By Chimnonso Onyekwelu LLB and Rob Verkerk PhD (edited by Michael Ames-Sikora)

Despite leading the world in natural health innovation, America spends trillions on a failing system while sidelining proven alternatives. Discover the six major factors—from regulatory capture to media manipulation—that keep natural therapies on the margins. It’s time to reclaim true health freedom.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• Despite massive healthcare spending producing poor health outcomes, entrenched special interests keep preventive, non-drug approaches marginalized in favor of pharmaceutical-driven care.
• ANH identifies six major forces constraining natural health, including regulatory control over health claims, financial and market incentives favoring drugs, strict definitions of “standard care,” media and information gatekeeping, weaponized law and regulations, and cultural conditioning toward symptom-based treatment.
• Meaningful reform requires addressing these structural forces simultaneously—expanding evidence standards, transparency, and consumer choice to integrate natural health into mainstream care rather than keeping it on the margins.

America is the R&D capital of natural health. The range of dietary supplements and other natural health products available on the US market dwarfs that in many other global markets, especially the European Union that has long used regulation as a tool to remove products that compete with drugs.

But anyone with keen eyes on the US market will recognize that the diversity of products on the US market has flatlined in recent years, especially when compared with the boom that followed the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).

Why has innovation declined? Why has natural health not assumed its rightful place as the mainstay of health care, as distinct from disease management?

In this article, we investigate the intricate, multi-factorial manner by which special interests work to keep natural health at the margins of health care.

America’s health crisis

The United States spends more on healthcare than any country in the world by a wide margin. In 2024 alone, spending reached an estimated $5.3 trillion, about 18% of GDP, averaging over $15,000 per person. Yet despite this extraordinary investment, the US consistently ranks near the bottom of high-income nations for life expectancy, chronic disease burden, and preventable deaths. Put simply, the industrialized country that spends the most on healthcare is also the least healthy.

Prescription drugs are the go-to treatments for chronic disease, yet they’re also now recognized as the third leading cause of death in industrialized countries.

At the same time, research suggests up to 80% of chronic disease could be prevented or reduced through nutrition, lifestyle changes, supplements, and other low-cost interventions. So why aren’t these approaches central to care?

The answer lies in how our health system is structured. Health outcomes are shaped by who sets the rules, who controls the market, and who defines “misinformation.” When information is filtered and the role of foods and nutrients in prevention can’t be legally communicated, truly informed health choices become far more difficult.

We pointed several AI engines at ANH’s library of information to come up with what the major obstacles to health freedom are. From a long laundry list of items, we’ve distilled it down to six interconnected macro-drivers that work to constrain natural health in the US.

The ‘Big 6’ Macro-Drivers Constraining Natural Health

1. Who Writes the Rules?

Beyond genetics, health is largely shaped by how and where we live, how we move, what we ingest and inhale, how we work and recreate, and other aspects of our behavior and choices. But choices, especially as they related to health, are greatly affected by the information we receive from the various channels to which we are exposed. Whoever writes the rules decides what counts as “food”, as “food ingredients’, or what gets labelled a “drug.” These classifications control what can and cannot be communicated to us about the benefits of these products.

A blueberry can be packed with antioxidants that can reduce your risk of heart disease, phytosterols may support heart or hormonal health, chia seeds metabolic health, and compounds like curcumin or berberine show incredible therapeutic promise. Yet any claim that suggests these and the thousands of other natural products out there can be used to treat or prevent disease are illegal. Such claims are the sole domain of drugs—a regulatory architecture that has been crafted over decades by Big Pharma.

Consumers may indeed be urged by public health authorities to choose what they eat or consume wisely, yet they are denied a complete picture of what is known scientifically about natural products, especially where these are natural alternatives to drugs.

When rules, language, and evidence thresholds are written this way, natural health is constrained, not by science, but by those who write the rules and set the narrative around human health care.

2. Who Controls the Money and Markets?

Natural health is constrained at the level of evidence, where money determines what qualifies as “science.” In 1991, about 80% of industry-funded clinical trials were conducted in academic medical centers; by 2004, that figure had fallen to 26%, replaced by for-profit research organizations contracted by drug companies. This shift has untold impact: study designs, publications, regulations, and medical education reflect pharmaceutical interests, leaving natural therapies– without comparable capital– unable to produce the forms of evidence regulators, insurers, and clinicians are structurally conditioned to demand.

Markets then reinforce this imbalance. Just four retailers control around 65% of grocery sales, while seeds, meat, and grain trading are 60–90% concentrated. Online gatekeepers such as Amazon and Walmart determine visibility, pricing pressure, and data access. Natural brands must pay for shelf space, surrender customer data, and risk rapid imitation, while pharmaceutical and ultra-processed products benefit from scale, marketing budgets, and preferential placement across supply chains and pharmacies.

Finally, the squeeze extends into innovation and medical culture. Following the Myriad case, naturally occurring substances are largely excluded from patent protection, leaving high research costs with little legal protection. Without IP protection, investors see little upside, research dries up, and innovation slows. Combined with regulatory capture and heavy pharmaceutical lobbying, control of money and markets systematically prioritizes pharmaceutical over natural health and substances long before consumers are offered a real choice.

3. Who Decides “Standard Care”?

Natural health is further squeezed by who defines “standard care.” Evidence-based medicine has elevated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to a near-exclusive gold standard, despite clear limits. One analysis found 36% of highly cited RCTs were later contradicted or shown to have weaker effects, while RCTs routinely exclude older, multi-morbid, and real-world patients. Because industry funds most large trials, the hierarchy is skewed: 69% of industry studies focus on drugs, while a mere 1.5% examine behavioral changes. When RCTs are treated as the only valid evidence, therapies without patent-driven funding struggle to generate the evidence required to be recognized as “standard care.”

Professional policing then locks these standards in place. In 2024 alone, the pharmaceutical industry spent $294 million on lobbying, while industry funding now covers about 70% of doctor training. Guidelines built on this evidence base are enforced through reimbursement rules and medical boards that determine acceptable practice. During the pandemic, clinicians prioritizing nutrition, prevention, or off-guideline approaches were suspended or barred from practice, signaling that deviation carries real risk. By controlling the evidence, the education, and the licenses, the system ensures that “standard care” remains drug-centered while systematically marginalizing natural health.

4. Who Controls What You’re Allowed to Hear?

Natural health is constrained not only by evidence rules, but by visibility itself. As the saying goes, “he who pays the piper dictates the tune.” Legacy media is structurally dependent on pharmaceutical advertising: between January and October 2024, pharma brands spent $7.9 billion on ads, with over $5.3 billion going to national and local TV, accounting for roughly 10–12% of all TV ad revenue. Prescription drug ads alone drove 11.6% of national linear TV spend. This dependence creates incentives to avoid narratives that challenge drug-centered models while marginalizing alternatives that do not buy airtime.

Beyond commercials, the flow of information is constrained through biased “fact-checking” and algorithmic suppression. Platforms including Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter use downranking, demonetisation, shadow banning, and deplatforming to suppress health content that diverges from “authoritative sources.”

By framing natural health as “unproven” and using coordinated reporting campaigns to stigmatize non-drug interventions, the system ensures that what the public hears is not the full scientific truth, but a carefully curated pharmaceutical narrative.

5. How Risk and Law is Weaponized

Legal and liability pressures have become another mechanism through which natural health is squeezed. Regulators increasingly rely on a “risk-based” enforcement framework that magnifies isolated incidents to justify broader restrictions on entire categories of natural products.

A clear example in the US relates to FDA’s 2019 withdrawal of Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) 400.400, which for more than three decades allowed homeopathic products to be lawfully marketed. Removing that policy exposed traditional remedies to the same “new drug” approval standards applied to pharmaceuticals– an impossible threshold for non-patentable substances that cannot recover the roughly $2.6 billion cost of modern drug development. The disparity is striking: conventional pharmaceuticals account for more than 99% of adverse drug events reported to the FDA, while homeopathic products represent only a minute fraction of one percent. That’s why we’re engaged in a lawsuit to correct this wrong that is, otherwise, likely to eliminate an entire modality of alternative medicine.

Regulatory scrutiny is further reinforced through a steady stream of investigations into products marketed as natural. State Attorney General actions frequently target categories such as foods and dietary supplements, weight-loss and wellness products sold online, and CBD or cannabis-derived supplements. Of course, oversight of adulterated or misbranded products is a legitimate consumer-protection function. However, enforcement often concentrates disproportionately on natural health categories, with highly publicized investigations and warning campaigns that shape public perception even when issue stem from isolated violations. The result is selective pressure: the entire sector face reputational damage, regulatory uncertainty, and the high cost of compliance or litigation.

Meanwhile, pharmaceutical drugs, including prescription and over-the-counter medicines, are responsible for nearly 2 million emergency-department visits annually in the United States. Despite this significant safety burden, pharmaceuticals continue to be framed as the default “safe” option. The resulting asymmetry is clear: natural health products face heightened scrutiny and legal exposure, while pharmaceutical interventions retain institutional credibility and market dominance.

6. How Our Minds Are Manipulated

Natural health is also squeezed at the level of mindset, through cultural conditioning that reshapes what people consider “normal” health. When the average American develops a headache, the instinct is often to reach for paracetamol [acetaminophen] (Tylenol) or ibuprofen (Advil). Rarely is the first question: Am I dehydrated? Did I sleep poorly? Is stress, posture, or diet contributing to my problem? This reflex reflects a shift from addressing causes to suppressing symptoms. Over time, it narrows the solutions people consider, pushing nutrition, lifestyle change, and other preventive approaches to the margins before they are explored.

We see this also in the rise of polypharmacy, those who take five or more prescription medications. What might once have signaled systemic health failure is increasingly treated as simply part of modern life.

At the same time, key drivers of poor health are normalized. Ultra-processed foods now make up about 60% of daily calories in the US, while studies show nutrient levels in some vegetables have declined since the mid-20th century. The result is a population that is often overfed yet micronutrient deficient. Rather than addressing these underlying causes, the dominant response remains pharmaceutical management. The cycle reinforces itself: unhealthy environments produce chronic illness, illness fuels drug dependence, while natural health is pushed to the background.

The Future

The future of natural health in the US—as well as in other parts of the world with elaborate, Big Pharm and Big Food controlled regulatory systems—will not be decided by science alone. All six of these macro-drivers must be tackled simultaneously if we’re to restore balance, allowing nature to be reinstated as the most important influence on our health, an interaction that is the product of our co-evolution with natural systems over millennia.

This matters because the current health trajectory is unsustainable and millions are destined to suffer and receive substandard support of their health. With aging populations and spiraling rates of chronic disease that now affect the majority of adults, together with ever growing costs of healthcare that fails to address the underlying causes of disease, prevention can no longer remain peripheral.

The goal is not to replace modern medicine but to remove the prejudices against natural medicine and offer choice. A future where natural health is protected, researched, and accessible would not only expand choice, it would help move healthcare from a system built around managing disease through largely synthetic, chemical interventions, to one capable of sustaining human health because natural systems tend to work in concert with our bodies and minds, not against them.

ANH Action Plan in the US

Since leading US constitutional attorney Jonathan Emord (who has been gifted the moniker the “FDA Dragon Slayer” given he holds the record for lawsuit wins against the FDA) joined ANH-USA as General Counsel in mid-2024, we have embarked on a radical plan involving over 30 distinct legal and regulatory initiatives to combat the problems we describe in this article. We are unfolding this plan by way of an array of lawsuits, other legal initiatives, campaigns, and political Action Alerts about which you can find out more on our website.

You can sign up to our free weekly newsletter and be kept abreast of our implementation of this unique plan, which centers on bringing in natural health from the margins, and embracing it at the heart of human health care. We are also very grateful for any donations to help support this work.

Please circulate this article widely among your networks to help address the censorship that affects the communication of our work.

The post The Big Six Barriers: The Hidden Forces Suppressing Natural Health in America first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

A new wave of genetically engineered “precision fermentation” foods is quietly entering the US market—without GMO labels and without your informed consent. We’re working on a plan to challenge this violation of consumer rights and trust—stay tuned.

THE TOPLINE

• Companies are using genetically engineered microbes to produce egg and dairy proteins, yet current labeling laws and rules don’t require these products to be identified as bioengineered.
• Many precision-fermented ingredients enter the market through the GRAS pathway, allowing companies to self-affirm safety while regulators focus on the final product—not the genetic engineering used to create it.
• Genetic alterations in production microbes can lead to unintended byproducts and novel compounds, raising unanswered questions about allergenicity, contamination, and chronic health effects.

There is a new generation of genetically engineered foods entering the US marketplace—and you won’t see the words “genetically modified”, “GMO”, “bioengineered” or any other term anywhere on the label.

It’s called precision fermentation and there’s a huge marketing machine behind it hailing it as “the Future of Food.” We call it what it is: GMO 2.0.

And thanks to regulatory loopholes, you may never know you’re eating it.

Many think the problem was solved when the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a new rule in 2019, that came into effect on January 1, 2022, namely the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS).  The rule requires many food manufacturers (including those making dietary supplements) to disclose when a product is a “bioengineered food” or contains a bioengineered food ingredient.

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of USDA keeps a list of foods or food ingredients it considers are derived through bioengineering. Currently there’s just 13 plant and a single salmon source on the list. All contain detectable levels of modified genetic material, most often determined using PCR.

Does it surprise you that biotech food producers have found a loophole?

Egg Proteins… Without Chickens

Consider The EVERY Company, a Silicon Valley startup founded in 2014 (originally Clara Foods). It has raised over $200 million to produce “egg proteins… without chickens.”

How?

The company uses genetically engineered yeast—specifically Komagataella phaffii—to express proteins found in eggs through precision fermentation. The yeast are genetically modified to produce egg white proteins in industrial vats. The protein is secreted into fermentation broth, filtered, and purified.

The company has received “no questions” letters from the FDA in response to its self-affirmed GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) determinations.

Here’s the catch: because the genetically engineered yeast is supposedly removed during processing, the final protein is not classified as “bioengineered” under US labeling laws.

So on a label, you may simply see “Egg white protein” or “Animal-free egg protein”

What you will not see is “bioengineered,” “genetically engineered,” or “precision fermentation.”

In short, there is no meaningful transparency about how this ingredient is made at point of sale.

There are a host of these products out there. We’ve been reporting about dairy proteins made through precision fermentation that are making their way into milk, ice cream, protein powders, nutrition bars, and sports drinks. Perfect Day, the company behind the synbio milk product Bored Cow, sells its precision fermented whey protein to be used in Brave Robot ice cream. The ingredients simply list “animal-free milk.”  Precision fermentation is entering the meat and seafood sectors as well. European food companies Revo Foods and Paleo, for example, have partnered to develop plant-based salmon “alternative” enriched with precision-fermented myoglobin for “enhanced taste and functionality.”

Precision Fermentation Is Not Traditional Fermentation

Humans have cultured microbes for centuries. We use naturally occurring bacteria to make yogurt. We use yeast to make bread. But precision fermentation is code for the use of gene-edited “synbio” microbes where the genes have been modified to produce a naturally occurring ingredient, whether these are proteins in milk or different animal foods.

If microbes are genetically altered—if their DNA is rewritten so they produce novel proteins that would never naturally occur in that organism—there is a very strong possibility other genes will express proteins that are entirely new to nature. These off-target effects of gene-editing techniques like CRISPR are well known, but not widely communicated to the general public: such is the desire to maintain consumer confidence in the technology and not lose public trust as was the case with GMO foods.

But let’s not lose sight of just how closely the two technologies are related. GMO v1.0 involved genetic modification of whole organisms, while modern bioengineering typically involves the editing of specific sequences in an organism that in turn produces a product that is chemically equivalent to one produced through conventional agriculture. However, if the production organism has been genetically modified, we are actually dealing with a GMO process. Shouldn’t this be something that is communicated transparently to the end consumer even if regulators pretend the final purified protein is “substantially equivalent” to a food component found in nature?

We’ve seen this movie before. It’s the GMO debate from 25 years ago, repackaged and concealed under friendlier language intended to keep consumers in the dark, and avoid producers having to go through the costly process of proving their products are safe. Secretary Kennedy has a remit on “radical transparency”; well in this area of synbio foods, we desperately need more transparency.  

“Substantial Equivalence” — The Old Trick Returns

Regulators focus primarily on the final product, not the method used to create it.

If a synbio milk protein looks chemically similar to a cow’s milk protein, it is treated as comparable under the law. The process that created it—industrial vats of genetically engineered microbes—is not itself the trigger for a separate regulatory category in the US.

This kind of milk conveniently escapes the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard because the whey or casein within the synbio milk is the same as that from a cow. Let’s simply forget about any novel, off-target proteins that might have been generated in the process that contribute to the inflammatory profile of the American people that, in turn, underpins the country’s chronic disease epidemic. 

In Europe, novel foods face centralized premarket review through the European Food Safety Authority. In the U.S., many precision-fermented ingredients enter the market through the GRAS pathway. Companies can self-affirm safety without mandatory premarket approval. Some voluntarily notify FDA; others do not.

The result? A regulatory black hole.

Unknown Compounds, Unknown Risks

Take the example of Bored Cow, an animal-free dairy milk made using synthetic biology proteins originally developed by Perfect Day.

Independent testing reported the presence of dozens of unidentified compounds—92 unknown substances in one analysis. Even small genetic alterations can shift metabolic pathways in microbes, leading to unexpected byproducts.

Life depends on gene expression—and gene expression is regulated by epigenetics. Food is one of the most powerful environmental signals affecting gene expression. Introducing novel, engineered proteins into the diet is an open-air science experiment, and we’re the guinea pigs.

