Masters of Health Magazine February 2026 | Page 38

The petition asked FDA to permit 116 nutrient–disease statements drawn directly from government publications and public-facing materials produced by scientists at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other federal health agencies. FDA’s denial bars those statements from being shared with consumers at the point of sale.

“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. “FDA’s act to deprive the public of nutrient-disease associations endorsed by its own scientists is an appalling departure from the Make America Health Again (MAHA) agenda, making a mockery of the promise of transparency.”

Government Science ‘You Can Trust’—But Not Share

In its denial letter, FDA admits that its enabling statute does not define “authoritative” but argues that the statements of government scientists cited by ANH-USA are not “authoritative” under the statutory framework established by Congress, the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA). 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.

That position stands in stark contrast to how those same agencies describe their own work.

The 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, CDC characterizes its website content as “science-based health information” disseminated as part of its public health mission.

Yet FDA now claims that these 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.

Commenting on the FDA response, Robert Verkerk, PhD, ANH-USA’s Executive & Scientific Director, said, “FDA rejected every claim we petitioned—signaling it has no appetite to confront Big Pharma or its own censorship regime.” Dr. Verkerk added, “Even when nutrient–disease statements come from government scientists and are supported by substantial evidence, FDA treats them as off-limits—because it still clings to what seems to be its primary mission: to protect Big Pharma from every source of competition.”

Constitutional Failure

The FDA’s position ignores First Amendment law. Under 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.

“FDA’s action to censor the claims plainly violates the D.C. Circuit’s landmark decision in Pearson v. Shalala,” said Emord, who argued the Pearson case. “Even if it has power to declare the claims unapproved by FDA, Pearson teaches that it must still allow them to reach the public at the point of sale unless it proves with affirmative evidence that the claims are false. FDA did not do that here. The claims here in issue are ones endorsed by the government’s own scientists in peer reviewed articles. It has no First Amendment power to prohibit those statements from reaching the public at the point of sale. We will sue to vindicate that First Amendment right for the benefit of the plaintiffs and all Americans.”

Missed MAHA Moment

From a policy standpoint, the decision squanders a clear opportunity for FDA to deliver on the President’s MAHA agenda. As chronic disease rates continue to climb, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged to disrupt entrenched interests and challenge Big Pharma’s grip on health policy.

Expanding access to science-based information about the health benefits of foods and supplements could have helped Americans use food to prevent chronic disease. The outright rejection of the ANH petition, however, suggests the rhetoric of transparency is lip service; little has changed.

“FDA’s denial doubles down on a drug-centric status quo,” stated Dr. Verkerk. He added, “This continues an information war that keeps truthful, life-saving, science-based nutrition information away from consumers at the point of sale—even when it originates from government scientists. US citizens not only need the freedom to choose, they also need the freedom to know.

FDA’s approach is in direct conflict with the premise of the MAHA Executive Order that states federal health agencies must enable transparency and evidence-based science, not suppress it.”