https://anh-usa.org/fda-lowers-the-bar-for-drugs-while-raising-it-for-natural-health/

FDA Lowers the Bar for Drugs—While Raising It for Natural Health

FDA Lowers the Bar for Drugs—While Raising It for Natural Health

THE TOPLINE

  • The FDA is moving to approve many new drugs based on just one clinical trial, lowering the evidentiary bar for pharmaceuticals in the name of speeding patient access.
  • At the same time, federal regulators are pressuring supplement companies to support health claims with expensive randomized controlled trials—sometimes even two—creating a far higher standard for natural products than for drugs.
  • Because nutrients and botanicals generally cannot be patented, requiring pharmaceutical-style trials effectively suppresses communication about natural health options and limits consumers’ access to information about their potential benefits.

In a move announced in the New England Journal of Medicine, the FDA says it will drop its long-standing expectation that new drugs be supported by two clinical trials, shifting instead to a “default” of just one trial for many new medications. FDA leadership says the change will cut red tape and accelerate patient access to new drugs.

For advocates of natural approaches to health and healing, this raises an obvious contradiction: while the FDA relaxes standards for drug—new to nature molecules that come with dangerous side effects—federal agencies are simultaneously tightening the screws on the natural health sector, products with long histories of safe use. It is regulatory capture—and crony capitalism—at its peak.

Drugs Get Flexibility—Supplements Get Censorship

In 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), working closely with the FDA, sent hundreds of warning letters to supplement and natural product companies explaining that health claims must be backed by randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—the same expensive standard used for pharmaceuticals.

In some cases, regulators have even suggested two RCTs may be required to substantiate health benefits in advertising.

That’s right: Drugs that can cause serious side effects—even death—may soon be approved with a single clinical trial. Natural products with decades or even centuries of safe use are being forced to meet an even higher bar just to discuss their benefits. It is an outrageous double standard.

A “Backdoor Ban” on Natural Health Information

Clinical trials are incredibly expensive, often costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

Drug companies can afford them because their products are patent-protected monopolies that can be sold for enormous profits. Nutrients and botanical products are different. They generally can’t be patented, meaning the costs of large-scale trials cannot be recouped.

Regulators know this, which means demanding pharmaceutical-style trials for supplement claims functions as a de facto ban on most health claims about natural products. And when companies can’t communicate the science behind their products, consumers are left in the dark about options that could support their health.

A Pattern of Suppression

The government’s crackdown on truthful health speech is part of a long-standing campaign to steer consumers away from natural options in favor of pharmaceutical drugs:

  • Cherry and walnut growers were threatened by the FDA for linking to peer-reviewed studies on their websites.
  • Doctors were silenced during COVID for recommending vitamin D and zinc.
  • Xlear, a nasal spray company, was dragged into litigation for sharing results of over a dozen studies on its product’s potential benefits—litigation the DOJ finally dropped with prejudice in March 2025.

And the problem goes beyond our borders. US regulators are pushing to “harmonize” with the European Union’s oppressive model, where nearly all botanical claims have been banned and only a few vitamin/mineral claims are allowed. We cannot let that happen here.

The Fight for Scientific Integrity

That’s why the Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) has filed a petition challenging the FTC’s censorship regime and demanding a return to a “totality of the evidence” standard—one that considers the full body of scientific research, not just expensive clinical trials.

Science doesn’t begin and end with randomized trials.

Epidemiological studies, mechanistic research, observational data, and centuries of real-world use all contribute to scientific understanding—especially when it comes to nutrients and foods.

Consumers deserve access to all the evidence, not just the evidence that benefits pharmaceutical companies.

Stand with ANH in the fight for free speech and health autonomy by donating to our legal war chest!

For more: