California’s new supplement restrictions mark another advance in a growing state campaign that threatens access to affordable nutritional support. Action Alerts!

THE TOPLINE

• California joins New York in restricting sales of supplements marketed for weight loss or muscle building to minors, while similar proposals continue spreading across other states.
• Broad restrictions rely on misleading safety narratives, while creating barriers for consumers to health-promoting products.
• Join us in opposing these state bills and urging Congress to advance H.R. 7366, the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act, to preempt these misguided laws.

New restrictions on supplement sales draw strength from familiar scare stories—and threaten access to affordable nutritional support.

On September 28, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2030, restricting sales of over-the-counter diet pills and supplements represented for weight loss or muscle building to people under 18, with a prescription exception. California joins New York in adopting this approach.

The campaign is spreading: Ohio introduced HB 943 earlier this year, and New Jersey introduced A5487 in September. A slew of other states considered similar bills, but they ultimately did not move forward.

Protecting young people from eating disorders and dangerous products is a goal we share. But these measures restrict broad categories of lawful supplements that offer scientifically-proven benefits without requiring evidence that they cause harm.

A Broad Reach Beyond Diet Pills

California’s law allows courts to consider ingredients, claims about metabolism or strength, and even product placement in stores or online. Online sellers must use database age verification, verified adult delivery, or both. Retailers may limit access to covered products. These requirements can make it more difficult for all consumers, not just minors, to purchase these supplements.

ANH has warned for years that loosely defined restrictions can sweep in products supporting ordinary nutrition and fitness. Meanwhile, differing state rules create uncertainty and increased costs for smaller businesses.

Proponents cite associations between diet-pill use and later eating-disorder diagnoses. But an association does not establish causation—or demonstrate that broad supplement restrictions will prevent eating disorders.

How Headlines Distort the Evidence

The more important point is that these bills gain traction in an environment where supplements are repeatedly portrayed as dangerous, ineffective, and unregulated.

ANH has challenged that narrative again and again and again. Our coverage of poison-control reports explained why calls about exposure and accidental ingestion should not become evidence that supplements used appropriately are broadly unsafe.

Consider the often-used estimate of 23,000 supplement-related emergency-room visits annually. Lost amidst alarmist headlines is the fact that roughly one-fifth of these ER visits involved unsupervised children; among adults 65 and older, about 38 percent involved choking or other swallowing problems. Many more cases likely involve sexual enhancement or exercise supplements spiked with illegal ingredients. These findings support specific responses: secure storage, suitable pill formulations, and scrutiny of misbranded or illegal products which the FDA already has the power to remove. Presenting the total 23,000 visits as a measure of toxicity from ordinary supplement use is, in our view, a lie by omission.

Harvard Health’s recent blog titled “Don’t buy into brain health supplements” offers another example. Despite sweeping statements about absent evidence, the article acknowledges that the Harvard-led COSMOS trial found cognitive benefits from a daily multivitamin in older adults.

This is another familiar trope: “Supplements don’t work!” True, supplements are not a silver bullet that will cure all your ails. But the idea that they have no positive effect on the body is ludicrous. We found around 450 scientifically supported nutrient-disease statements on the government’s own websites at places like the CDC and the NIH. These form the foundation of our lawsuit to open up speech about these claims. “Supplements don’t work,” then, is not an idea supported by the health officials of the US government—even if they don’t want you to be able to learn about the benefits at the point of sale.

Supplements also have a strong overall safety record. They are federally regulated: manufacturers must meet safety, labeling, and manufacturing requirements; FDA can act against adulterated or misbranded products; and FTC oversees advertising.

Not to mention that young people face mental health challenges such as anxiety and depression at an unprecedented scale. Those seeking to have agency in their health journeys in an effort to become fitter and healthier shouldn’t face obstacles to using products that have established benefits. They should be encouraged to make informed choices, not hindered.

The notion that supplements are somehow a public health menace is simply not true. What is true, however, is that properly prescribed drugs cause an estimated 128,000 deaths each year in the US along with 1.9 million hospitalizations. Where are the calls to regulate drugs more stringently?

The Financial Interests Behind the Narrative

ANH sees these recurring attacks within a larger struggle over who controls healthcare.

Affordable nutritional support can promote prevention and therefore competes with pharmaceutical approaches. Reducing illness can reduce demand for long-term treatment, creating turmoil for a system built around selling drugs to manage chronic disease.

Alarmist coverage builds distrust, distrust helps sell restrictions, and restrictions weaken access to affordable alternatives. The pharmaceutical model benefits when nutritional options are marginalized.

