The federal government publishes information about links between nutrients and disease risk. But when consumers are standing in a store or shopping online, the government blocks you from reading the same information on supplement or food labels. ANH-USA is asking a federal court to put an end to this information blackout. Donate now to support our litigation and advocacy efforts.
THE TOPLINE
- ANH-USA and four supplement companies are asking a federal court to overturn FDA’s suppression of 114 nutrient health claims drawn from federal agencies’ own published statements.
- The challenge argues that FDA has unlawfully restricted a pathway Congress created for sharing government-backed health information on product labels.
- ANH advocates truthful claims with appropriate qualifications so consumers can weigh the evidence when choosing supplements.
ANH Takes the Fight to Court
ANH-USA is fighting for the freedom to share truthful, science-backed information about the benefits of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients. This censorship reflects a deeper failure in our healthcare system: even as preventable chronic diseases take an enormous toll, the government restricts information that could help Americans protect their health. A system that prioritizes pharmaceutical treatment while blocking information about nutritional approaches to prevention has its priorities backward. Our latest court action aims to change that.
On September 16, ANH-USA and four dietary supplement companies filed a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The motion asks the judge to rule that FDA unlawfully blocked 114 nutrient-disease risk-reduction claims derived from statements published by federal health agencies.
These include statements from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The motion is the latest development in ANH-USA’s effort to open a pathway Congress created in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. That law allows certain health claims based on “authoritative statements” from qualified federal scientific bodies to be used after FDA is notified. It was meant to offer an alternative to the agency’s standard pre-approval process.
ANH-USA argues that FDA has restricted that notification pathway by imposing requirements Congress never enacted.
The court has not yet ruled on the motion.
Information Where It Matters Most
This case is not simply about what supplement companies may print on a label. It is about whether consumers can access useful, scientifically grounded information when they are making decisions about their health.
A shopper might be able to find a government webpage discussing a nutrient’s relationship to cardiovascular health, bone health, or metabolic function. But that shopper may never know to search for it. Product labels are where people compare options and decide what may fit their individual health goals.
Preventing relevant information from appearing at that point does not create informed consumers. It leaves them less informed.
That does not mean every nutrient claim should be presented as conclusive. Evidence has different strengths, and responsible claims should reflect those limitations. ANH-USA told FDA it would accept reasonable, accurate, and unbiased qualifying language where needed. Yet the FDA, so far, seems determined to revert to censorship rather than providing consumers with context to make decisions for themselves.
A First Amendment Question
The case also raises a fundamental free-speech issue: Can FDA completely suppress a potentially truthful health claim when a clear disclaimer could prevent consumers from being misled?
In Pearson v. Shalala, the D.C. Circuit concluded that appropriately worded disclaimers may be a less restrictive alternative to prohibiting dietary-supplement health claims outright.
ANH-USA also argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo strengthens the challenge. That ruling curtailed the ability of federal agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes by reaffirming that courts must independently determine what the law means.
Restoring The Link Between Knowledge and Choice
ANH-USA’s original petition identified 118 government-backed nutrient claims. After FDA rejected that effort in December 2025, ANH-USA went to court. The current motion challenges the suppression of 114 claims.
Consumers cannot take greater responsibility for their health while regulators keep potentially useful information out of sight. People deserve truthful claims, appropriate qualifications, and the freedom to decide what the evidence means for themselves and their families.
ANH-USA will continue fighting to restore that freedom and keep you informed as the court considers this landmark challenge.
We Need Your Help to Protect Freedom of Speech in Health
Please donate now to support our litigation and advocacy work. This fight is powered entirely by people like you, and we can only keep pushing back against FDA censorship with your support.