Low-level inflammation triggered by unfamiliar proteins or contaminants would not announce itself dramatically. It would hide behind the noise of modern life: chemical exposures, ultra-processed foods, chronic stress.

The Push to Normalize

Public acceptance is being engineered as carefully as the microbes.

These products are framed as sustainable, climate-friendly, inevitable. They are increasingly introduced through processed foods and institutional supply chains—where consumers have the least visibility and the fewest choices.

The language is deliberate:

• “Animal-free”
• “Sustainable”
• “Precision”
• “Identical to nature”

What’s missing are some simple words that tell us the product is the result of synthetic biology or synbio, one that has been bioengineered, gene edited, or plain old-fashioned genetically engineered.

Because under current US labeling rules under the NBFDS, if the engineered microbe is filtered out, the product does not have to be labeled as bioengineered.

The genetic manipulation disappears from the label…along with your informed consent.

The Illusion of Precision

“Precision” implies control.

But genetic engineering is not the same as flipping a light switch. There are risks. DNA insertion can cause unintended mutations. Microbes can produce off-target metabolites. Proteins expressed in yeast can undergo different post-translational modifications than those produced in animals, potentially altering allergenicity or immunogenicity.

The system assumes purification removes all risk. But industrial processes are never perfect. Contamination, instability, and unintended byproducts are inherent risks in any biological manufacturing system.

No Transparency, No Choice

At ANH, we believe in transparency and informed consent. Consumers have the right to choose real food over engineered substitutes—and that begins with honest labeling.

The new GMO wave is here. It’s up to us to demand the right to know what we’re eating and not to be lied to by the food and biotech industries.

We’ll let you know the minute we launch our initiative aimed at blocking the synbio loophole.

The post The New GMO Wave You Won’t Be Told About first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines finally break with decades of ultra-processed, low-fat dogma—but lingering contradictions on saturated fat, grains, and industrial food systems keep them from delivering the real reform many of us had hoped for.

THE TOPLINE

• The new guidelines make long-overdue progress by calling out ultra-processed foods, cutting back on refined carbs and grains, easing sugar limits for kids, and restoring the importance of whole, nutrient-dense foods and quality protein.
• Despite pro-animal-food rhetoric, the guidelines fail to confront industrial agriculture, pesticide exposure, and regenerative sourcing—undercutting the promise of better meat, dairy, and produce.
• The biggest contradiction remains saturated fat: full-fat dairy and higher protein are encouraged on one hand, yet the outdated 10% cap persists on the other.

After decades of outdated nutrition advice from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the newly released 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans mark a notable shift. Driven by the leadership of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the guidelines finally acknowledge what many Americans have long known: the modern diet, dominated by ultra-processed foods, refined carbohydrates, and chemical additives, is at least in part fueling a national epidemic of chronic disease.

But while the new guidelines move in the right direction, they remain marred by contradictions—particularly on saturated fat and the industrial realities of US food production.

A Long-Overdue Reckoning With Processed Foods

For the first time, the Dietary Guidelines explicitly call out ultra-processed foods (UPFs) as a major health risk—and urge Americans to significantly reduce their consumption. Easier said than done when well over half of all the calories Americans consume are currently comprised of UPFs.

The guidelines recommend limiting “highly processed, refined carbohydrates, such as white bread, ready-to-eat or packaged breakfast options, flour tortillas, and crackers,” and go further by advising Americans to avoid “highly processed packaged, prepared, ready-to-eat, or other foods that are salty or sweet, such as chips, cookies, and candy that have added sugars and sodium.” The guidelines don’t provide any guidance on how to deal with the addiction-like response that drives high rates of consumption of these foods.

Nonetheless, this is a major departure from past guidelines that appeared to look more like a Big Food advertising campaign. As recently as the advisory committee’s scientific report, federal nutrition experts declined to offer meaningful guidance on ultra-processed foods, citing supposedly “limited” evidence—despite a rapidly growing body of research linking these products to obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and even depression.

By contrast, the 2025–2030 guidelines now emphasize nutrient-dense, whole foods as the focus of a healthy diet. It is so clear and simple as to be astounding that this was left out of previous iterations.

The new guidelines also have better added sugar recommendations. Previous versions suggested no added sugar for children under 2; the new guidelines up this to age 10. This is in line with data showing that excess sugar early in life leads to health problems, in part due to affecting long-term taste preferences.

A Reset on Protein and Animal Foods

Another welcome shift is the softening—if not outright reversal—of the long-standing demonization of red meat and animal products. For years, ANH-USA has criticized the Dietary Guidelines for singling out all forms of red meat as inherently harmful, ignoring that it’s the source of the red meat that really matters—that is, whether it was raised in an industrial or a regenerative setting. Not to mention what’s done to the meat prior to it being consumed—notably if it’s carbonized, covered in sweet sauces, or infiltrated with preservatives.

The new guidelines elevate high-quality protein as central to metabolic health and no longer portray red meat as something to be avoided by default. This is a meaningful shift.

However, as others have pointed out, this advice falls short of highlighting red meat and other animal products that come from farms that employ regenerative practices. This is key. Most meat, eggs, and dairy in the United States come from industrial confinement systems that rely on routine drug use and genetically engineered feed treated with glyphosate and other herbicides. Residues of these chemicals then, of course, enter the food supply. More consumption of drug and chemical-laden foods certainly will not advance the Make America Health Again (MAHA) agenda; encouraging Americans to seek out regenerative options will.

While support for regenerative ag would have strengthened the dietary guidelines, MAHA activists will be pleased to learn that the USDA has earmarked $700 million to help farmers switch to regenerative practices. Given the guidelines were co-signed by RFK Jr. and USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, it’s something of a surprise that this wasn’t mentioned. Could this have been a compromise reached with Big Ag—that leads the way on industrial farming systems—and Big Food—the masters of bliss factor-rich UPFs?

Grains: Less Is More, But the Framing Still Misleads

The new guidelines recommend two to four servings of whole grains per day, a significant reduction from previous guidance. Under MyPlate, women were advised to eat five to seven servings of grains daily, and men even more. Earlier still, the original food pyramid placed grains at its base, recommending six to eleven servings per day.

Recommendations to reduce total grain intake are a positive step, especially if the grains are in UPF form. But the fact the guidelines recommend 2-4 servings of whole grains but elsewhere (like in MyPlate) state that Americans should consume at least half their grains as whole grains suggests the guidelines could be interpreted as allowing up to 8 servings of grains! Given the new inverted pyramid shows grains at its base, this inclusion appears to be more symbolic than a true representation of the guidance.

Fruits and Vegetables: Steady, Sensible, Uncontroversial

On fruits and vegetables, the guidelines largely reaffirm existing scientific consensus. Americans are encouraged to consume five servings per day, spread throughout the day—a recommendation consistent with public health advice dating back decades.

This is sensible and uncontroversial, though it bears noting that profound differences in physiological effects from the consumption of fruits versus vegetables, produce quality, pesticide exposure, soil health, and culinary preparation remain absent from the discussion.

Fats: A Step Forward—and a Major Retreat

Nowhere are the contradictions in the new guidelines more glaring than in their treatment of saturated fat.

The guidelines now recommend three servings of full-fat dairy per day, abandoning decades of unscientific advice to consume only low-fat or fat-free products. Secretary Kennedy has publicly declared that the USDA is “ending the war on saturated fat.”

But as journalist Nina Teicholz has documented, that promise has not been fulfilled.

Despite RFK Jr.’s rhetoric, the longstanding 10 percent cap on saturated fat intake remains firmly in place—a policy that has been embedded in federal nutrition guidance since 1980.

So, on the one hand, the guidelines encourage cooking with butter and tallow, promote red meat and animal proteins, and recommend higher protein intake—1.2–1.5 g/kg body weight.

On the other hand, the 10 percent saturated fat cap makes these recommendations mathematically impossible to follow in practice. Yes, really.

As Teicholz shows, ordinary meals containing eggs, yogurt, butter, or steak quickly exceed the daily saturated fat allowance. In effect, Americans are told to eat foods they cannot realistically consume without violating the guidelines.

The higher protein recommendation only deepens the contradiction. With saturated fat restricted, that protein cannot plausibly come from animal sources—forcing reliance on plant proteins like peas, beans, and lentils that are less bioavailable, often incomplete, and higher in carbohydrates.

The Science on Saturated Fat Has Changed—The Guidelines Have Not

For decades, saturated fat has been vilified based on outdated assumptions about cholesterol and heart disease. Yet contemporary research increasingly shows no direct causal link between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease.

Saturated fats play essential roles in immune function, hormone production, and brain health. Meanwhile, the long-standing recommendation to replace saturated fats with industrial seed oils has created new problems. Seed oils are typically high in omega-6 fatty acids, disrupting the omega-3/omega-6 balance critical for reducing inflammation. They are also highly processed, stripped of nutrients, and often contaminated with oxidative byproducts. Emerging research has even linked certain seed oils to vascular calcification.

