An e-cigarette manufacturer follows an arduous set of standards to get its market applications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The company completes the process as outlined, but the FDA still denies its applications. Why? The FDA changed the rules on a dime after the fact, without public input, without following the rulemaking process, and without fair notice. The agency’s ad hoc determination in an adjudication reset the standards for approving marketing applications, and it didn’t matter that companies had already followed the rules of the previous system. This is a real example of regulation by adjudication, the topic of a new research brief published by Pacific Legal Foundation. It’s a practice that mixes otherwise separate and distinct mechanisms—rulemaking and adjudication—to allow agencies to create new rules when they resolve individual cases and disputes. Like courts, agencies often adjudicate cases and set binding policy as a result of their decisions. This may seem like an efficient way for an agency to operate, but it’s problematic for several reasons. Rulemaking and adjudication each have very different purposes. Rulemaking is general and prospective; it applies to everyone and to future conduct. Adjudication, however, is particular and retrospective; it applies to the parties in a case and to past conduct. Regulation by adjudication, then, like in the example above with the FDA, allows an agency to have everything at once. With an ad hoc adjudicative decision, the agency gets to bind both the parties to the particular case at hand as well as outside parties. And more than that, the rulings apply to future conduct as well as retroactively to conduct that has already happened. This practice flies in the face of traditional rule-of-law principles. It’s important to state the obvious: Agencies are not courts. Whereas the Supreme Court can bind lower courts and other parties in future, similar cases with its rulings, federal agencies don’t have that same ability because they don’t have judicial power under the Constitution. Regulation by adjudication, as a commingling of legislative and judicial power under the guise of executive power, represents a major separation-of-powers problem. Agencies are executive bodies that create rules to enforce federal law. Those rules, importantly, shouldn’t be retroactive. The Constitution explicitly prohibits ex post facto laws—laws that make certain activities illegal after the fact. It comes down to fairness and predictability. How is anyone supposed to obey laws and rules if we don’t have fair notice of what the law is, we can’t predict what it will be, and we don’t know if it’ll apply to the activities we’re engaging in right now? This method of regulation gives agencies extraordinary discretion in wielding their vast powers after the fact. One agency, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), conducts its work mainly through regulation by adjudication. The agency’s website explicitly states, “The Board sets policy for the Agency primarily through adjudication.” And the numbers don’t lie. The NLRB published 27 rules in the Federal Register through notice and comment from 2015 through 2024. During that time, the board issued upwards of 2,000 decisions in cases concerning unfair labor practices. The vast majority of the NLRB’s regulatory activity is adjudicative. Many of these decisions become binding agency policy in the same way that notice-and-comment rules in the Federal Register are binding agency policy. For example, in 2015, the NLRB in an adjudication changed its rule for determining whether two or more entities are joint employers of one workforce. Before the ad hoc ruling, the NLRB had one rule for determining joint employers; after the ruling, and without any public input, the agency had a new rule for making that determination. The board created this new joint-employer rule and redefined the National Labor Relations Act’s definition of “employer” through an adjudication, as opposed to going through the traditional rulemaking process. That decision applies across the U.S. economy to all relevant businesses and labor agreements. In 2017, the board overruled its 2015 decision in another case and reinstated the prior policy. Finally, in 2023, the NLRB promulgated a rule through notice and comment establishing a standard for determining joint-employer status. This is truly the exception that proves the rule—only after several back-and-forth changes in agency policy did the NLRB finally go through the rulemaking process and consider public input for what was always a generally applicable rule. It’s a testament to how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution that federal agencies behave like quasi-courts in their normal day-to-day work. But it should be no less a major rule-of-law and separation-of-powers concern when agencies use disputes between two parties over past conduct to effectively create new regulations governing parties beyond the immediate case and conduct that has yet to occur. This article originally appeared in Notice & Comment on January 28, 2026. The post Notice & Comment: Regulation by Adjudication Gives Agencies Maximum Flexibility in Wielding Their Powers appeared first on Pacific Legal Foundation.

