EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Your body is an ecosystem, not a collection of isolated symptoms. Functional medicine starts there, looking at you as a whole person and exploring how your biology, history, environment and daily life intersect. With curiosity driving the investigation and your own experience helping inform it, the goal reaches beyond managing what you’re experiencing to understanding, and potentially addressing, what’s driving them.

What if the doctor’s office you’ve been sitting in, the one where you wait 45 minutes to spend 15 with someone who orders the same tests and sends you home with the same prescription, isn’t the only option? What if there’s an entirely different approach to medicine, one that starts not with your symptoms but with you: your history, environment, biology and the sequence of events that brought you to this moment? That’s the premise of functional medicine. And for the growing number of Americans who’ve cycled through specialists, accumulated diagnoses and still don’t feel well, it can sound less like an alternative and more like a lifeline.

Conventional medicine can be remarkably effective at diagnosing disease, treating acute illness and controlling symptoms. But when you’re living with a chronic or complex condition, managing its effects doesn’t always answer the question of why it’s happening. A medication may ease your pain, lower a number or dampen a troublesome response, while the factors contributing to the problem remain less clear. Functional medicine takes the inquiry further, asking not only, “What might be driving this?” but also, “What might help address the underlying problem?” The goal isn’t simply to understand why you’re experiencing symptoms, but to use what you uncover to help restore healthier function and, when possible, resolve what’s contributing to them.

Seventy-six percent of American adults live with at least one chronic health condition. That number climbs to 95 percent after age 65. Read that again. Nearly every older adult is managing something ongoing, and most are navigating a healthcare system that often excels at acute treatment but can struggle with the complexity of long-term illness. Functional medicine was built to address precisely that gap in healthcare.

At its foundation, functional medicine seeks to find the root cause of illness within a biological framework, tracing how genetics, lifestyle, environment and personal history interact to shape your health over time. The study “Functional Medicine vs. Integrative Medicine: Key Differences Explained” describes how a practitioner may trace those connections:

“A functional medicine practitioner looks at your timeline—the sequence of events, exposures, and triggers that led to your current condition. They’re mapping cause and effect, not just matching symptoms to diagnosis codes.”

The model considers seven core biological systems and, crucially, how they influence each other: digestion and assimilation, immune function, energy production, detoxification and clearance, transport, hormonal and neurological communication, and structural integrity. When one system becomes disrupted, you may notice changes elsewhere that initially seem unrelated. This level of depth is both the appeal and the challenge. A skilled practitioner may help you uncover the root of something that’s gone unaddressed for years. The process can take time and require greater participation in your own care, but when straightforward answers have been elusive, looking more broadly may offer a path forward.

Consider what this looks like in practice. If you’re one of the 40 million Americans with type 2 diabetes, a conventional doctor and a functional medicine doctor might start in the same place—medical history, physical exam, lab work. But then the paths diverge. The functional medicine practitioner wants to know why your metabolic health deteriorated. They’ll spend time on your nutrition, sleep, stress levels and environment. Treatment might combine conventional care with targeted lifestyle changes—and it will almost certainly be tailored to you specifically, because there is no standard protocol. One practitioner might lean heavily on supplements; another on movement, nutrition or stress management. The point isn’t the intervention. It’s the investigation.

Who Practices Functional Medicine?

A wide range of providers can earn certification in functional medicine—naturopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists, nurses, even dentists. If you’re hoping for insurance coverage, finding a medical doctor (MD) or doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO) who has incorporated functional medicine into their practice may be your best bet. You can verify a valid medical license through your state’s licensing board, and the Institute for Functional Medicine (IFM) offers a practitioner search that lets you filter by location and provider type.

Training and credentialing have also become more formalized. Certification programs exist through institutions like the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine. The IFM, one of the most respected organizations in the field, launched the first certifying board for functional medicine in 2025. They offer two tracks: one for licensed physicians, one for nurses, chiropractors and other non-physician healthcare professionals.

