When a Nebraska agency tried to force every disability care provider in the state to use a single, costly training program, a company called Integrated Life Choices refused to let it go unchallenged. On Wednesday, their principled stand won validation from the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska, which denied the State’s motion to dismiss—handing Integrated Life a promising early victory in its fight against agency overreach. Developing Core Supports For nearly two decades, Integrated Life Choices has provided essential services to adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities across Nebraska. The company operates group homes with round-the-clock staff, offers support for clients living independently, and helps people with disabilities build the skills they need to find employment in their communities. Because every client has unique needs, Integrated Life saw an opportunity in 2021 to build something better than the off-the-shelf training programs available at the time—many of which use identical protocols for children and adults, failing to recognize the different support needs among the broad population of adults seeking care. The result of Integrated Life’s hard work was Core Supports, a custom Emergency Safety Intervention (ESI) curriculum designed specifically for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The program drew on best practices from across the country and was tailored to the population Integrated Life actually serves. Nebraska approved Core Supports, and the results spoke for themselves. Safety incidents dropped, workers’ compensation claims fell, and staff were better equipped to handle behavioral crises while prioritizing client dignity. The State steps in In February 2024, Nebraska’s Department of Health and Human Services issued Provider Bulletin 24-01, ordering every provider in the state to abandon programs like Core Supports and adopt a single for-profit system instead. The mandated program was broad, designed for both adults and children, and did not account for the distinct needs of a diverse population. It lumped all clients with intellectual or developmental disabilities into one category and overlooked the qualifications of actual care providers—Integrated Life among them—to know just what kind of training their staff required. The mandate even reversed course on its own policy, which, up until then, had recognized that different providers may require different ESI approaches to best serve their clients and asked providers to submit their training programs for individualized review. The program’s shortcomings were bad enough. But to add insult to injury, the DHHS rule also forced providers to pay for it—and it wasn’t cheap. “We have to bring all of our trainers into Lincoln or Omaha in order to get trained,” COO Justin Solomon explained. “The total annual reoccurring costs are somewhere in the neighborhood of $150,000; the upfront costs to get everyone trained are somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000.” Compliance at the expense of care The new system came with requirements that didn’t reflect the realities of working with adults with developmental disabilities. For example, it required staff to say “pardon my touch” before physically intervening during a crisis—a standard that sounds reasonable on paper but ignores the fast-moving, unpredictable situations staff actually face. Layer enough of those kinds of rigid, ill-fitting rules onto providers, and the result isn’t better care. “If you keep adding regulation on top of layers of regulation, you eventually get to the point where people are just babysitting because there’s too much liability to do anything else. And I refuse to be in an industry that just babysits adults,” Justin said. Taking the fight to court In August 2025, Integrated Life teamed up with Pacific Legal Foundation to challenge Provider Bulletin 24-01 in court. The lawsuit argued that DHHS bypassed the rulemaking procedures required under Nebraska’s Administrative Procedure Act, violated the separation of powers by imposing a binding mandate without legislative authority, and denied providers due process. And on March 3, 2026, a state court sided with Integrated Life. The court denied the State’s motion to dismiss the case, clearing the way for the lawsuit to move forward. In its Wednesday ruling, the court held that Integrated Life’s arguments overcame the State’s motion, “sufficiently alleg[ing] that Director [Tony] Green acted beyond his lawful authority by approving and enforcing an invalid rule.” The mandated system may have made the State’s paperwork easier, but it came at the expense of the people it claimed to protect. With this ruling, Integrated Life has won a meaningful victory in its ongoing battle to ensure that the individuals in its care will not be shortchanged by such an overreach. The post Nebraska court greenlights challenge to one-size-fits-all disability care mandate appeared first on Pacific Legal Foundation.