Conflicts of Interest?

ANH has, for years, pointed out the fact that food industry influence has marred the government’s dietary guidelines. Unfortunately, the current guidelines are no exception. Recent reporting has shown that the panel of experts whose advice informs the guidelines have conflicts of interest. Three of the nine members have connections to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; three panel members also have connections to the dairy industry. When the guidelines then provide full-throated support for eating more beef and dairy, it is difficult to dismiss the notion that industry influence played a part.

A Partial Break From the Past

The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans signal that the era of low-fat, ultra-processed, grain-heavy nutrition advice is finally cracking. The emphasis on whole foods, reduced sugar, fewer refined carbohydrates, and higher-quality protein reflects years of advocacy by independent researchers and organizations like ANH-USA.

But meaningful reform requires more than new language and redesigned graphics that don’t mesh with the guidelines themselves. As long as outdated fat caps remain, industrial agriculture goes unexamined, chemical exposures are ignored, and the public is not given advice how to curb is addiction to UPFs, federal nutrition policy will continue to fall short of its stated goals.

The guidelines gesture toward health—but stop just short of confronting the systems that undermine it.

The post Dietary Guidelines 2025–2030: Progress, Promise—and Contradictions first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

RFK Jr.’s push to reduce toxic chemicals in the food system is being co-opted by Big Ag, which is promoting genetically engineered microbes as “green” solutions—despite the serious, irreversible risks they pose to our soil, ecosystems, and health. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• Agribusiness giants are rolling out genetically engineered (GE) microbes as eco-friendly alternatives to fertilizers, but these living organisms can reproduce, mutate, and spread uncontrollably once released.
• Field tests show little evidence that GE microbes reliably improve crop yields, while scientists warn they could disrupt soil ecosystems, transfer genes unpredictably, and contribute to new pathogens.
• Despite profound risks, GE microbes are poorly regulated under outdated laws, leaving ourselves and the environment vulnerable to an untested and irreversible biological experiment.

Americans are waking up to the dangers of a food system saturated with chemicals—and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s call to reduce agricultural toxins is resonating with millions. But behind the scenes, the agribusiness giants responsible for polluting our soil and waterways are scrambling to rebrand themselves as environmental saviors. How? With a new breed of genetically engineered (GE) microbes—living organisms altered in the lab and released into the earth under the guise of “green” innovation.

These microbes are being hailed as the next miracle fix: a supposedly natural way to cut fertilizer use, boost crop yields, and fight climate change. But beneath the marketing lies a sobering truth. Once unleashed, GE microbes can’t be recalled. They spread. They evolve. And no one—least of all the corporations racing to profit from them—fully understands the consequences.

If we don’t act now, the soil beneath our feet may become the testing ground for an uncontrolled experiment that could reshape ecosystems, food systems, and public health for generations. And not in a good way.

The Rise of GE Microbes—and the Hype Behind Them

The microbial products market is booming. With global revenue already at $15 billion annually, it’s projected to reach $25 billion by 2030. Leading the charge is Pivot Bio. The company has raised $430 million in venture capital to develop and commercialize nitrogen-producing GE bacteria that it claims can replace synthetic fertilizers. As the first GE microbial product brought to market for soil application, Pivot Bio’s flagship offering, PROVEN, is being positioned as a game-changer for climate-smart agriculture.

Industry leaders, including Pivot Bio and Ginkgo Bioworks, are lobbying hard to ensure these new tools are viewed as sustainable solutions. These companies are trying to convince lawmakers that GE microbes as capable of reducing runoff, improving nutrient efficiency, and boosting crop resilience. But experts are sounding the alarm: the rush to deploy GE microbes is happening faster than science, oversight, or public discourse can keep up.

There’s another small problem, though: these products don’t seem to work. Extensive field testing across multiple states in the North West found that the application of GE soil microbes failed in most cases to increase crop yields. The testing, carried out by North Dakota State University (NDSU) Extension, across 61 site-years in corn, spring wheat, sugar beet, and canola, found that that commercial GE nitrogen-fixing products—such as Envita, Utrisha, ProveN, and MicroAZ—offered no consistent yield benefits over conventional nitrogen fertilization alone, with only two instances showing modest gains equivalent to just 12–20 pounds of nitrogen per acre.

Living Pollution That Can’t Be Recalled

What makes GE microbes particularly alarming is their potential to become what scientists are calling “living pollution.” Unlike chemical pesticides, which degrade over time, these living organisms can persist, replicate, and spread indefinitely. Their microscopic size and resilience mean they can be transported by wind, rain, and even across borders—a phenomenon referred to as “genetic rain.” Studies have shown that viable bacteria can travel across continents in dust clouds and settle in alpine lakes or other sensitive ecosystems via rainfall.

Once released, GE microbes may also engage in horizontal gene transfer, a process by which microbes exchange genetic material with other species in the environment. This is the mechanism behind the rapid spread of antibiotic microbial resistance. If GE microbes transfer engineered traits or unintended mutations to wild species, the consequences could be unpredictable and irreversible—altering microbial communities in soil and or even the human gut, increasing pathogenicity, and disrupting ecosystem functions.

There are also evolutionary concerns. GE microbes may mutate over time, altering their behavior, survival traits, or interactions with other organisms. Crops, pests, and microbes could co-evolve in unpredictable ways, possibly leading to resistant pests or even new pathogens. As with antibiotics or glyphosate, overuse of an engineered, biological “solution” can eventually undermine its effectiveness.

All of this is compounded by our deep ignorance about microbial ecosystems. The vast majority of soil microbes remain unidentified and unstudied. The rhizosphere—the complex web of microbial life surrounding plant roots—is foundational to plant health, soil fertility, soil conservation and water management, and global nutrient cycles. Tampering with it through the open-air release of engineered organisms could have cascading effects, not just on agriculture but on planetary systems like the carbon and nitrogen cycles on which all life—including humans—depend.

An Unregulated Frontier

Despite these unique risks, there is no specific federal legislation in the US designed to regulate genetically modified microbes. Instead, oversight is cobbled together from existing laws that were never designed to address living, engineered organisms capable of reproducing and spreading in the environment.

Under the current “Coordinated Framework,” the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) divide responsibilities for GE organisms. But this framework was built decades ago to regulate things like synthetic pesticides or drugs, not living systems that evolve, adapt, and spread. As a result, GE microbes are often regulated in the same way as their natural counterparts, despite the very different risks they pose.

For instance, microbial pesticides are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), but the standards for approval are shockingly low. Companies need only show that their product, when used according to instructions, “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” There is no mandate for long-term environmental safety studies, nor any requirement to demonstrate field-level effectiveness before market approval.

The EPA can also regulate GE microbes under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), but only if they contain genes from a different microbial genus—excluding the vast majority of gene-edited microbes. Meanwhile, USDA oversight is limited to microbes that pose a known “plant pest” risk, and even that is applied inconsistently under the agency’s SECURE rule.

The bottom line: there is no consistent, precautionary system in place to assess the environmental or human health risks posed by GE soil microbes.

A Better Way Forward

We know that genetically modified microbes, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides are not part of a healthy, regenerative, or sustainable future. What does offer real promise are agricultural approaches that work in harmony with nature. Regenerative agriculture is at the forefront of this movement, and exciting innovations are emerging. At a strategic meeting earlier this year—attended by ANH’s founder and executive director, Rob Verkerk, PhD—we learned of efforts to integrate regenerative practices with AI-driven soil analytics to significantly enhance soil health, soil microbial and organic content, and ultimately, the nutrient density of American-grown food. The side effect: lowering the cost of inputs, increasing agricultural yields, and increasing farmers’ incomes. This forward-thinking proposal aims to shift incentives away from engineering ultraprocessed foods for shelf life and “bliss point” appeal, and toward whole foods with high nutrient-densities.

This is the future we should be building: not swapping out dependence on chemical inputs to dependence on GE soil microbes.

Action Is Urgently Needed

Framing GE microbes as “biologicals” obscures the reality: these are genetically altered organisms with the potential to irreversibly change our soil, food systems, and health. As consumers, farmers, scientists, and citizens, we must demand real oversight, full transparency, and a science-guided, risk-aware approach. The future of our soil—and everything it supports—depends on it.

Action Alert!

The post RFK Jr.’s Call for Fewer Chemicals Is Being Hijacked by Big Ag’s GE Microbes first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The USDA is poised to greenlight Bayer’s new genetically engineered corn—despite serious concerns about its health, environmental, and contamination risks. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is moving to exempt Bayer’s MON 95379 genetically engineered (GE) corn from regulatory oversight.
• Studies link genetically engineered crops like MON 95379 to organ damage, infertility, and increased pesticide use that harms soil health and biodiversity.
• Even with limited planting, GE corn has a well-documented history of contaminating non-GMO and organic crops, endangering food integrity and farmer livelihoods.