Outdated science, captured regulators, and congressional overreach have left Americans increasingly exposed to harmful wireless radiation. Action Alert! THE TOPLINE US wireless radiation limits are stuck in 1996 and ignore decades of science showing harmful non-thermal biological effects at levels far below current “safety” standards. The FCC—an engineering and licensing agency with no health expertise—controls radiation policy and shows clear signs of regulatory capture by the wireless industry. Congress is worsening the problem through bills like H.R. 2289, which would fast-track wireless infrastructure while stripping communities of health, environmental, and zoning protections. Re-calibrating safety thresholds is now critical as an AI-driven world moves rapidly towards greater reliance on wireless communication systems which dramatically increases total exposure to new-to-nature electromagnetic fields (EMFs). A newly published paper on US law and policy governing wireless technology reads like a case study in regulatory failure. For longtime ANH-USA readers, much of this story will sound familiar—we’ve been sounding the alarm on wireless radiation for years. But with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. now leading the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), there is a rare opportunity to bring these long-ignored issues back into the spotlight and demand change. Commenting on this issue, ANH General Counsel Jonathan Emord, who previously worked in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), said, “There are many technical means by which EMF radiation can be blocked to protect life. Thus far industry interests have triumphed over a fair scientific appraisal of the risks and measures to reduce those risks.” Outdated Standards That Ignore Modern Science 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. Further, a recent scientific review contends that increasing levels of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation is “leading to an ecological crisis” by harming insect pollinators. Even the federal government’s own research contradicts the FCC’s position. In 2018, the National Toxicology Program (NTP)—one of the most rigorous animal studies ever conducted on wireless radiation—found “clear evidence” that RFR exposure can cause cancer. Yet the FDA and FCC dismissed the findings outright, choosing to protect outdated policy rather than public health. Yes, just like the FDA, the FCC is also captured by big industry. This is a critical moment for the FCC, working together with HHS and EPA, to re‑appraise EMF safety standards because our exposure profile is changing faster than the science‑policy framework. Existing limits are still largely anchored in preventing short‑term tissue heating, yet a growing body of research and ongoing WHO‑commissioned reviews are probing possible non‑thermal biological effects at real‑world exposure levels. At the same time, rapid expansion of AI‑controlled, wireless infrastructure—5G/6G, dense small‑cell networks, Wi‑Fi offload, wearables, and the Internet of Things—means more sources, closer to bodies, operating for longer durations and in new frequency bands. This convergence of escalating, ubiquitous exposure with unresolved questions about non‑thermal mechanisms makes coordinated, cross‑agency review essential to ensure that standards remain health‑protective, credible, and adaptive to the emerging AI‑driven, hyper‑connected environment. The FCC Is the Wrong Agency for the Job One of the most troubling revelations in the new paper is just how poorly equipped the FCC is to regulate wireless radiation in the first place. The FCC is an engineering and licensing agency. By its own admission, it is not a health or safety agency and has no biological or medical expertise. It employs no in-house doctors, biophysicists, radiation biologists, toxicologists, or environmental health scientists. Yet this is the agency that has authority over wireless radiation safety standards. At the same time, agencies that do have health expertise—such as the Environmental Protection Agency—were effectively pushed out of wireless radiation research and defunded. The result is a regulatory vacuum where the public’s health has no meaningful advocate. That’s why we’re proposing (above) that at the very least the FCC re-appraise thresholds in collaboration with HSS (NIH) and EPA. Ignoring the Courts—And the Law In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delivered a landmark ruling in Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC. The court found that the FCC’s decision to stick with its 1996 exposure limits was “arbitrary and capricious.” The court ordered the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for retaining its 1996 limits for human exposure to radiofrequency. As of 2025, the FCC still has not complied. Regulatory capture and industry influence Why the inaction? The paper documents extensive regulatory capture at the FCC. There is a revolving door between FCC leadership and the wireless industry, particularly industry lobbying groups like