ANH supports targeted enforcement against adulteration and fraudulent claims, meaningful help for eating disorders, and H.R. 7366, the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act, to address conflicting state requirements.

Consumers need reliable information and access to nutritional tools. Lawmakers should resist turning recurring scare stories into permanent barriers to choice.

Action Alerts!

State based alerts

Alaska

Illinois

Massachusetts

Michigan

New Jersey

Ohio

The post California Joins Push to Restrict Teen Supplement Access first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

A new study found an average of 31 pesticide-related compounds in young children, raising urgent questions about how well federal oversight protects developing bodies. Action Alert!

THE TOPLINE

• Researchers detected widespread pesticide exposure in infants and young children; although the study did not measure health effects, other research links exposure to developmental problems and serious diseases.
• Pesticide oversight fails to adequately address the chemical mixtures and complete formulations people encounter in everyday life.
• Congress can help reduce exposure by supporting the Paraquat Prevention Act and the Opportunities in Organic Act, which would ban paraquat and help farmers transition to organic production.

Before many children have learned to read, their bodies are already carrying evidence of a chemical world they never chose. A new biomonitoring study found an average of 31 pesticide-related compounds in each child tested. Some children had as many as 50.

Our pesticide system is failing a basic reality check: children encounter mixtures, not one chemical at a time, and they do so while their brains, immune systems, metabolism, and reproductive systems are still developing.

A Chemical Mixture in the Youngest Americans

Researchers analyzed 438 urine samples collected from 187 children. The children ranged from 10 days to seven years old.

Researchers reported 215 pesticide and pesticide-metabolite identifications, corresponding to 160 distinct active substances. Each child had an average of 31 different pesticides, with a range of 21 to 50. Sixteen were found in more than 60 percent of children. Forty percent of the detected compounds were classified as metabolites; the rest included insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, repellents, and other or unclassified compounds.

The authors note: “Accumulating evidence has associated chronic low-dose pesticide exposure with a range of adverse health outcomes, including cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, and impaired neurodevelopment.”

The Health Questions Regulators Keep Missing

The new study did not test whether the detected chemicals made these children sick. But other research gives ample reason to take early-life exposure seriously.

• A 2026 meta-analysis of 46 studies involving nearly 26,000 participants associated prenatal organophosphate exposure with poorer cognition and other adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.
• A prospective study of more than 1,000 mother-child pairs also associated prenatal exposure to a mixture of organophosphate, pyrethroid, and neonicotinoid insecticides with lower mental-development scores among two-year-old boys.
• Meta-analyses have linked pesticide exposure with childhood leukemia and respiratory conditions including asthma and wheezing.

The negative health effects go beyond young children:

• A 2015 study found men eating fruits and vegetables classified as having high pesticide residues had 49% lower total sperm counts and a 32% lower proportion of normally shaped sperm than those eating the least.
• A 2020 study found those with the highest levels urinary levels of a pyrethroid breakdown product had a 56% higher rate of death form all causes than those with the lowest levels. Pyrethroid insecticides are the third most widely used insecticides in the world.
• A 2013 study found that frequent household pesticide use was associated with 47% higher odds of Parkinson’s, rising to 71% higher odds for organophosphorus products.
• A 2025 laboratory screen found that many environmental chemicals inhibit at least one of 22 common human gut bacterial strains. Pesticides and herbicides, then, are disrupting the gut microbiome, which is intricately connected with our overall health.

ANH-USA has repeatedly warned that pesticide oversight does not match real-world exposure. Federal reviews generally assess active ingredients and specified risks, while consumers encounter multiple pesticides, their metabolites, and complete commercial formulations.

In 2023, ANH reported that the Environmental Protection Agency denied a petition asking it to assess so-called inert ingredients more fully. These undisclosed formulation ingredients can act as solvents, surfactants, and preservatives. The work of Professor Séralini and his colleagues shows just how dangerous these pesticide adjuvants can be. His team found that eight out of nine pesticides tested were up to 1,000 times more toxic to human cells than just the active ingredient. 

This is why public-health policy must be able to evolve with the science. Congress should reject efforts to freeze warnings or shield manufacturers from accountability when new evidence emerges. Consumers have a right to truthful risk information and meaningful ways to reduce exposure.

Two Bills Offer Two Paths to Prevention

TheParaquat Prevention Act, H.R. 9357,is the most direct exposure-reduction measure. Introduced by Reps. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME), it would cancel every registered use of paraquat, revoke food-residue tolerances and exemptions, prohibit sale and use of existing stocks, and bar future reregistration.

