New federal data reveal that Americans are embracing nutrients and rejecting the FDA’s long-running campaign to undermine access and block health information.
THE TOPLINE
- A new analysis of NHANES data shows supplement use among US adults has climbed from 51.8% to 61.4% over the past decade, with increases across every demographic group.
- Despite longstanding, Big Pharma-driven media and federal efforts to suppress open discussion of nutrient benefits, Americans overwhelmingly turned to vitamin D, zinc, vitamin C, and other supplements to support their health.
- ANH is preparing a major petition to unblock the FDA’s 25-year ban on truthful, science-based structure/function claims relating to conditions that have long been the sole domain of drugs, arguing that consumers deserve accurate information instead of pharmaceutical-driven censorship.
A major new survey of federal health data shows that Americans are turning to dietary supplements in record numbers—despite aggressive government efforts during the COVID pandemic and beyond to discourage their use.
According to data from five cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), supplement use among US adults rose from 51.8 percent in 2011–2012 to 61.4 percent in 2021–2023. That’s a nearly 20 percent increase over the decade. Use of four or more supplements also jumped sharply, from 10 percent to 16.2 percent. This wasn’t a trend driven by any one group—the rise occurred across all ages, races, education levels, BMI categories, and health statuses.
Some supplements saw particularly strong growth. Vitamin D, zinc, and vitamin C had the largest increases in use, while vitamin D, calcium, and vitamin C remained the most commonly taken micronutrients overall. NHANES also noted growing use of biotin, vitamin B1, vitamin B12, CoQ10, fiber, ginger, and probiotics.
Americans Ignored the “Don’t Use Supplements” Message
These are remarkable data, especially given the fact that, during COVID, federal agencies—most notably the FDA and the FTC—worked hard to quash public discussion about how nutrients could support immune health. Companies and practitioners who pointed out that vitamin D, zinc, or other nutrients might help with COVID (a position backed by the science) were hit with FDA warning letters. Why? Because in our broken healthcare system, only drugs can claim to treat, prevent, or mitigate a disease—not food or nutrients, even if we know it’s true.
The FDA would probably say that their anti-natural health stance was meant to protect consumers from unproven remedies because the FDA approval process is the gold standard for ensuring medicines are safe and effective. Putting aside the obvious fact that this simply isn’t true—many drugs are approved that perform hardly better than placebo, and there have been countless safety issues with FDA-approved drugs—there is something deeper at work.
The truth is this is not about consumer protection; it’s about drug industry profit protection. Our current (failing) health system is built on a framework that reserves disease treatment and prevention for drugs alone. The result is a regulatory regime that blocks competition from healing foods and nutrients, irrespective of the strength of the evidence, because their effectiveness threatens entrenched drug markets. Over time, this system has conditioned us to view health in the narrowest terms: you get sick, you see a doctor, you receive a prescription. If you’re of a certain age, you’ll probably be expected to stay on the drug for life. We rarely stop to question this model that is at the heart of the polypharmacy problem, that has nearly doubled among older adults in the US over the last 20 years, even though viable, science-backed alternatives exist outside the drug-only paradigm.
But the new NHANES data show something important: a growing public desire to manage health proactively, using safe, time-tested nutrients rather than waiting until a disease develops and relying solely on expensive pharmaceuticals. It is this potential that we need to further unleash.
The Real Problem: FDA Censors Health Information
This brings us to the mechanism by which so many people, including the majority of physicians, never get to hear that nutrients can often be at least as effective as drugs (often more so), with almost none of the side effects when used appropriately. We’re working around the clock on a major petition to open up free speech on nutrient benefits, and we intend to file with the FDA before the year’s up.
Under current rules, supplement companies are allowed to make structure/function claims. These describe how a nutrient affects the body’s normal structure or function—statements like “Calcium builds strong bones,” “Antioxidants help maintain cell integrity,” “Supports healthy vision,” or “Helps maintain joint comfort.” The claim must not explicitly or implicitly state that the supplement diagnoses, mitigates, treats, cures, or prevents a specific disease or class of diseases (for example, “treats arthritis” or “prevents heart disease”).
Under FDA rules, the company must have adequate scientific substantiation that the structure/function statement is truthful and not misleading before using it, it must notify FDA within 30 days after first marketing the product bearing a new structure/function (or related) claim, including the exact wording of the claim, and the product label must carry the familiar disclaimer: “This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”
Structure/function claims are basic, factual physiological statements borne out by scientific evidence. But here’s the kicker: if there’s the slightest whiff that the statement suggests that the product can “treat or prevent disease,” something the FDA calls an “an implied disease claim,” the FDA can—and often will—prosecute. That’s even if the information in the claim is entirely true and is supported by reams of published science.
In its effort to protect the drug industry, the FDA published guidance back in 2000 that was intended to stop companies from wandering into this implied disease claim territory. Here the FDA declared that four areas would be completely off-limits for structure/function claims; all happen to be areas that Big Pharma yields a huge proportion of its profits. Any claims explicitly or implicitly stating that cholesterol, blood pressure, or blood sugar could be reduced, or platelet aggregation inhibited (think blood thinners), would be deemed disease claims…irrespective of the weight of science. We call that censorship. And—25 years on—we’re going to fight that square on.
Let’s take some examples of how the current censorship works:
- Berberine supplements can’t say they help maintain healthy blood sugar, even though the science clearly shows they do—because FDA insists that would “imply” treating diabetes.
- Green tea extract can’t say it helps maintain healthy cholesterol levels, and you certainly couldn’t say that red yeast rice reduced cholesterol, even though the science says both can. Why? Because that might put a serious dent in statin sales.
- Magnesium supplements can’t say they support healthy blood pressure, because that would be suggesting you could treat or prevent high blood pressure. What’s more, you couldn’t possibly create competition for all those ACE inhibitors, angiotensin‑receptor blockers (ARBs), calcium‑channel blockers (CCBs), and diuretics that are prescribed for hypertension.
Who benefits from this censorship? Drug companies and insurance companies, clearly. Large drug and insurance companies benefit because costly prescription therapies remain the primary, reimbursable way to address those risk factors, while cheaper, over‑the‑counter nutrient options are blocked from openly competing on disease‑risk language even when they affect similar surrogate biomarkers (LDL‑cholesterol, blood pressure, fasting glucose) that are accepted as drug trial endpoints. Not only that, prescription drugs that are far more dangerous and wildly more expensive.
The new NHANES data show a country increasingly choosing supplements to stay healthy. But the growth could be far greater, and health outcomes could be much improved, if the FDA weren’t actively restricting what Americans are allowed to know.
ANH Is Preparing a Landmark Petition to Change This
We’re in the final stages of preparation of a groundbreaking petition to the FDA to open the market to truthful, science-based structure/function claims, including statements related to how nutrients support the body’s resilience against disease states.
The goal is simple: Let consumers have access to accurate information about how nutrients can keep us healthy. Let’s create a level playing field for scientific, nutritional and medical information and reclaim free speech in the health space.
This petition is one of nearly 30 initiatives ANH is issuing during the two year window between 2025 and 2026. We have an opportunity for massive regulatory reform – and the time is now!
Stay tuned—much more is coming in the weeks ahead.