Physicians arrive at functional medicine by different routes. They may incorporate its principles early in their careers or pursue it after years in traditional medical practice. The shift can reflect a growing curiosity about why some patients’ symptoms persist despite treatment, particularly when test results don’t fully explain how they feel or chronic conditions respond only so far to standard interventions. Rather than accepting those limits as the end of the inquiry, they begin asking different questions: What might be missing? What else could be influencing this person’s health? And what might change with more time to investigate?

That shift doesn’t require abandoning conventional medicine. A physician may continue drawing on years of medical training and clinical experience while adding a framework that places greater emphasis on interconnected systems, lifestyle, environment and individual history. Cleveland Clinic, for example, describes its functional medicine model as a patient-centered approach to chronic disease that works alongside, rather than replaces, conventional treatment.

If you’re considering functional medicine, a physician’s path into the field can tell you something about how they think. Someone who spent years in traditional practice before moving in this direction has firsthand experience with both models and may draw from each when evaluating your needs. Whether your physician came to functional medicine early or after decades in another system, their motivation matters. A commitment to pursuing unanswered questions, spending more time with complex cases and involving you more deeply in your care can shape not only how they practice medicine, but how you experience it as a patient.

If functional medicine interests you, the conversation can start with a doctor you already know. You might ask whether they incorporate its principles, how they respond to persistent symptoms or whether they’re open to looking more broadly at factors that may be influencing your health. If you’re meeting a new practitioner, you might ask what drew them to this field, how they work alongside conventional treatment and what you can expect when working with them. The answers can help you determine whether their philosophy, experience and expectations align with what you’re looking for.

The Evidence and the Obstacles

The research is still catching up, since functional medicine’s multifaceted nature makes it genuinely difficult to study as a single intervention. Still, some findings have been encouraging. A 2019 Cleveland Clinic study found that after 6 months, 31 percent of functional medicine patients experienced clinically meaningful improvements compared to 22 percent receiving traditional care. A separate study, “The Impact of Functional Medicine on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Inflammatory Arthritis: A Retrospective Study,” focused on patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis and found that those who added functional medicine to their standard rheumatologic treatment showed greater improvements in physical health and less pain after 12 weeks than those receiving conventional therapy alone.

Cost remains one of functional medicine’s biggest barriers. An initial visit can run $200 to $600 before you factor in lab work—and insurance companies have been slow to recognize it as anything other than “alternative” care, which means reimbursement is often limited or nonexistent. If cost is a deciding factor, flexible spending accounts (FSAs) and health savings accounts (HSAs), which allow you to set aside pre-tax money for qualified healthcare expenses, can help bridge the gap. It’s worth checking whether services qualify as eligible medical expenses and whether a letter of medical necessity from your doctor would strengthen your case.

If you live outside a major city, access is its own obstacle. The National Rural Health Association reports 263 specialized doctors per 100,000 people in urban areas—compared to just 30 in rural ones. Telehealth has helped, and an estimated 70 percent of functional medicine appointments can be handled virtually. But if your situation calls for physical examination, or you simply work better with an in-person connection, virtual care has its limits.

Your Role in the Process

Time can be one of functional medicine’s distinguishing features. Appointments typically run 45 to 60 minutes, with initial visits sometimes reaching 90, giving you and your practitioner more room to explore your health history, symptoms and lifestyle and consider how each may be influencing your health. If you’ve repeatedly felt rushed through medical appointments or left with questions unanswered, that additional time can create space for a very different kind of conversation.

At its core, this approach invites you to become an active participant in your own care. That might mean keeping a food diary, tracking your sleep, following a supplement schedule, completing additional lab work or making changes to your nutrition, movement and stress management. Rather than looking at individual test results in isolation, your practitioner may consider how they relate to one another, looking for patterns that offer a fuller picture of your health. Over time, these pieces can help both of you better understand how your body responds and refine the plan along the way. Rather than simply following a prescribed course of treatment, you become part of the process of uncovering what supports your health.