The Opportunities in Organic Act, S. 3717 and H.R. 7318,takes a broader, upstream approach. It would expand organic certification cost-share assistance and fund technical support, market capacity, and four-year transition and resilience projects. Eligible transition activities include eliminating synthetic pesticides, adopting crop rotations and cover crops, supporting beneficial predators and pollinator habitat, and conducting soil testing and on-farm research.

Congress Should Reduce Exposure at the Source

Families can wash produce, avoid routine pesticide use at home, follow product labels, and choose organic foods when feasible. Those choices may reduce exposure, but that should not replace system-wide solutions. Prevention works best when policy removes dangerous uses, supports safer farming, protects workers and neighboring communities, and keeps regulators free to respond to new evidence.

Young children should not serve as the passive monitoring system for a pesticide regime that acts only after harm becomes undeniable.

Action Alert!

The post New Study Reveals Children’s Alarming Pesticide Burden first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

What happens when government agencies charged with protecting public health become the very institutions restricting access to natural health information and choices? Jonathan Emord, ANH-USA’s General Counsel and one of America’s leading constitutional and administrative law attorneys, joins Mike Ames Sikora to explore health freedom, the First Amendment, FDA and FTC overreach, and the legal battles defending access to natural health.

The post The Mike Drop Podcast: Jonathan Emord first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Families facing complex childhood health challenges deserve opportunities to ask questions and explore emerging research. Our friends at Documenting Hope are bringing together researchers, practitioners, and families for the Health & Healing Expo, November 21–22, 2026, at Rosen Shingle Creek in Orlando, Florida, with an online attendance option. Below, we explore some of the questions shaping these conversations.

ANH-USA is an event affiliate and will receive a portion of registration proceeds when you sign up through our link.

Why are so many American families navigating autism and sudden, debilitating changes in their children’s behavior? Why has the medical mainstream got so few answers?

CDC surveillance identified autism in approximately 1 in 31 eight year-olds in 2022, compared with just 1 in 150 in 2000. Greater awareness, broader diagnostic criteria and improved identification contribute to this increase; but clinicians and families across America are aware something untoward is going on that cannot be explained only by changes in diagnostic patterns.

PANS—pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome—and its strep-associated subtype, PANDAS, present a different picture: abrupt obsessive-compulsive symptoms, restricted eating and other dramatic changes. While official figures are lacking, clinicians and families are again on the front lines of what appears to be a dramatic increase in such conditions among America’s children.

Whether we’re talking about autism or PANS/PANDAS, most theories point to the causes being related to a disruption of the deeply interconnected nervous, immune, endocrine and gastrointestinal systems.

Asking whether these conditions are “genetic or environmental” misses the interplay between biological and genetic susceptibility and modern life’s exposures—in other words epigenetic mechanisms. Research is beginning to identify an increasing range of factors associated with our 21^st century lifestyles that contribute to the rise of these conditions, including genetic predisposition, parental age and health, pollution and toxins, certain medications, and infections. 

Understanding these connections opens important questions about prevention, earlier recognition, treatment, and personalized support.

Join the Documenting Hope Health & Healing Expo, November 21–22, 2026, in Orlando or online, to explore emerging research connecting the microbiome, immunity, nutrition, cellular energy and nervous system. Bring your questions, connect with researchers, practitioners and families, and help build a more informed, hopeful future for children.

ANH community members save $50 on general admission through October 15: use code 50OFF to bring the current $389 ticket price to $339.

Learn more and register through ANH-USA’s affiliate link.

ANH-USA will receive a portion of the proceeds from registrations made through this link, supporting our advocacy for natural health.

The post Seeking Answers To Your Child’s Health? Join Documenting Hope first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

What if cancer isn’t simply something that happens to us, but something that emerges from the biological terrain we’ve been cultivating for decades?

Dr. Nasha Winters, an internationally recognized leader in metabolic and integrative oncology and a member of the Alliance for Natural Health USA Board, joins Mike Ames-Sikora to explore cancer, metabolic health, environmental exposures, informed choice and a radically different vision for cancer care.