the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA). Former FCC officials routinely move into industry roles—and vice versa—creating a system where industry interests dominate policy decisions. When regulators depend on the industries they regulate for future employment, the public’s health inevitably takes a back seat. Congress Is Making the Problem Worse Rather than fixing these failures, Congress is currently moving in the wrong direction. ANH-USA is opposing H.R. 2289, a dangerous bill that would dramatically expand wireless infrastructure while stripping communities of their rights. If passed, H.R. 2289 would: Force near-automatic approval of wireless antennas, including near homes and schools Override local authority and zoning protections Exempt many projects from environmental, tribal, and historic-preservation review Impose short deadlines that prevent meaningful public input Communities would be left powerless to raise health, safety, or environmental concerns—even as wireless exposure increases. A Moment for Accountability With new leadership at HHS, there is a chance—perhaps a fleeting one—to rethink how the US approaches wireless radiation. That means modernizing exposure standards, restoring independent health research, enforcing court rulings, and putting public health ahead of industry profits. Wireless technology isn’t going away. But pretending it poses no biological risk is neither scientific nor responsible. ANH-USA will continue to fight for transparency, accountability, and policies that protect people—not corporations. Action Alert! The post Wireless Radiation: How US Policy Fails to Protect the Public’s Health first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

As the FDA tightens its grip on peptides, a murky and inconsistent regulatory framework that’s not fit-for-purpose is putting patient access at risk. Action Alert! THE TOPLINE Under current US law, most peptide bioregulators are neither lawful drugs, dietary supplements, or cosmetics; they are treated by the FDA as illegal drugs. FDA enforcement has focused increasingly on compounded peptides, using a spurious safety rationale that threatens patient access to therapies many rely on for healing or immune support. Despite public statements suggesting a more open, science-based approach under new HHS leadership, recent FDA actions show continued hostility toward compounding, supplements, and patient choice. Peptide bioregulators are very short chains of amino acids—the same building blocks that make proteins—that are linked by peptide bonds that act as precision signals in the body. They help cells in specific tissues ‘know what to do and when to do it,’ supporting repair, regeneration, and healthy function in organs such as the brain, heart, immune system and endocrine glands. They’ve become one of the fastest‑growing categories in the wellness and longevity space. From BPC‑157 and epitalon to thymosin alpha‑1 (Ta1) and kisspeptin, these products show promise for a wide range of uses including tissue repair, immune modulation, and healthy aging. Yet the marketplace for peptides can be difficult to navigate. Many that were available as injectables and delivered by integrative physicians are becoming harder to obtain through licensed compounding pharmacies, while remaining widely available online, often for oral delivery as supplements, sometimes with questionable quality and likely effectiveness. That trend isn’t a coincidence. It’s the result of a confused and increasingly aggressive FDA enforcement strategy inspired by growing interest in peptides by the biotech and pharmaceutical industries. It’s having the effect of shrinking safe, legitimate access and pushing patients toward a questionable grey market, some claiming to be for research use only (RUA) when being marketed directly to consumers. We think the FDA’s endgame—or at least that of its paymasters in Big Pharma—is to pave the way to turn these products into monopoly drugs. HHS Secretary RFK Jr. has signaled a desire to reverse FDA suppression of peptides and to open markets to these and other experimental treatments. A tweet from RFK Jr. in 2024 stated: “FDA’s war on public health is about to end. This includes its aggressive suppression…peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies….” Even so, recent history has taught us not to take anything for granted. If we want access to healing peptides, we’re going to have to fight for it. Where Peptides Fit Under the Law Under US law, most peptide bioregulators are not lawful drugs or dietary supplements. If they have the effect of treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing disease, they fall under the definition of a drug under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) limits supplements to recognized dietary ingredients with a history of food use—criteria peptides like BPC-157, epitalon, Ta1, and kisspeptin do not meet. This is why they are treated differently from collagen peptides, which are derived from food and long consumed as part of the diet (e.g., bovine (typically hide and/or bone), marine (fish skin/scales), chicken (sternum/cartilage, often for