The Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA), in a lawsuit, alleges the Food and Drug administration is censoring important consumer health information after the agency rejected ANH’s request to allow dietary supplement labels to include science-based health claims drawn from federal scientists’ own research. Add your voice to the conversation and tell FDA to stand by its own data.
This current lawsuit is the second ANH-USA has brought against the FDA. The first lawsuit, filed in January 2026, challenged a specific petition denial by the FDA.
ANH initially asked FDA to permit 100+ nutrient–disease statements drawn directly from government publications and public-facing materials produced by scientists at multiple federal health agencies. According to ANH, FDA’s denial bars those statements from being shared with consumers at the point of sale on supplement labels.
The court dismissed the earlier case for lack of standing. ANH refiled its claims in April, broadening the challenge, this time against FDA’s entire regulatory stance on disease-risk claims for supplements.
Broader regulatory challenge
The April suit contested the FDA’s longstanding position that the authoritative-statement pathway does not apply to supplements; only food. ANH-USA argued the FDA’s position was not grounded in statute and thus restricted supplement manufacturers’ ability to use truthful, science-based claims on labels.
ANH called the FDA’s rejection of its petition, “Unconstitutional censorship of crucial health information.”
“FDA’s decision to censor at grocery and online stores 116 statements made by the federal government’s own scientists directly violates the First Amendment under the landmark precedent of Pearson v. Shalala,” said Jonathan Emord, General Counsel to ANH-USA. This, Emord said, is an, “Appalling departure from the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda, making a mockery of the promise of transparency.”
Government Science ‘You Can Trust’ — But Not Share
In its denial letter, FDA, according to ANH-USA, admits that its enabling statute does not define “authoritative.” Yet, the agency, ANH-USA says, argues that the statements of government scientists cited by ANH are not “authoritative” under the statutory framework established by Congress in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act. The agency defends an extraordinarily narrow definition of “authoritative,” asserting that consumer-facing educational materials — even when described by the government itself as reliable and science-based — do not qualify.
“FDA’s promise to be transparent is not reflected in this current position. It’s unclear how the agency can deny the public critical information that would allow citizens to make informed decisions about managing their health. This shortsighted move by FDA impedes health freedom and must be addressed. Citizens for Health supports ANH-USA’s efforts to reclaim health freedom for Americans,” said Betsy Lehrfeld, President, Citizens For Health (CFH).
FDA’s position stands in stark contrast to how those same agencies describe their own work.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS), for example, prominently labels its materials as “Information You Can Trust,” stating that it provides “reliable, science-based information about dietary supplements” for the public. Similarly, The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) characterizes its website content as “science-based health information” disseminated as part of its public health mission.
Yet FDA now claims that NIH statements — authored by federal scientists, grounded in peer-reviewed research, and distributed by government agencies — may not lawfully be given to consumers at the point of sale, in grocery stores and online.
Constitutional Failure
According to ANH, the FDA has no First Amendment power to prohibit those statements from reaching the public at the point of sale. Under the D.C. Circuit’s landmark Pearson v. Shalala, the agency may not suppress truthful, non-misleading health claims unless it can prove, with affirmative evidence, that the claims are false, according to Emord, who argued the Pearson case.
Stop FDA’s censorship of nutrient benefits by sending an online petition to your elected officials!
(Photo by Elsa Olofsson on Unsplash)
