revocation of CPG400.400 in 2019 and change in guidance in 2022. The campaign to marginalize natural medicine reaches back more than a century, including the Carnegie-funded 1910 Flexner Report, which helped reshape American medical education around a single dominant model while pushing homeopathy and other traditional systems to the margins.

Today’s FDA crackdown is a modern version of the same story: centralize control, narrow what counts as acceptable medicine, and make everything outside the pharmaceutical model fight for permission to exist.

Americans deserve access to safe, affordable, traditional health options. They deserve a government that protects choice rather than quietly eliminating it.

The Bottom Line

The Senate bill is a vital step forward. It sends a clear message: homeopathy should not be erased by bureaucratic overreach.

But HHS does not need to wait for Congress. Secretary Kennedy can act now by restoring CPG 400.400, then directing FDA to modernize it. Congress should pass S. 4692 and H.R. 7050 to make those protections permanent.

Homeopathy should not exist at FDA’s discretion. It should exist because Americans have the right to choose it.

Action Alert!

The post Senate Bill Takes Aim at FDA’s Slow-Boil Attack on Homeopathy first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

A new Ohio bill proves the threat to supplement access is spreading—and why Congress must pass the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• Ohio is the latest state to introduce legislation restricting the sale of certain weight-loss and muscle-building supplements to minors.
• The Ohio bill is broad: it would prohibit sales to anyone under 18 of over-the-counter diet pills and dietary supplements “for weight loss or muscle building.”
• The Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act, H.R. 7366, introduced by Rep. Nick Langworthy, would reaffirm federal authority over supplements and prevent states from creating conflicting or additional supplement requirements.

Ohio Is the New Warning Sign

When Rep. Nick Langworthy introduced the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act (H.R. 7366) earlier this year, the need for federal action was already clear. New York’s restrictive supplement law had taken effect, other states were considering copycat measures, and consumers faced the prospect of losing access to safe, lawful products.

Now Ohio has joined the trend. This is exactly the kind of state-level overreach that H.R. 7366 is designed to stop.

What began as a campaign against “diet pills” is expanding into a nationwide effort to restrict access to broad categories of dietary supplements—many of which are common nutrition, sports, and wellness products used responsibly by millions of Americans. If Congress does not act, more states will follow, and consumers will be left with a confusing patchwork of rules.

What Ohio HB 943 Would Do

Ohio HB 943 is framed as a youth-protection bill, but its reach goes far beyond truly risky products. The bill defines a “dietary supplement for weight loss or muscle building” as any dietary supplement, as defined under federal law, that is “labeled, marketed, or otherwise represented” for weight loss or muscle building, including complete proteins, leucine-rich essential amino acid blends, creatine and more. It might also catch a diverse range of other ingredients in supplements that support mitochondrial function, such as coenzyme Q10 and B vitamins. It would prohibit knowingly selling, offering, delivering, or otherwise providing any products targeting weight loss or muscle building, regardless of their function or safety, to anyone under 18.

The bill would also force retailers to require ID for certain in-store purchases unless the customer appears to be 25 or older. For delivery sales, retailers would have to collect a buyer’s full name, birth date, and address, verify that information using a commercially available database, and use shipping that requires a signature and photo ID at delivery.

To us, this seems more like a regulatory dragnet than a targeted response to a demonstrated safety crisis.

The Ohio bill directs regulators to consider whether a product contains ingredients such as creatine, green tea extract, raspberry ketone, Garcinia cambogia, or green coffee bean extract; whether its labeling or marketing refers to body weight, fat, appetite, metabolism, nutrient metabolism, or muscle strength; and even whether a seller has grouped the product with other products in a display, advertisement, website, or store area.

That means a lawful supplement could be swept into the restricted category not because it is dangerous, but because of where it appears on a shelf, how a website organizes it, or whether its truthful marketing references basic structure-function support.

This is bad policy and bad precedent. Check out the list below to take action against these bills in your state:

Alaska

California

Massachusetts

Michigan

Ohio

Supplements Are Already Federally Regulated

As we’ve stressed countless times, dietary supplements are not unregulated. The FDA regulates finished dietary supplement products and dietary ingredients under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Manufacturers and distributors are prohibited from marketing adulterated or misbranded products, and the FDA has authority to take action against adulterated or misbranded supplements after they reach the market.

Federal law also requires manufacturers, packers, and holders of dietary supplements to follow current good manufacturing practices to help ensure identity, purity, quality, strength, and composition.

There is always room to improve enforcement against bad actors. ANH has long supported targeted, science-based action against adulterated products, illegal drugs masquerading as supplements, and fraudulent claims.

But that is not what these state bills do.

Instead of targeting adulteration, contamination, or false claims, they create broad sales restrictions based on vague categories, marketing language, and product presentation.

The Patchwork Problem Is Growing

If each state can create its own definitions, age-verification mandates, warning requirements, ingredient lists, retail-placement rules, delivery requirements, and penalties, the national supplement market will become unworkable. Small businesses will struggle to comply. Online retailers will face conflicting obligations. Consumers will encounter different rules depending on where they live. Products that are lawful and accessible in one state may be restricted in another.

Federal Uniformity Is the Solution

H.R. 7366, the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act, offers the common-sense fix.

The bill would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to clarify that no state may establish or continue any requirement concerning a dietary supplement that is different from, in addition to, or not otherwise identical with federal requirements. 

States should not be able to undermine a national market for lawful, FDA-regulated products through vague, duplicative, or fear-driven legislation. But if a state has a legitimate, evidence-based local concern, it can bring that concern through the appropriate federal process.

Protect Minors Without Restricting Everyone

Protecting children is a legitimate goal. But broad state bans are not the answer.

Ohio HB 943 would impose age checks, database verification, delivery burdens, and penalties on lawful supplement sales. Even if the stated target is minors, these laws inevitably affect adults, retailers, and consumers of all ages. Products hidden behind compliance barriers are less visible, less available, and more stigmatized. That reduces access not just for minors, but for everyone.

Worse, these bills risk discouraging responsible use of basic nutrition and fitness-support products at a time when Americans need more access to health-supporting tools, not less.

Congress Must Act Before the Patchwork Becomes Permanent

Ohio HB 943 is a fresh warning that state-level supplement restrictions are gaining momentum. If Congress waits, these laws will become entrenched, and consumers will be forced to navigate an ever-expanding maze of inconsistent rules.

ANH-USA strongly supports the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act. H.R. 7366 would restore clarity, protect consumer access, and reaffirm that dietary supplement policy should be guided by national, science-based standards—not by a state-by-state race to regulate lawful products out of reach.

Action Alert!

The post Ohio Shows Why Congress Must Act Now to Stop State-by-State Supplement Restrictions first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.