In a move that underscores the federal government’s continued embrace of biotech agriculture at the expense of public and environmental health, the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is preparing to deregulate yet another genetically engineered (GE) crop: Bayer’s MON 95379 corn. This new variety, designed to produce two insecticidal proteins targeting lepidopteran pests (caterpillars of moths and butterflies), is on the verge of being released into the environment.

Bayer has petitioned APHIS to determine that this new GE corn poses no greater plant pest risk than conventional corn. Based on their internal assessment, APHIS agrees. If finalized, this deregulation would mean the corn is exempt from the already weak safety net of the permit system under federal regulations. This regulatory framework, minimal though it already is, at least demands confinement, monitoring, and reporting standards. Deregulation removes those guardrails entirely.

It’s worth noting that deregulation, in itself, isn’t inherently problematic. In fact, we’ve long advocated for a deregulatory approach when it comes to dietary supplements and the ability to communicate their health benefits—measures that empower consumers and support public health. But context is everything. Expanding access to natural health products is a far cry from giving the agritech industry free rein to unleash GE crops that may harm human health and the environment. These are two very different scenarios with vastly different implications.

GE Corn on the Loose: The Dangers of a Deregulated Future

MON 95379 is engineered to produce its own insecticide. While industry argues these toxins are harmless to humans and only target specific pests, independent science tells a different story. Peer-reviewed studies have shown that GE foods—especially Bt varieties (that express toxins from the bacteria Bacilllus thuringiensis) and Roundup Ready varieties (engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller)—can have serious health impacts on mammals.

Concerns over Bt corn include:

• Mice fed Bt corn (MON810) showed immune system activation and intestinal disturbances.
• Bt Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac proteins caused liver and kidney toxicity in mice.
• Monarch butterfly larvae suffered increased mortality when exposed to Bt corn pollen on milkweed.
• Bt corn residue slowed growth and development of earthworms in soil.

Roundup Ready concerns include:

• Rats fed Roundup Ready corn showed liver and kidney deterioration.
• Mice consuming Roundup Ready soybeans had impaired embryonic development.
• Rats in other studies experienced DNA damage, reproductive harm, and organ toxicity.
• A well-known study by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini found that rats consuming GE corn developed tumors, liver/kidney damage, and early death—a study so controversial it was attacked, retracted, and later republished in another respected journal.

And it’s not just rodents. A study of pigs fed GE feed showed severe gastrointestinal inflammation and poor growth, echoing the findings of Danish pig farmer Ib Pederson, who saw drastic improvements in his animals’ health when he switched away from GE feed. Even Atlantic salmon fed GE soy displayed higher inflammation than those on a non-GE diet.

The Environmental Fallout: Pesticides, Resistance, and Collapsing Biodiversity

The deregulation of this corn also perpetuates the pesticide treadmill—a vicious cycle in industrial agriculture where pests evolve resistance to chemical or genetic controls, prompting the development of stronger and more numerous interventions. MON 95379 is being developed to counter fall armyworm resistance to existing Bt corn in South America. But history has shown us how quickly pests adapt, requiring newer, more potent GE crops and more toxic chemicals.

In the big picture, studies have shown that herbicide-resistant crops like these have increased overall herbicide use, not decreased it. Glyphosate-resistant weeds now plague millions of acres of farmland. These chemicals don’t stay on the field: they contaminate water supplies, disrupt ecosystems, and kill beneficial organisms vital to soil health like worms, bees, beetles, and soil microbes.

Whose Interests Does the USDA Serve?

The purpose of the USDA is to regulate exactly this kind of agricultural product. Yet, when it comes to genetic engineering, the federal government has for decades embraced a “see no evil” approach. Despite mountains of scientific evidence of the health and environmental impacts these plants can have, most GE organisms reach the market with shockingly little independent pre-market testing. In fact, in 2020 APHIS tried to exempt from its regulations all GE plants with modifications the agency determined could have been developed through conventional breeding. A group of non-profits successfully sued APHIS over the rule and some of the exemptions were rolled back late in 2024, but it’s a sad commentary on where we are when the government needs to be sued to protect Americans instead of the biotech industry’s interests.

Corn, in particular, occupies a foundational place in the American food system. It’s not just what we eat—it’s what our livestock eat and what permeates processed foods in the form of high fructose corn syrup.

In its Environmental Assessment, APHIS notes that Bayer has registered MON 95379 with the EPA under a restricted use permit, limiting cultivation to no more than 100 acres per growing season across Nebraska, Hawaii, and Iowa. This ostensibly confines the GE corn to small-scale breeding, testing, and seed increase nurseries within the US.

However, even with these limitations, the risk of genetic contamination of non-GE corn remains significant and well documented. Gene flow from GE crops to conventional or organic varieties has been observed repeatedly, posing a serious threat to farmers who seek to maintain GE-free status and to consumers wishing to avoid GE foods in their diet. A new GE corn like MON 95379 could infiltrate our food supply in hundreds of hidden forms.

All of this comes on the heels of our executive and scientific director, Rob Verkerk, PhD, participating last week in a ‘MAHA in Action’ think tank held in Huron, Ohio, alongside 25 leading US regenerative farming experts. The goal of the meeting was to work collaboratively to maximize opportunities for regenerative farming as a foundational strategy with immense potential to improve the health of both US citizens who rely on its produce and the soil and local environments that sustain it.

Dr. Verkerk said, “The deregulation of MON 95379 is a backward step by the USDA and highlights the federal government’s continued failure to develop a coherent, multi-agency strategy that prioritizes the health and wellbeing of American citizens over the profits of commercial interests.”

Conclusion: Say No to Bayer’s GMO Corn

Deregulation of MON 95379 is not in the public interest. It’s about expanding market share for a global agrochemical giant. We have ample evidence to suggest that GE crops like this one pose risks to human health, exacerbate environmental degradation, and entrench a broken model of industrial agriculture.

We urge concerned citizens to use the form below submit comments to APHIS and demand a halt to the deregulation of MON 95379. It’s time for a precautionary approach to biotechnology—one that values ecological balance, food integrity, and human health over corporate convenience.

The post USDA Poised to Deregulate New GMO Corn: What Could Go Wrong? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Just as RFK Jr. gets his legs under his desk at HHS, a centralized public health agenda is gathering pace that threatens medical freedom, farmers’ rights, food security, and individual choice. Action Alert!

Listen to the audio version of this article

THE TOPLINE

• The CDC’s One Health Framework centralizes authority over public health decisions, potentially limiting independent research, open discussion, and medical freedom.
• The rollout of One Health is part of the public health response to bird flu, mirroring the COVID-19 playbook.
• The One Health approach sets the stage for greater government control, mandated health policies, and reduced medical autonomy.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of Interior (DOI) have jointly unveiled their National One Health Framework to Address Zoonotic Diseases and Advance Public Health Preparedness in the United States. Framed as a way to address zoonotic diseases and public health challenges—like the H5N1 bird flu—the One Health approach claims to integrate human, animal, plant, and environmental health concerns into a unified strategy. In our view, this framework lays the groundwork for sweeping governmental control over medical (and veterinary) decision-making and, in the case of the bird flu, direct intervention in the nation’s food supply.

One Health: Centralized Control Disguised as Public Health

The One Health approach has been around for several years but had not become official policy until January 2025. The policy effectively consolidates power in the hands of three federal agencies led by the CDC, USDA and DOI, dictating public health responses during crises. Instead of allowing independent research, open discussion, and medical freedom, this framework ensures that a “unified federal voice” dictates the narrative and available treatment options.

Crucially, the powers-that-be appear to be deploying One Health policies primarily through the USDA and not the CDC, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This shift away from CDC control is likely linked to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s role as new head of HHS, and he has been vocally resistant to pharmaceutical-driven health policies. The rollout of One Health, which emerged during the COVID era under the Biden administration, is being justified by rising concerns over the bird flu situation.

COVID Redux: H5N1

H5N1 avian influenza, aka ‘bird flu’, renamed more recently (presumably because it sounds more dangerous?) as ‘highly pathogenic avian influenza’ (HPAI) is a highly transmissible viral infection that primarily affects wild birds but has spread among poultry and dairy cows in the US. There have been a handful (70) human cases so far in the US with 1 death, according to the CDC. (You can reference our earlier coverage of the bird flu here to get more background.)

The unfolding public health response to H5N1 bird flu mirrors the tactics used during COVID-19, except this time the food supply is involved. Scientists working under the pretext of pandemic preparedness have long manipulated avian influenza viruses, increasing their ability to cross species and infect humans (sound familiar?). Pharmaceutical interventions like mRNA vaccines are already in development using half a billion dollars of taxpayer money, ensuring that government-backed solutions are already in place if/when further outbreaks occur.

Federal agencies have used this situation to justify mass culling of poultry, purportedly to prevent further spread. Just as during COVID-19, PCR testing—known for its high false-positive rates—is being used to assess the number of infections. Inflated case numbers fuel media hysteria and the sense that there is a public health crisis. The result is artificial food shortages and price inflation.

You can see where this is going: to return to “normal,” we’re going to be told to accept mandatory vaccination of farm animals under the guise of disease prevention—no matter what the human health consequences may be of eating food that has been treated with mRNA vaccines. This crisis ultimately forces farmers and the public into compliance, making acceptance of One Health measures a prerequisite for food security.

Why This Matters

The One Health Framework is, in essence, an infrastructure for centralized medical and veterinary control. By ensuring a unified government voice, dictating public and animal health responses, and training agencies to enforce these directives, the plan undermines medical and health freedom as well as the right to informed choice. Under One Health-style frameworks, it’s not hard to imagine what the next round of lockdowns might look like, with public health authorities having learned from the mistakes of the first round during COVID.

A similar push for centralized control is evident in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) plans to exert greater influence over global health policies (see ANH International’s analysis). President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the WHO was driven by desire to resist global control, but only time will tell how the new Administration will respond to centralized, coordinated responses like One Health that develop within America’s borders. There is also the specter of how future presidents might act in relation to the WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and other United Nations’ agencies. The One Health Framework is, oddly, entirely in alignment with the global doctrines of UN agencies, and they potentially lay the foundation for international directives that override national sovereignty in health or veterinary policy.

Farmer First and Health Freedom

Outbreaks of highly contagious diseases like bird flu have already led to large-scale culling of poultry in the US, with over 35 million birds in commercial flocks being killed so far. This has caused significant distress and financial hardship for poultry farmers. The policy is part of the ‘stamping-out’ policy for avian influenza that meets World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) standards in an effort to maintain international poultry exports. Accordingly, the USDA is using the policy to force farmers to cull their flocks when ‘HPAI’ is detected, regardless of whether or not animals are sick. Many farmers and farmers’ groups are questioning the ethical and animal welfare impacts of the ‘stamping-out’ policy.

But it’s not just farm animals that are at risk of these draconian policies. One Health envisions coordinated responses against human cases that follow the rubric that was so widely adopted—and rarely questioned—by government authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather than consolidating authority into a top-down bureaucracy, we should encourage open scientific debate rather than enforcing a unified narrative, promote individual choice in medical treatments, ensure transparency and accountability in public health decisions, and prioritize local or regional responses and health strategies over broad federal mandates.

Public health should empower individuals, not enforce compliance. The CDC’s One Health Framework moves us toward an era where governments dictate medical choices, silencing those who dare to question official recommendations.

It’s time to reject centralized medical authoritarianism and advocate for a diverse, open, and decentralized health system that encourages the dissemination of truthful health information and respects the right of individuals to make informed choices about their own bodies and well-being.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and tell them to reject the One Health framework to protect individual medical autonomy. Please send your message immediately.

The post Blueprint for Government-Controlled Medicine Sidesteps RFK Jr. first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Just as we’re learning how vital our gut microbiome is to our health, industrial agriculture wants to wreck the microbiomes of cows in the name of “climate action.” Enter Bovaer—a methane-reducing feed additive hailed as a quick fix for cattle emissions. But behind the glowing headlines lies a troubling story of corporate interests, ignored risks, and dangerous disruptions to natural systems.

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• Bovaer, a feed additive by DSM Firmenich, reduces methane emissions in cattle by inhibiting gut microbes. However, it disrupts the natural balance in cows’ digestive systems, with unknown long-term consequences and short-term issues like reduced feed intake, fertility problems, and risks for farmers.
• This raises concerns about the impact of disrupted cow microbiomes on milk and meat quality, with no clear answers about potential harm to human health.
• Solutions such as seaweed supplements, probiotics, essential oils, and regenerative farming offer safer and more effective ways to reduce emissions without compromising animal health, food safety, or environmental balance.

What Is Bovaer?

Bovaer, developed by DSM Firmenich, uses a synthetic chemical called 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP) to block methane production in cows. Methane, produced in the cow’s rumen by gut microbes called methanogens, is released mostly through belching. By inhibiting this process, Bovaer cuts methane emissions—30% in dairy cows and 45% in beef cattle, according to the manufacturer.

Sounds great, right? Think again.

Interfering with Nature’s Balance

Methane isn’t just “pollution.” It plays a critical role in maintaining the delicate balance of a cow’s gut. Methanogens prevent hydrogen buildup, allowing cows to digest tough plant materials efficiently. They also help stabilize pH in the rumen, ensuring a healthy environment for the microbes that support digestion.

What happens when you tamper with this balance? We don’t know, and that’s the point—no long-term studies have been done. Short-term data already raises red flags, including reduced feed intake, lower heart weight, and fertility issues in cows. The UK Food Standards Agency also noted skin irritation and eye damage risks for farmers handling Bovaer. And in one study, traces of a Bovaer metabolite even showed up in milk.

The Hidden Risks to Human Health

If Bovaer disrupts the microbiome of cows, what happens to the quality of milk and meat products? What about the potential impacts on humans who consume them? These are questions no one’s answering. While studies on rats raise concerns about carcinogenicity, fertility issues, and genotoxicity at higher doses, we’re supposed to believe small doses are “safe.”

We’ve seen this playbook before. Industrial agriculture rushes to implement a synthetic “solution,” and the long-term consequences—whether for health or the environment—are conveniently ignored until it’s too late.

The Corporate Agenda Behind Bovaer

Bovaer isn’t about saving the planet—it’s about corporate profits and control. The push to mandate methane-reducing technologies comes with billions in funding and carbon credits on the table, squeezing small farmers and rewarding industrial-scale agriculture. The Department of Agriculture has also made substantial funding available to support farmers using methane reduction methods such as Bovaer, making it very hard for smaller farmers to refuse to use such technologies in the long run.

Meanwhile, the real environmental problem—industrial feedlot farming—is ignored. Feedlot cattle fed on imported grain have a massive carbon footprint, yet they’re treated the same as grass-fed cattle raised on regenerative pastures.

Regenerative farming works with nature, not against it. Properly managed grasslands can sequester carbon, enhance soil health, and promote biodiversity, all while producing nutrient-dense food. But instead of supporting these solutions, regulators are handing our food system over to agrochemical giants pushing untested shortcuts like Bovaer.

Real Solutions, Not Toxic Shortcuts

Reducing methane emissions doesn’t require synthetic additives. Alternatives exist that don’t compromise animal health or our food safety:

• Seaweed supplements have shown an 80% methane reduction potential.
• Probiotics and natural plant-based solutions show promise in improving digestion and lowering emissions.
• Microbial Conversion: Bacterial strains have been found to convert methane into organic acids.
• Essential Oils and Antimicrobials: Emerging research suggests these may also reduce emissions.
• Regenerative farming addresses climate concerns holistically, restoring the environment while reducing emissions naturally.

The problem isn’t cows—it’s the industrialized farming systems that treat animals as machines. Bovaer is a band-aid solution that could create bigger problems down the line.

The Bottom Line

It is our view at ANH that a balanced approach—one that integrates innovative solutions that work with, rather than against nature, using sustainable and regenerative farming practices—may ultimately prove more effective and safer both for humans and the planet. Let’s reject toxic shortcuts and demand better—for cows, for farmers, and for all of us.

Please share this article widely in your networks.

The post Bovaer Feed Additive: Industrial Shortcut with Hidden Dangers first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

You might have seen Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about to scoff McDonald’s on Donald Trump’s plane. Was he putting his healthy eating principles to one side—or was it an opening salvo for a bold strategy to lead Americans toward healthier choices, signaling that we’re all in it together?

Listen to the audio version of this article:

THE TOPLINE

• A photo of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. eating McDonald’s with Donald Trump and members of his inner circle has sparked debate about how the new Administration will tackle Americans’ addiction to ultraprocessed and fast foods.
• As the likely next HHS leader, among the issues we think RFK Jr. should prioritize are reforming agricultural subsidies, improving school lunch nutrition, addressing sugar and processed food addiction, eliminating roadblocks to safe, natural medicines imposed by FDA over-regulation, and promoting regenerative agriculture to make healthier food more accessible and sustainable.
• We touch on the systemic issues and cultural influences RFK Jr. would need to tackle to reverse current trends of ever-decreasing health span.

The recent news that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been nominated to head the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Donald Trump’s Administration has sparked intense public discussion. Known for his criticism of ultraprocessed foods and his commitment to improving public health, RFK’s appointment would almost certainly signal a major and much needed shift in U.S. health policy. But a widely circulated, recent image of RFK about to dive into a McDonald’s meal with President-elect Trump, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump Jr. on a private jet appears to complicate the narrative. Or does it? Does this picture signal that RFK is prepared to compromise his principles? Or does it reveal something deeper about his approach to tackling America’s health crisis?

Mickey D Plane Food: Was It Shockvertising?