type II/UC-II), eggshell membrane, and porcine). Repackaging peptides as creams, patches, or “cosmeceuticals” does not solve the problem. Cosmetics may alter appearance but cannot affect the body’s structure or function. Most peptides marketed for transdermal use are plainly intended to deliver systemic effects—modulating inflammation, immune signaling, tissue repair, or aging. That inferred intent places these products back into drug territory. Most peptides also are not biologics. FDA rules classify biologics as proteins larger than 40 amino acids; commonly used peptide bioregulators fall below that threshold and are regulated as drugs, while larger compounds like human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) are biologics and thus cannot be compounded by traditional pharmacies. Labels claiming “for research use only” or “not for human consumption” do not change this legal reality when products are clearly intended for human use. In practical terms, from FDA’s current perspective, an injectable peptide (that has not been through a new drug application process) is an illegal drug if it is not specifically approved for compounding, oral peptides sold as dietary supplements are likely considered adulterated supplements, and transdermal ‘cosmeceutical’ peptides are also likely to be considered as unapproved drugs. Why Are These Products Still Widely Available? If these products occupy a grey area (at best) or are in fact illegal, why are they so easy to find online, including on major platforms like Amazon? We explained this dynamic in our coverage of homeopathy after the FDA declared that, technically speaking, all homeopathic products are illegal, yet consumers were still able to purchase a substantial diversity of homeopathic medicines. In the world of the FDA, a product being marketed illegally is a regulatory distinction and separate from the question of whether consumers can still purchase the product. Just because certain products may be marketed illegally doesn’t mean the FDA will take enforcement action. Note, though, that the agency has sent warning letters to peptide sellers. What this schism between legal interpretation by FDA and its sporadic enforcement does, however, is create a chilling effect on the whole natural peptides sector. As a business proprietor, would you want to invest heavily into a sector that the national regulator—in this case FDA—had clearly indicated was illegal? Allowing the continued sale of adulterated or misbranded products could be intentional. Recall that, after DSHEA became law in 1994, then-FDA Commissioner David Kessler reportedly directed the agency not to enforce it. Former FDA officials later admitted this was a deliberate strategy to allow abuses in the supplement market to escalate, with the aim of undermining the law itself.A similar dynamic may now be playing out with peptides. By largely tolerating poorly regulated online sales, the FDA is effectively setting the stage for bad outcomes that can then be cited as justification for further crackdowns. Secretary Kennedy? Please tell us we are wrong in drawing such a conclusion! The Escalating Threat to Compounded Peptides All of this underscores the importance of maintaining access to compounded peptides, delivered often as injectables via integrated physicians and nurse practitioners, which face a dire threat. ANH has previously warned about the FDA’s increasing hostility toward compounded peptides. FDA guidance has prohibited compounder from producing a wide range of peptides, including BPC‑157, epitalon, Ta1, and kisspeptin‑10. The FDA justifies these actions by citing alleged safety concerns, such as lack of data, potential impurities, or theoretical immunogenicity. These arguments are deeply flawed, as we’ve explained elsewhere. Although the FDA has not imposed a permanent ban, it is using this interim policy to squeeze these peptides out of compounding. Every signal from the agency suggests that this interim ban will eventually become permanent. Why is the FDA Doing This? The FDA says peptides pose “potential significant safety risks.” But does the agency really believe that peptides are dangerous? Consider this statement from the FDA’s own review of Ta1: “In most clinical studies, Ta1 has not been associated with significant adverse events attributable to Ta1 when administered in doses in the range of 1-16mg via the subcutaneous route of administration for up to 12 months.” The fact is that peptide bioregulators have a strong safety profile. If the issue isn’t safety, then what is it? We believe the FDA’s broader objective is to reserve these and other valuable natural peptides for pharmaceutical development—while eliminating competition from compounding pharmacies. A synthetic version of Ta1 is already approved in more than 30 countries for chronic hepatitis B and C and has orphan drug designation for cancer, with dozens of clinical trials exploring its broader therapeutic potential. BPC-157 has shown promise across a wide range of conditions, including central nervous system disorders. Epitalon, also referred to as Epithalamin, is an extract of the pineal