In this episode, you’ll learn:

◼ What Nasha means by the “terrain” and why it matters in cancer and chronic disease
◼ Why disease processes may begin long before diagnosis
◼ What basic blood tests can reveal about metabolic, inflammatory and immune health
◼ How environmental exposures contribute to our cumulative body burden
◼ Practical ways to reduce everyday exposures without chasing perfection
◼ Why informed consent and patient choice matter in cancer care
◼ How integrative and conventional oncology could work together
◼ Why regenerative agriculture, food, circadian rhythm and community belong in the healthcare conversation
◼ Nasha’s vision for a terrain-centered cancer hospital and research institute
◼ Why she joined ANH International and the threats she sees facing integrative oncology

The post The Mike Drop Podcast: Dr. Nasha Winters first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

America’s disclosure rules on bioengineered foods leave shoppers guessing—and an approaching court deadline will not close every gap. Action Alert!

THE TOPLINE

• US disclosure rules exempt many foods and ingredients, leaving shoppers without a complete picture of how their food was produced.
• Certain gene-edited foods can avoid US disclosure, and upcoming EU rules will also exempt qualifying foods from GMO labeling.
• Court-ordered changes will address some US labeling gaps, but consumers still need clearer information and stronger scrutiny of genetically engineered foods.

A food package carries no bioengineered disclosure. Does that mean no genetic engineering went into the food?

No. USDA’s bioengineered food disclosure standard leaves entire categories of genetically engineered foods and ingredients outside mandatory disclosure.

Easing restrictions on natural substances with credible histories of safe use makes sense. Yet natural products face persistent calls for tighter regulation, alongside efforts to suppress truthful information about their benefits. Meanwhile, novel technologies that fundamentally alter our food are riding a wave of deregulation—even as their implications demand rigorous scrutiny and full transparency. These priorities are backwards.

A Narrow Definition, Wide Exclusions

Under the current rule, foods generally require disclosure when: 1) they contain genetic material modified through laboratory recombinant-DNA techniques, 2) the modification could not otherwise arise through conventional breeding or nature, and 3) the modified material is detectable.

There are a host of exclusions:

• Restaurants and food service: meals can contain engineered ingredients without this disclosure.
• Very small manufacturers: businesses with annual receipts below $2.5 million are exempt.
• Accidental presence: up to 5% of each ingredient may be bioengineered if its presence is “inadvertent” or technically unavoidable.
• Animal feed: meat, milk, and eggs do not require disclosure solely because animals ate engineered feed.
• Refined ingredients: oils, sugars, and other ingredients can avoid disclosure when modified genetic material is undetectable.
• Processing aids: qualifying incidental additives present at insignificant levels with no final technical or functional effect are excluded.
• Certain meat, poultry, and egg products generally fall outside coverage when those ingredients predominate, including after water, broth, or stock.
• Many alcoholic beverages: products subject to federal alcohol labeling law fall outside this standard.

Nearly A Quarter of Your Chips

Consider a hypothetical bag of corn chips containing 80% cornmeal, 19% refined soybean oil, and 1% salt.

If 5% of the cornmeal is inadvertently mixed-in bioengineered corn, that represents 4% of the chips. Add oil entirely from engineered soybeans that meets non-detectability requirements: another 19% originates from GE crops.

That is 23% of the product’s weight originating from engineered crops, quite legally without a bioengineered disclosure.

This can also allow proteins made using genetically engineered yeast or bacteria (through a process called “precision fermentation”) to avoid disclosure, depending on what remains in the finished ingredient.

“Could Happen Naturally” is Doing Enormous Work

A CRISPR-produced food can escape disclosure if its genetic modification could otherwise be achieved through conventional breeding or found in nature. But who decides if a modification could arise through conventional breeding or nature? Essentially it is the food company that makes the decision, and the federal government can later audit their records to examine the company’s conclusions.

This is scientifically (and ethically) bankrupt. For example, targeting one genetic location does not guarantee only one biological consequence. A study of human cells found that CRISPR targeting of certain genes also altered neighboring genes’ activity. A 2023 plant study found unexpected DNA rearrangements when CRISPR edited multiple sites in rice and Arabidopsis (thale cress, the most widely researched reference plant in modern biology)—changes routine screening could misidentify.

These studies call into question if any genetic editing of foods can really be “natural” if the genetic tinkering produces non-localized effects in the organism. Yet large swaths of foods that have been genetically manipulated escape any kind of disclosure.

Europe’s Parallel Retreat

The European Union’s new genomic techniques regulation will come into effect after July 17, 2028.  As you can see in the table below,both approaches allow certain gene-edited foods to reach consumers without a label disclosing how they were produced.

*The EU’s new rules create a category called NGT-1, covering plants made using “new genomic techniques,” such as gene editing, that meet legal criteria for equivalence to conventionally bred plants; from July 2028, foods from these plants will not require GMO labeling.

What Changes in 2028?