RFK has famously referred to ultraprocessed foods as “poison” and vowed to address their harmful effects if given the chance to lead HHS. Yet, in the viral photo (18.2 million views at the time of writing), he’s seen eating McDonald’s, and not even any of its supposedly healthier options. Let’s remind ourselves that McDonald’s is by far the largest fast food chain in the world and it really is the epitome of junk, ultraprocessed food.

Sitting down to McDonald’s or KFC—the only two brands of food typically served on Trump’s private jet—alongside President-elect Trump, the man who has just tapped you to lead HHS and promised to let you “go wild on health,” isn’t exactly the moment to lecture him on the dangers of ultraprocessed food and ask for a bowl of organic greens.

Was the photo part of an orchestrated plan to signal RFK’s commitment to change? Did RFK begrudgingly tuck in to the Mickey D, or was the team trying to show that RFK understands where many Americans are going to be starting their journey to better health? After all, Donald Jr. captioned the photo “Make America Healthy Again starts TOMORROW.” Might RFK Jr. later even claim that he didn’t allow the “poison” to touch his lips?

Who knows? Either way, the viral image has really got Americans talking about the importance of the relationship between the food we eat and our health. And, like those controversial, ‘shockvertising’ Benetton ads from years ago‚ getting people talking is how you raise awareness and it’s from a place of awareness that you instill change.

10 Things RFK Might Do As Head of HHS

If RFK’s track record and principles are any indication, his leadership at HHS could bring significant changes to public health policies. He’s indicated repeatedly that, if given a top job in the new Administration, he would prioritize removing the US from the top of the list of the world’s most chronically diseased nations. Additional to the 12 areas we highlighted immediately after the election, here are some of more specific ideas that ANH-USA has advocated for that we hope will become priorities for RFK, assuming he takes office as head of HHS:

1. Countering Unjustified Censorship
   As our FreeSpeech4Health campaign has shown, the rise of censorship on social media has prevented private individuals from receiving and sharing information via social media about the health benefits of food—even when this is scientifically validated. This is a huge impediment to helping Americans make informed choices that promote their health. RFK has signaled eliminating unjustified censorship will be a priority.
   
2. Reforming Healthcare
   As we’ve argued recently, more regulation is no way to reduce the unnecessary harm caused by Americans’ over-dependence on pharmaceutical drugs. Efforts to use federal powers to break drug monopolies could well be on the menu, as could ditching the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare—and replacing it with something more affordable that worked better. Plans are sketchy at present.
   
3. Truthful Communication to Consumers
   For years, government forces have worked to obscure and censor truthful information about the benefits of dietary supplements and other natural medicines. The Health Department under RFK and President-elect Trump’s pick for FDA Commissioner will likely consider reforms to this policy of government censorship of commercial speech. This would help Americans to take control of their own health by helping them make informed choices over healthy foods and supplements at the point of sale. At ANH, we’re involved in a major project to invigorate the FDA Modernization Act to make this happen. You’ll hear more on this soon.
   
4. Protecting Peptides
   We’ve been covering the FDA’s attack on compounded peptide medications and we’re busy developing a major defensive. Peptides are medicines that have shown incredible healing and life-extending potential, yet the FDA is using a biased bureaucratic process to remove access to compounded peptides like BPC-157, Epitalon, kisspeptin-10 and thymosin alpha-1. RFK Jr. specifically mentioned peptides in a recent post on X as part of the FDA’s “war on public health,” signaling his intention to put an end to this suppression.
   
5. Reforming the ‘Broken’ US food System
   One major reason that junk food is so cheap and accessible is the government subsidies supporting crops like corn and soy, which are often used to produce high-fructose corn syrup and other unhealthy ingredients. Redirecting these subsidies toward fruits, vegetables, and regenerative agriculture could make healthy food more affordable for everyone.
   
6. Transforming School Lunches
   Children’s health has been a central focus of RFK through his non-profit, Children’s Health Defense, an organization alongside which we’ve worked closely for a number of years. Many school meals are laden with toxins, artificial dyes, and ultraprocessed ingredients. RFK could champion policies that set higher nutritional standards for school lunches, removing the bulk of ultraprocessed ingredients, harmful additives and prioritizing fresh, whole foods.
   
7. Addressing Food Addiction
   Sugar addiction and peer pressure to consume junk food are deeply ingrained in American culture. RFK could push for public health campaigns to educate Americans about the dangers of ultraprocessed foods, as well as incentives for companies to reduce sugar and artificial additives in their products.
   
8. Supporting Regenerative Agriculture
   As part of an effort to boost domestic food production and reduce reliance on bioengineered solutions that have little safety data to support them, RFK will likely promote regenerative agriculture. This approach prioritizes soil health, biodiversity, and sustainable practices, offering a way to produce nutrient-dense food while addressing environmental concerns.
   
9. Subverting Big Pharma Influence at the FDA
   RFK recently said: “FDA’s war on public health is about to end…If you work for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, I have two messages for you: 1. Preserve your records, and 2. Pack your bags.” Observers have noted that RFK Jr. could attempt to influence negotiations around the drug user fee program that funds just about half of the FDA’s budget. This could send shockwaves through the drug industry and fundamentally change the balance of power at the FDA, which in our view is captured by drug industry interests.
   
10. A Save for Homeopathy
    The FDA has declared war on homeopathic medicines. RFK Jr. may become the first head of HHS who is truly sympathetic to the cause of saving access to homeopathy (not to mention other natural medicines). He is obviously acutely aware of the institutional biases against modalities like homeopathy, biases that support a drug monopoly model that keeps us sick. We strongly believe an RFK-led HHS will be open to reforming FDA policies that are antagonistic toward our access to homeopathic medicines.

Tackling Behavioral Change: A Step-by-Step Continuum

America’s health crisis isn’t just about policy—it’s about changing deeply entrenched behaviors that are intimately linked to our emotional states and culture. People often turn to junk food as a cheap, convenient source of comfort, especially when struggling with financial or emotional challenges. RFK’s strategy might hinge on the recognition that the transition from eating McDonald’s to preparing organic, home-cooked meals won’t happen overnight.

Critics argue that Trump surrounds himself with yes-men, but RFK has a reputation for being principled and uncompromising. The McDonald’s meal could be seen as a moment of weakness—or as a clever reminder that even the most committed advocates for change must navigate the messy realities of American food culture.

The bigger question is whether RFK can leverage his principles to inspire the kind of cultural and policy shifts needed to “Make America Healthy Again.” If appointed, he’ll face immense challenges—from corporate food lobbies to public resistance—but he’ll also have a historic opportunity to redefine what health looks like for millions of Americans.

Moving Forward: A Vision for Change

RFK’s potential appointment as head of HHS presents a unique moment to rethink U.S. health policy. By addressing the root causes of poor nutrition, the problems of regulatory capture by Big Pharma and Big Food, as well as unjustified censorship of truthful health information, he could lead the country on a transformative journey. Whether he starts with McDonald’s or a kale smoothie, the key will be creating policies that support healthier choices for all Americans while addressing systemic issues in the food and healthcare industries.

At ANH, we’re a non-partisan, issue-driven change organization. When you look at the options we’ve had in the past to help make a seismic shift in government health policy towards natural and regenerative health, the possibility of RFK leading HHS appears like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. That’s why we think he’s the smartest choice for a healthier future for America. We also recognize the critical role that will be played by the next FDA Commissioner. In that regard, we’re very interested in the possibility of Dr. Mary Ruwart getting that seat. Her views are well aligned with those of RFK and she has both the understanding of how regulatory capture works, as well as the skills to tackle cronyism and oversee a proportionate approach to food and drug regulation. 

As ANH-USA’s President and Medical Director, veteran integrative medicine physician, Dr. Ron Hoffman, told us, “They say “all politics are local.” Well, health freedom is our neighborhood, and we anticipate that people will have the discernment to set aside their party differences and rally to support the initiatives that positively affect our health choices.”

Please share widely – and let us know your thoughts about the RFK nomination as head of HHS.

The post How Might RFK Jr. Make America Healthy Again? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

How tinkering with plant genetics could lead to devastating human health and ecological consequences as genetic engineers eliminate plants’ ability to cry for help. Action Alert

THE TOPLINE

• Genetic modifications to plants, such as making mustard greens less bitter, could remove beneficial mustard oils known for their anti-cancer properties. This could negatively impact both human health and the plant’s natural defense mechanisms, potentially leading to increased pesticide use.
• Gene-edited foods often bypass more stringent GMO regulations due to their classification. This lack of rigorous oversight means potential health and environmental risks are not adequately addressed, and unknown compounds resulting from genetic modifications may pose unforeseen dangers.
• Modifying plants genetically can disrupt ecological systems that have evolved over millennia. The removal of certain compounds might hinder plants’ ability to attract natural pest predators, potentially altering the balance of ecosystems and increasing reliance on chemical interventions.

Are you OK with being treated like a lab rat? At ANH, we’re not!