A new bill introduced in Congress could mark an important step toward restoring rational, science-based oversight of dietary supplements while protecting consumer access nationwide. Action Alert! THE TOPLINE Supplements are comprehensively regulated by the FDA under federal law and have an excellent safety record. New laws targeting weight-loss and muscle-building supplements—like the one enacted in New York—use vague definitions that could restrict access to basic nutrients and protein products. The Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act reaffirms federal authority and could help prevent state-level overreach such as California’s Proposition 65, which has led to widespread, often meaningless warning labels without proven public health benefit. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R‑NY) has introduced the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act, legislation aimed at “restoring common sense to dietary supplement regulation” by reaffirming the FDA’s authority over supplements at the federal level. The bill would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to clarify that no state may impose requirements on dietary supplements that differ from or add to federal law. We must support this bill. A Patchwork of State Laws Is Undermining Public Health Dietary supplements are already regulated under a comprehensive federal framework. The FDA has clear authority over supplement safety, labeling, manufacturing standards, and enforcement. This system works: as we’ve repeatedly shown, supplements are overwhelmingly safe. They are so safe that our colleagues at ANH International found UK residents were more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning than they were by consuming supplements. Yet in recent years, several states have attempted to impose their own rules—creating a confusing and burdensome patchwork of regulations that threatens access to safe, beneficial products. A growing number of state-based bills seek to restrict the sale of weight-loss and muscle‑building supplements to minors. Proponents argue that these products can contribute to eating disorders or “unhealthy weight control behaviors” among young people. While protecting children is a legitimate concern, these bills take a blunt and poorly targeted approach. Many rely on vague and overbroad definitions that could sweep in a wide range of supplements having nothing to do with weight loss—including protein powders, hormones, and even essential nutrients. In the midst of an ongoing public health crisis marked by poor diet and nutrient deficiencies, restricting access to basic nutritional support is the opposite of sound policy. Sales‑restriction bills have been introduced in multiple states. One such bill has already been signed into law in New York and remains in effect, even as it faces a legal challenge. If allowed to spread, these laws would fragment the national marketplace and leave consumers facing different rules depending on their ZIP code. Some proposals go even further by requiring covered supplements to be placed behind the counter or in locked cases. While ostensibly aimed at restricting youth access, these measures effectively limit access for everyone. Products hidden from view are less likely to be discovered by consumers who could benefit from them—or consumers may feel uncomfortable asking for them at all. The predictable result is reduced access to beneficial products for all, undermining—not protecting—public health. Federal Uniformity Is the Solution The Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act addresses this problem by reaffirming that dietary supplement regulation is a federal responsibility. States would be prohibited from creating requirements that conflict with or exceed those set forth in the FD&C Act. This reinforces the FDA’s existing authority while preventing states from enacting poorly drafted laws driven more by politics or ideology than by science. A Check on Abuses Like California’s Proposition 65 The bill could also help rein in abuses stemming from state‑level regimes such as California’s Proposition 65, an issue ANH has examined in depth in a 2015 white paper. Passed by voters in 1986 as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, Prop 65 was intended to protect consumers by requiring warnings on products that could expose them to chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm. Over time, however, the law has morphed into a profit‑driven enforcement scheme. Under Prop 65, chemicals with as little as a one‑in‑100,000 theoretical risk must trigger warnings. The state’s list of chemicals—maintained by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment—has ballooned to nearly 900 substances. To avoid costly litigation, businesses now place warning labels on almost everything, regardless of real‑world risk. So‑called “public interest” groups exploit this system by filing predatory lawsuits and extracting millions of dollars in settlements and attorney fees. Civil penalties that should benefit the public instead flow to private actors, while consumers are inundated with meaningless warnings they have learned to ignore. There is no statistical evidence that Prop 65 has produced measurable health benefits. By reaffirming federal primacy in supplement regulation, Congress can help prevent similar state‑level abuses from spreading nationwide. Protect Consumers by Preserving Access Allowing 50 different regulatory regimes to govern dietary supplements serves no one—not consumers, not small businesses, and not public health. Congress should act swiftly to restore clarity and consistency by advancing this bill. ANH strongly supports the Dietary Supplement Regulatory Uniformity Act and urges lawmakers to reject state‑level efforts that restrict access based on fear, vague definitions, and flawed assumptions. True consumer protection depends on science, transparency, and freedom of choice—not regulatory overreach. Action Alert! The post New Bill Would Restore Common Sense to Supplement Regulation 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.

Two-time Super Bowl champion Ray Lewis sounded the alarm on social media while speaking at the Florida State Capitol last week about...

Washington Examiner congressional reporter Lauren Green said that President Donald Trump can expect pushback from his voting base if he endorses Sen. John Cornyn’s (R-TX) reelection bid. Trump said he is going to endorse a candidate in the Republican Senate primary runoff between Cornyn and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton after the two candidates failed to garner 50% of the vote in Tuesday’s election. The president also said he will be asking the candidate he doesn’t endorse to “immediately” withdraw from the race. Green said Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico has “a three-month cushion” to campaign if Cornyn and Paxton engage in a runoff election, and the two Republicans will spend “a lot of money and a lot of time” campaigning against each other instead of against Talarico. At the moment, Green said Trump is likely to endorse Cornyn, citing how Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is “really” pushing the incumbent candidate. NEWSOM BOOK TOUR MISSTEPS EXPOSE NATIONAL CAMPAIGN ‘GROWING PAINS’ “So, however that shakes out, I think that there will be some blowback there. I think that if Trump asks Paxton to step down, I talked to a lot of strategists today, the MAGA base is going to be very up in arms that the president is backing an institutionalist,” Green said on LiveNOW from Fox on Wednesday. “But then I also think that there are a lot of supporters that support Senator Cornyn that are not willing to support Attorney General Paxton just because he is somewhat scandal-ridden.” Green said an issue Cornyn faces is an “area” of Trump voters who “don’t think” they resonate with Cornyn or how “institutional” he is. She said many view Cornyn as “a Bush Republican,” something contrary to Trump’s image as an “outsider” in politics.  Thune said it would be “enormously helpful” if Trump got involved in this race, and an early endorsement “saves everybody a lot of money.” Both Thune and Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-WY) have backed Cornyn over Paxton, with the latter citing that Democrats have “the energy and enthusiasm” since Democratic turnout was higher than Republican turnout in this primary race. DEMOCRATS CAUTIOUS AFTER TALARICO NOMINATION IN RED TEXAS: ‘EVERYTHING HAS TO GO RIGHT’ Besides the Senate primary race, on Tuesday, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) lost his reelection bid to challenger state Rep. Steve Toth. Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX) is also heading to a runoff against his opponent, Brandon Herrera, on May 26. Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) is seeking a fourth term as governor and won his primary race easily with over 80% of the vote. He will face Democratic state Rep. Gina Hinojosa in the general election.

Pop star Britney Spears was arrested in Southern California late Wednesday on an alleged driving under the influence charge, according to jail records.

The house used for "The Brady Bunch" is now one of the city's official cultural monuments following a Los Angeles City Council vote.