Today, companies can disclose bioengineered ingredients with words, USDA’s symbol on the package, or direct shoppers to a QR code or text-message service. Even then, they do not have to identify which ingredients are engineered.

But a legal challenge is forcing changes to these provisions. Following Natural Grocers v. Rollins, a court order will end two parts of the current rules on January 1, 2028, unless further court action changes that deadline:

• The “we couldn’t detect it” exclusion. Some ingredients from engineered crops currently avoid disclosure because tests cannot detect modified DNA. The appeals court rejected that reasoning: failing to detect something does not prove it is absent.
• The current QR-code and text-message options. Companies will no longer be able to rely on those provisions as written. USDA will need to address the barriers shoppers face when trying to access that information.

The concrete effects of these changes are uncertain. USDA could adopt a new minimum amount that triggers labeling, and QR codes are not permanently banned. The other exemptions remain.

Consumers deserve clear information about how their food was produced, plain and simple. When companies play God with nature, shoppers should not have to play detective with dinner.

Action Alert!

The post No GMO Label Doesn’t Mean No Genetic Engineering first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

HHS is asking for evidence about wireless radiation and health. Tell the agency to make long-term safety, children’s health, and real-world exposure a priority. Action Alert!

THE TOPLINE

• HHS has opened a public inquiry into wireless radiation and health, with comments due by October 21, 2026.
• Animal findings and new analyses raise questions about existing exposure limits, and the International Agency on Research on Cancer (part of the WHO) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) since 2011.
• Help us urge a thorough, independent review and practical measures to reduce unnecessary exposure.

Your phone is beside you. A router sits across the room. In an apartment building, your device may show a long list of neighboring Wi-Fi networks. Wireless technology is woven into daily life—but how well do our safety standards address the way we actually live with it?

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Communication Commission have opened a request for information on electromagnetic fields, radiofrequency radiation, and wireless exposure. They are seeking scientific evidence and public input on health effects, exposure standards, and research priorities.

This is an opportunity to press for answers to questions ANH has raised for years. The inquiry itself changes no safety limits. What matters is whether it leads to stronger science, meaningful oversight, and better protection.

Broken Safety Standards

US limits on exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR)—the kind emitted by cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, and wireless infrastructure—were set in 1996. These limits are based on a deeply flawed assumption: that RFR only harms the body by heating tissue. In other words, if radiation doesn’t raise your body temperature, regulators assume it’s safe.

That assumption ignores decades of scientific research showing non-thermal biological effects, including links to cancer, oxidative stress, neurological damage, and reproductive harm. Many of these effects occur at exposure levels far below the FCC’s so-called “safe” threshold.

Indeed, a 2025 policy review argues that US standards have failed to keep pace with research and modern exposure patterns. The review calls for independent research, stronger monitoring, and protections for vulnerable populations.

HHS and the FCC must be made to confront the reality that standards developed in 1996 no longer apply given modern exposures.

Warning Signs Deserve a Serious Review

The federal government’s own National Toxicology Program studies found clear evidence of malignant heart tumors in male rats exposed to radiofrequency radiation, and some evidence of brain tumors.

A 2026 analysis by Ronald Melnick, Joel Moskowitz, and ICBE-EMF adds to that concern. Using animal data, the authors calculated exposure levels intended to protect against cancer and male reproductive harm that were substantially below current limits. They called for an independent reassessment.

Taking meaningful action does not require pretending every scientific question is settled. It requires taking unresolved questions seriously.

New Exposures, New Questions

Humans evolved in a world of sunlight, natural electrical activity, and Earth’s magnetic field. Today’s wireless technologies have added a different pattern of exposure: engineered radio signals, repeatedly transmitted and often originating close to our bodies. The fact that electromagnetic radiation exists in nature does not, of course, establish the safety of these novel exposures. Especially given that square-form, digital waveforms offer completely different information to the body as compared with the smooth, sinusoidal waves form natural systems.  Duration and intensity also vary greatly. This means their biological effects must be evaluated on their own terms—including how signals are pulsed, how strong they are, what kinds of biological effects they mediate, and how long exposures last.

Those who live in apartment buildings or neighborhoods can often find long lists of nearby networks. In our own homes it’s common to have several phones, tablets, routers, wearables, and other devices that increase our exposure to electromagnetic field radiation. We must press HHS to support independent research that measures those conditions accurately, follows people over time, and examines children and other potentially vulnerable groups.

The comparison with new-to-nature chemicals is useful as a precautionary principle. We generally don’t introduce new chemicals or substances into our daily lives without some degree of safety testing. Yet we’re doing precisely the opposite when it comes to radiation exposures from ubiquitous wireless devices.

Reduce Your Exposure

Simple precautions are therefore reasonable without implying that harm has been definitively proven, such is the complexity of establishing causal relationships. For example, use speaker mode or a wired headset for lengthy calls, avoid prolonged calls with poor reception, keep an actively transmitting phone away from the head and body when convenient, keep wireless routers some distance from bedrooms, children and work areas, and turn off wireless routers overnight. Distance reduces exposure sharply.

Make Your Voice Heard

Urge HHS to commission an independent assessment of exposure limits, strengthen long-term research, improve public exposure information, and evaluate practical ways to reduce unnecessary exposure in homes and schools.

Families should have clear guidance and affordable options, including wired connections where practical. Protecting health should be part of technology policy from the beginning.

Use the form below to submit a comment under docket HHS-OASH-2026-0397. We deserve connectivity backed by transparent science and accountable public health oversight.

Action Alert!

The post Wireless Radiation: Washington Wants to Hear from You first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

If you use homeopathic medicines, then you’ll know that changes in FDA policy threaten your access. For more than 30 years, FDA provided clear conditions under which these products could remain on the market. The agency withdrew that policy in 2019, and in its 2022 guidance declared that all homeopathic medicines are in effect illegal because they have not been through a full drug approval process. ANH and homeopathic manufacturer Meditrend have now filed a formal and detailed petition asking FDA to restore clear rules that protect consumer access while targeting products with genuine safety problems.

Our press release below explains what we’re asking for—and why it matters for your health choices.

ANH Petitions FDA to Restore Safe Harbor
for Homeopathic Medicines

Citizen Petition calls for reinstatement of CPG 400.400, formal rulemaking, and a science-based “traffic-light” enforcement framework

ALEXANDRIA, VA., October 1, 2026 — The Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA), together with homeopathic manufacturer Meditrend Inc., has filed a Citizen Petition calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to restore its longstanding safe harbor for homeopathic medicines and halt implementation of its current framework pending formal public rulemaking.

For 31 years, FDA’s Compliance Policy Guide 400.400 provided a clear framework under which homeopathic products meeting specified standards could be marketed without being treated as enforcement targets solely because they lacked new drug approval. FDA withdrew that policy in 2019 and later finalized a risk-based enforcement guidance in December 2022.

ANH-USA and Meditrend argue that FDA’s replacement framework leaves responsible manufacturers unable to know what steps will protect compliant products from enforcement—even where products meet established homeopathic, labeling, and quality standards. The petition further argues that FDA failed to adequately account for decades of industry reliance on CPG 400.400 or undertake the notice-and-comment rulemaking required before adopting a policy with such significant impact on the industry.

“The Administrative Procedure Act prohibits FDA from abruptly ending an industry safe harbor without evaluating the reliance interests of the industry,” said Jonathan W. Emord, General Counsel to ANH-USA. “The agency did not do that, and it also did not provide the regulated class with reasonable parameters to know whether any particular homeopathic drug on the market will be the subject of enforcement action. It should restore CPG 400.400 and engage in proper rulemaking to define those parameters so manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, practitioners, and consumers know what products may safely be sold and purchased.”

Restore clear rules and protect consumer access

The petition asks FDA to take four actions pending completion of formal notice-and-comment rulemaking:

1. Revoke its 2019 withdrawal of Compliance Policy Guide 400.400.
2. Reinstate CPG 400.400 and its conditions for marketing homeopathic medicines.
3. Cease implementation of the enforcement framework adopted in the December 2022 homeopathic drug guidance.
4. Commence a rulemaking to define precisely what kinds of homeopathic products may be safely sold in the United States without threat of FDA enforcement.

Focus enforcement on demonstrated product risks

The petition’s scientific exhibit examines 2,068 adverse event reports associated with homeopathic or purportedly homeopathic products. The analysis concludes that FDA’s own adverse event records do not justify treating properly manufactured, HPUS-compliant, correctly labeled homeopathic medicines as a broad public health risk.

The exhibit argues that FDA has relied heavily on isolated, unrepresentative examples involving improperly manufactured, mislabeled, contaminated, pharmacologically dosed, or otherwise non-compliant products. Such products were never entitled to the protections of CPG 400.400. Their defects support targeted enforcement against specific bad actors or risky products—not withdrawal of the clear compliance framework for responsible manufacturers.