gland. Animal and human research has shown that it can extend life and decrease mortality by, among other things, improving the immune system, stimulating antioxidant defenses, and producing anticarcinogenic effects. What the FDA wants is for peptides to become patented, monopoly drugs. Big Pharma makes a mint selling them, and the FDA collects its user fees. It’s a win-win, except if you’re a health consumer. Looking Ahead Consumer access to peptides remains tenuous. In a May 2025 podcast appearance, Kennedy said in relation to peptides, “Our position is that FDA has a job, which is to do the science on these kinds of issues and then tell the public what they’ve learned from the science.” Individuals should be able to make informed decisions on whether or not to take experimental treatments. While those are good signs, recent developments make us skeptical of a change of course. Under Kennedy’s leadership, the FDA has rejected opportunities offered by ANH to allow more supplement health claims and to ensure a legal pathway for homeopathic medicines to be marketed. What is clear is that the current approach has sent consumers to a grey market, which is neither tenable, not in their best interest. ANH will continue to monitor developments closely and advocate for a science‑based framework that protects both safety and access. Please take a minute or two to circulate this article widely to your networks and send the Action Alert below to your representative. Action Alert! The post Peptides: Why FDA’s Stance is Putting Patients at Risk first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

From Michelle Perro, MD Practical steps for lowering fluoride, aluminum, and glyphosate burdens safely. Readers: Your thoughtful questions after the last article were clear: Once we understand how these chemicals interact, what can we do about it? Thank you for reaching out with your emails. I wrote this response for you. The answer lies not in aggressive “detox” programs, but in restoring the inner chemistry that lets the body cleanse itself. Think of it not as flushing poisons, but as re‑establishing the biochemical terrain. Read the rest on Dr. Perro’s Substack.The post Part 2: The Hidden Chemical Partnership first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has committed to a five-year, $10 million research effort in East Palestine, Ohio, three years after the Norfolk Southern train derailment. Researchers will engage with the community, lead studies, and help residents with federally supported health research, the agency explained. On February 3, 2023, a Norfolk Southern freight train carrying toxic materials derailed. Some of the hazardous substances exposed to the atmosphere included vinyl chloride, butyl acrylate, ethylene glycol, and benzene residue. Residents reported headaches, respiratory issues, and skin and eye irritation. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya said the program is “designed to bring rigorous, independent science directly to the community.” “By establishing a local presence, we can better engage residents, support enrollment in studies, and ensure the research reflects the real experiences and concerns of the people affected,” he said. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. similarly said that the research hub “offers the people of East Palestine a pathway to clear answers about their health they deserve. Everyone affected by this environmental disaster deserves access to independent, gold-standard science that puts their well-being first.” In June, Vice President JD Vance announced the development of the program, stating that its launch marks a “very big day not just for the people of East Palestine, but for anybody who wants to understand the connection between the chemicals that we use every day and the effects that it has on people’s health.” A study conducted in the aftermath of the derailment found that toxic chemicals contaminated 16 states. “Our measurements revealed a large areal impact from the Midwest through the Northeast and likely Canada, and perhaps as far south as North Carolina (portions of 16 states, 1.4 million km2),” the study’s abstract read. “Observations showed the expected high chloride concentrations, but also unexpectedly high pH (basic) and exceptionally elevated levels of base cations exceeding 99th percentiles versus the historic record,” it explained. “These results were consistent with the meteorological conditions and atmospheric trajectories, and were not due to highly-concentrated low volume precipitation samples or wildfires.” The post NIH Steps in Three Years After Train Crash appeared first on American Faith.

DANCING WITH THE STARS celeb Derek Hough didn’t think he’d wait this long to have kids, but he loves every minute of fatherhood.

The suburbs are anything but bland in the new Peacock series "The 'Burbs," where strange things are going on. Like how jokes mix with the dread.

Actor Michael Keaton is set to be honored Friday as the 2026 Man of the Year by Harvard University's Hasty Pudding Theatricals.

Noah Winter brags he's been to way more Super Bowls than Tom Brady.