This month, a biotech start-up, Pairwise, is teaming up with Bayer to roll out a new type of mustard green engineered to be less bitter than the original plant. The vegetable is set to be the first Crispr-edited food to hit the US market. Just as meatless meat companies are using climate change to push their agenda, we’re told that altering plants’ genetics to make fruits and vegetables more palatable will revolutionize public health by encouraging us to eat more salads. And it’s not just mustard greens; the company is using Crispr to develop seedless blackberries and pitless cherries.

As we’ve been arguing for some time, there are significant concerns that need to be addressed with this new generation of genetically modified foods…but those concerns are being ignored by federal agencies that seem content to close their eyes and allow the biotech industry to treat us like guinea pigs in a massive, open-air experiment. We cannot let it continue.

The illusion of bioequivalence

Technically, the new mustard greens aren’t classified as GMOs because the changes, they tell us, could have been made to occur through traditional breeding methods. This distinction allows gene-edited foods to bypass the more stringent (but still inadequate) regulations that earlier GMOs like Roundup Ready soy and corn must follow.

But just because a food could theoretically be produced by natural means doesn’t guarantee it’s safe. Take the example of Bored Cow, an animal-free dairy milk made through synthetic biology. Independent testing found 92 unknown compounds in this synbio milk, highlighting that even slight genetic modifications can lead to the production of completely novel substances.

These unknown compounds can have significant health implications. Just as synbio milk isn’t truly equivalent to cow’s milk, and cultured meat products aren’t the same as real meat, gene-edited mustard greens are not going to be bioequivalent to traditional mustard greens. That’s because the natural greens are packed with cancer-fighting compounds that, on a farm, act as a natural control system by calling in predators and parasitoids that regulate pests, minimizing the need for pesticides. We cannot assume that these new plants are safe based on the limited scope of current regulatory frameworks, and we may well find that new plants demand the use of more pesticides because the gene-editing has interfered with the plant’s natural control system.

Small change, big consequences

Presumably, Pairwise wants us to believe that going in and making one small genetic change to remove a compound that makes mustard greens bitter will have no other effect on the plant’s biology other than taste. But there are very good reasons to believe that is not the case, and that even small genetic changes to plants can have profound consequences for ecological systems that have evolved over millennia.

Consider the following. Glucosinolates are what cause mustard greens to be bitter. They have been studied for their anti-cancer properties, and indeed, high consumption of mustard greens and other brassicas have been linked to reduced risk of lung, stomach, colon, rectal, prostatic, endometrial and ovarian cancers. If these are the compounds that Pairwise is removing, they are removing some of the most health-promoting, disease-fighting aspects of eating mustard greens.

But there are even wider implications. Plants have evolved sophisticated ways to “cry for help” by releasing smells that attract natural enemies of the insects or pests that are attacking them. These smells can attract helpful insects that eat the pests or their eggs, and even birds that eat insects. Plants can also communicate with each other using these smells, warning neighboring plants about the danger. This means plants are very aware of what’s happening around them and can react quickly to threats.

By removing or reducing levels of glucosinolates, that are broken down to volatile mustard oils (isothiocyanates) by the action of an enzyme produced when the plant is stressed, for example following attack by herbivorous insect pests, the plant’s ability to “call for help” in this way will be compromised, potentially seriously. Pairwise and companies like them are tinkering with powerful forces that can have dramatic consequences. For example, if removing certain bitter compounds impairs the plant’s ability to “cry for help,” this could lead growers to use more pesticides to compensate. Unfortunately, these considerations are completely ignored by federal agencies.

Safety concerns and regulatory gaps

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review gene-edited foods to ensure they don’t pose a pest risk or significant health hazards. Pairwise’s mustard greens passed these reviews and were deemed not to be plant pests. However, these assessments are often based on the assumption that gene-edited foods are bioequivalent to their natural counterparts. This assumption is problematic for the reasons discussed above.

Agencies also seem unconcerned with emerging data suggesting that the precision of gene-editing technologies like Crispr is overstated. Even small unintended changes in the DNA can have unpredictable effects on the plant’s nutritional profile and its interaction with the environment. These unintended changes might introduce new allergens or toxins that were not present in the original plant. Again, because agencies believe these gene-edited foods to be “bioequivalent” to their natural counterparts, there is almost no examination of these safety or environmental issues.

While the promise of more palatable mustard greens and other gene-edited foods might appeal to consumers looking for convenient and nutritious options, it’s essential to remain cautious. The regulatory framework in the US is not equipped to handle the unique challenges posed by gene-editing technologies. As consumers, we must demand greater transparency and more rigorous safety testing for these novel foods.

Until then, agencies must be pushed to question the bioequivalence of gene-edited foods and consider the potential risks they pose to our health and the environment. The convenience of a less bitter mustard green is not worth the unknown dangers lurking behind this untested technology.

There is of course another strategy other than Crispr: What about helping children to better adapt to bitterness in foods so that we can raise populations that are less susceptible to cancer and better able to cope with our increasingly toxic world?

At ANH, this is what we advocate, along with taking extracts of brassicas that are rich in glucosinolates, sulforaphane and other powerful, bioactive compounds that are both cancer protective and support detoxification.  

Action Alert! Write to Congress and the FDA, telling them that we need more testing of gene-edited foods that research is increasingly finding are not bioequivalent to traditional foods. Please send your message immediately.

The post Frankengreens are Coming first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Consumers beware: the FDA is on a crusade to make you healthier! This is undoubtedly a noble goal, but the FDA and the federal government have proven completely incapable of providing sound advice about diet and nutrition to Americans. The FDA has released a draft guidance to inform food companies about how they should make “dietary guidance statements” on food labels. The whole purpose of the guidance is to bring food labels into closer alignment with the recommendations contained in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans—a document that is full of outdated and incorrect advice. This guidance will result in food labels that do not provide us with an accurate picture of which foods are healthy and not.

The agency explains in the guidance that its goal is “to improve dietary patterns in the United States to help reduce the burden of nutrition-related chronic diseases and advance health equity.” Towards that end, the FDA reminds us that they have proposed a definition of “healthy” to better inform consumers about healthy eating patterns (more on this below). The use of dietary guidance statements is another tool to increase the information at consumers’ disposal to make healthier food choices. Dietary guidance statements include things like “Eat leafy green vegetables as part of a nutritious dietary pattern,” or “Make half your grains whole grain.” The FDA explains to food companies that “consensus reports” from government bodies—like the Dietary Guidelines—can form the basis of dietary guidance statements.

This guidance helps to codify the problematic U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Dietary Guidelines. We’ve analyzed the problems with the government’s recommendations in previous coverage:

• Added sugar. The government recommends that Americans consume less than 10 percent of calories per day from added sugars. But why is the government recommending any added sugar at all? Integrative doctors or nutrition professionals will advise patients (in most cases) to strictly limit their sugar intake, and to eliminate added sugar completely.
• Saturated fats. Like added sugars, the Dietary Guidelines tell us to limit calories from saturated fat to 10 percent of total calories per day. The claim that saturated fat is a risk to heart health has been debunked for a long time. Historically, the claim has been an alleged link to heart disease. However, more recent evidence shows that saturated fat is not, in fact, linked to heart disease. Rather, saturated fat has been proven to have a number of health benefits, including improved cardiovascular risk factors and liver health, stronger bones, healthy lungs and brain, proper nerve signaling, and a strong immune system. Some saturated fats, such as coconut oil, are considered superfoods.
• Grains. The USDA’s MyPlate guidelines recommend about 30 percent of calories come from grains, half of which they say should be whole grains. This encourages Americans to eat far too many refined grains, foods which are helping to drive the chronic disease epidemic; by contrast, ANH-International’s Food4Health Plate advises us to get 10 percent of calories from whole grains that are gluten free.

These same issues were operative when the FDA released its proposed definition of “healthy.” We noted at the time that the proposed definition allows a maximum of 2.5 grams of added sugar for specific foods like ¾ cup of yogurt, for example, or 5 percent of the daily value for added sugar. Again, the implication that we need any amount of added sugar is false and misleading due to the myriad negative health effects associated with sugar consumption. The proposed “healthy” definition also places strict limits on saturated fats to comport with the Dietary Guidelines’ recommendation of less than 10 percent of daily calories.

What this means is that foods that are healthy for you, like eggs, butter, coconut milk, etc., but high in saturated fat will be less able to communicate their health benefits to you, and foods low in saturated fat will be able to carry labeling touting their health benefits with the government’s sanction, even though the science says that low-fat is not the way to go. Similarly, certain foods with added sugar will be able to claim to be “healthy” or part of a healthy eating pattern. Considering that 1,600 Americans die every day from chronic illnesses like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease,  should the government really be encouraging consumption of any added sugar?

For real advice about health and nutrition, consider looking elsewhere, such as ANH-International’s Food4Health Plate.

Action Alert! Post a comment on the FDA’s public docket pointing out the issues with the government’s diet guidelines. Please send your message immediately.

The post The Labels On Your Food Are Shielding Lies first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.