“FDA’s own adverse event record fails to show any evidence of a class-wide safety problem with properly manufactured, correctly labeled, HPUS-compliant homeopathic medicines,” said Robert Verkerk, Ph.D., Executive and Scientific Director of ANH-USA. “The science points to a very different conclusion: enforce against adulteration, mislabeling, contamination, inappropriate routes, and genuinely risky products—but do not use those outliers to threaten the entire category. The FDA’s current stance on homeopathics works in direct opposition to this administration’s MAHA agenda.”

Regulatory uncertainty has concrete consequences

In a sworn declaration accompanying the petition, Meditrend President Seneca Savage describes lost investor support, difficulty sourcing ingredients, and manufacturing disruptions following FDA’s policy change.

ANH-USA warns that this uncertainty threatens consumer access to long-standing homeopathic products. The petition calls for a transparent, enforceable framework that preserves FDA’s authority to act against adulteration, misbranding, and genuine safety concerns while giving responsible manufacturers predictable conditions under which to operate.

The accompanying scientific exhibit proposes a practical “traffic-light” approach. Green products—those meeting defined homeopathic, labeling, manufacturing, and low-risk criteria—would be treated as lowest enforcement priority. Amber products raising unresolved concerns would be subject to additional scrutiny. Red products presenting clear risks, such as adulteration, contamination, misbranding, pharmacologically active exposure, or causally supported serious adverse events, would be prioritized for enforcement.

“FDA should focus its resources where the real risks are,” Verkerk added. “A clear Green-Amber-Red framework would protect consumers, preserve access, and give responsible companies the certainty they need to operate.”

ANH-USA is urging FDA to act without delay and to establish a transparent public process for defining the boundaries of lawful, responsible homeopathic drug marketing.

The post ANH Uplevels the Fight to Protect Your Access to Homeopathic Medicines first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The chemical industry is preparing a new surge in “forever chemical” production to feed the AI economy. Regulators must stop chasing one PFAS at a time and protect the public by acting on the entire class. Action Alert!

THE TOPLINE

• Demand for data-center cooling and semiconductor manufacturing is driving expanded production of PFAS “forever chemicals.”
• Replacing older PFAS with less-studied alternatives risks perpetuating pollution and exposing people to poorly understood health hazards.
• We must fight for a class-wide ban on non-essential PFAS uses, strong drinking-water protections, and requirements that polluters pay for cleanup.

How AI Boom Drives Forever Chemical Boom

Despite the well-documented health dangers associated with PFAS “forever chemicals,” major chemical companies are expanding production to meet the needs of the AI tech boom. Specifically, the chemicals are being used for data-center cooling systems and in semiconductor fabrication.

A new survey from the Swedish chemicals watchdog ChemSec found that most of the world’s largest PFAS producers plan to increase production. The group warns that this expansion could unleash a new “tidal wave” of PFAS pollution even as governments struggle to contain the contamination already in our water, soil, food, air, and bodies.

We cannot go in this direction. The answer is not another slow, molecule-by-molecule review. It is a class-wide ban on non-essential PFAS uses, with only narrow, transparent, time-limited exceptions where no safer alternative yet exists.

PFAS Whac-A-Mole

For decades, concern centered on long-chain PFAS such as perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, or PFOS. As evidence mounted and pressure grew, manufacturers shifted toward newer short-chain PFAS and other replacements, often promoted as safer because they may leave the body faster than some legacy compounds.

But a shorter half-life is not the same as “safe.” As ANH-USA has reported, emerging research raises serious questions about short-chain PFAS: some can move readily through skin, reach blood and organs, cross the placenta, or break down into persistent metabolites. Their greater mobility can also make them difficult to contain and remove from water. The science is still developing, which is exactly why mass production should not race ahead of independent safety review.

Even if short-chain PFAS are safer, those benefits could very likely be far outweighed by the increased exposure we face as companies race to replace legacy chemicals with newer, less well-characterized alternatives.

Why a Class-Wide Ban Is the Only Rational Course

PFAS are a large and chemically diverse family, and individual compounds do not all have identical toxicity or behavior. But scientists have argued that their shared persistence, the hazards documented for studied members, and the sheer impracticality of evaluating thousands of chemicals one by one justify managing PFAS as a class. A class approach also helps prevent manufacturers from swapping a restricted compound for a close cousin that has less data but the same defining persistence problem.

ANH-USA is calling for a federal ban on PFAS as a class for non-essential uses. Any temporary exception should be publicly justified, limited to a use that is genuinely critical, reviewed on a firm timetable, and conditioned on strict controls, full disclosure, and a funded substitution plan.

Manufacturers and major commercial users should also bear the costs of monitoring, cleanup, safe destruction, and health-protective research. Taxpayers and water customers should not bankroll pollution created for private profit.

Innovation Doesn’t Mean Permanent Pollution

Some companies are already showing that exit is possible. ChemSec identifies Archroma as a producer marketing PFAS-free alternatives, while BASF has said it will phase out most PFAS-containing products by 2028. Those moves undercut the claim that expanding PFAS production is the only path forward.

Tell Congress and the EPA to stop the chemical Whac-A-Mole. Ban non-essential PFAS uses as a class, protect strong drinking-water standards, require full public disclosure of production and releases, and make polluters pay to clean up the contamination they create.

Action Alert!

The post AI’s Dirty Secret: Data Centers Are Fueling a New Forever Chemicals Boom first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

EPA’s public comment period on glyphosate closes today. This is the final chance to demand that the agency consider independent science on cancer, reproductive, metabolic, and developmental risks before it updates its human health assessment. Action Alert!

THE TOLINE

• EPA is seeking input on the scientific literature that will inform its updated glyphosate health assessment, following a court’s rejection of its earlier human-health review.
• Animal studies and human observational research raise concerns about cancer, reproductive health, and metabolic effects that warrant rigorous evaluation.
• Submit comments by September 24 urging EPA to consider relevant independent studies, explain exclusions, and transparently evaluate uncertainties and conflicts of interest.

How much evidence of potential harm should accumulate before regulators rethink their assurances about a widely used weedkiller?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking public input on its search of scientific literature about glyphosate, the herbicide associated with Monsanto-Bayer’s Roundup. The search will inform an updated human health risk assessment targeted for late 2026. EPA is asking the public to identify relevant peer-reviewed studies missing from its evidence list. We must weight in: an assessment cannot adequately protect the public if important evidence never makes it into the analysis.

EPA’s Earlier Assessment Failed in Court

As ANH previously reported, farmworker and environmental advocates successfully challenged EPA’s handling of glyphosate. In June 2022, the Ninth Circuit vacated the human-health portion of EPA’s 2020 interim review decision and ordered further analysis and explanation. The court also found that EPA violated the Endangered Species Act.

The ruling established that EPA’s human-health reasoning was seriously flawed.

It’s important to note that this isn’t out of character for this agency. EPA’s pesticide oversight has a deeply troubled record (see, for example, here, here, here, here, and here.)

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

While EPA claims to be impartially assessing the science, the track record is one where top officials put their thumbs on the scale to favor industry.

Cancer Concerns Have Not Gone Away

In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Its assessment cited limited evidence in humans, sufficient evidence in experimental animals, and strong evidence of DNA-damaging effects.

A 2025 study led by the Ramazzini Institute adds important evidence. Researchers exposed rats to glyphosate or two commercial glyphosate-based herbicides beginning before birth and continuing for two years. They reported increased tumor incidence or dose-related trends at multiple sites, including leukemia. The lowest tested dose corresponded to the EU’s acceptable daily intake.

A 2019 meta-analysis combining six epidemiological studies estimated a 41 percent higher relative risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma among people in the highest glyphosate-based-herbicide exposure groups.

The Questions Extend Beyond Cancer

ANH has also highlighted research following children from farmworker families into young adulthood. The 2023 CHAMACOS study linked exposure measures involving glyphosate and its breakdown product AMPA with indicators of liver inflammation and metabolic syndrome at age 18.

A 2025 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found reductions in average birthweight and gestational length in regions with higher glyphosate exposure. A 2024 study of 128 men attending a French infertility clinic detected glyphosate in seminal plasma and found that its concentration was approximately four times higher than in blood plasma. Men with detectable glyphosate also had higher measures of oxidative stress, including a marker of oxidative DNA damage.

Our own ground-breaking testing of common breakfast items in 2016 set off a cascade of similar testing that has shown how extensively our food is contaminated with glyphosate. These include many foods that are marketed towards children.

For ANH, preventing chronic disease means examining chemical exposures alongside nutrition and lifestyle. Families should not have to shoulder the entire burden of navigating unresolved pesticide risks.

What EPA Needs to Hear

EPA should comprehensively evaluate independent research on cancer and noncancer outcomes and address vulnerable stages of development. It should explain study exclusions, evaluate funding and conflicts of interest consistently, and make clear how uncertainty affects its conclusions.

Action Alert! Leave a comment on the EPA official docket to include relevant studies on the dangers of glyphosate to human health.

The post Last Chance Today: Tell EPA to Count the Full Glyphosate Evidence first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.