Functional medicine’s growth is part of a broader shift toward health practices that extend beyond conventional treatment. A 2022 poll of Americans aged 50 to 80 found that 66 percent had used some form of integrative medicine—massage, yoga, chiropractic care, meditation—and 91 percent found it beneficial. Yet only 18 percent discussed it with a healthcare provider. That disconnect suggests that what people are exploring for their health and what gets talked about in the exam room don’t always overlap. Bringing those conversations into the open could give both patients and practitioners a more complete picture of the care already taking place.

Demand isn’t entirely new. In 2018, the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine had a waiting list of more than 2,200 patients, while the Institute for Functional Medicine reported more than 1.6 million patient-initiated searches for functional medicine practitioners on its website that year. Interest among healthcare professionals has grown as well, with training and certification programs expanding alongside patient demand. Chronic diseases are the leading cause of death and disability in the United States and the primary driver of the nation’s $5.3 trillion annual healthcare bill. If functional medicine can help identify and address underlying contributors to chronic illness, the implications extend well beyond any individual patient.

If conventional medicine has left you feeling unheard, rushed or still searching for an explanation, functional medicine may be worth a serious look. Its promise lies in curiosity: the willingness to keep asking questions, connect seemingly unrelated pieces and look beyond what’s happening on the surface. Sometimes finding a different path forward begins with seeing the whole picture.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: An unoccupied mind is anything but empty. In the spaces between tasks, entertainment, and endless input, something less visible is unfolding: memories settle, ideas connect, and the impulse for something new begins to reveal itself. Learning to tolerate a little restlessness may offer more than a break. It may change what you notice, remember, create, and choose next.

For most of human history, boredom was simply part of being alive. You waited for water to boil. You watched rain gather on the window. You walked familiar paths without earbuds, stood in line without checking a screen, or sat quietly on a porch as daylight faded into evening. None of it was an intentional wellness practice. These rhythms were simply woven into daily life. Today, those moments have become surprisingly rare. The instant your attention begins to drift, a smartphone, podcast, streaming service, or endless scroll of headlines is ready to capture it. Without realizing it, you may have become remarkably efficient at filling the empty gaps in your day—often without stopping to ask whether those spaces serve a purpose.

It feels like progress. Why waste a perfectly good moment when you can answer an email, catch up on the news, or respond to a text? Yet over the past two decades, neuroscientists have begun asking a question that turns this assumption on its head. What if those seemingly unproductive intervals aren’t empty at all? What if they create the conditions your brain needs for the mental work that constant stimulation tends to crowd out? Rather than suggesting that boredom itself is beneficial, a growing body of research points toward something more nuanced: when your attention is no longer consumed by the outside world, your brain often shifts into a different mode of operation—one that may support memory, creativity, future planning and self-reflection.

The distinction matters because boredom is frequently misunderstood. Psychologists define boredom as an unpleasant emotional state that arises when you want to engage your attention but cannot find something sufficiently satisfying to hold it. In other words, boredom is a signal, not a destination. Left unchecked for long periods, it has been associated with depression, anxiety, impulsivity and reduced well-being. But the first few uncomfortable moments of boredom often lead somewhere else entirely. If you resist the impulse to immediately replace them with another source of stimulation, your mind frequently begins to wander—that shift from external attention to internal reflection is where boredom’s hidden value becomes visible.

Cognitive neuroscientist James Danckert, who has spent much of his career studying boredom, argues that it is often perceived as something to eliminate. Instead, he describes it as a motivational signal—one that tells you your current situation is no longer engaging your attention or serving your goals. In that sense, boredom isn’t necessarily the problem. It may be the brain’s way of encouraging you to seek something more meaningful.

That framing is useful, though it has limits. This doesn’t mean every quiet moment produces a brilliant idea or that boredom should be romanticized. Your mind can turn toward worry just as easily as insight, and not every wandering thought is helpful. What has gradually shifted is the understanding of what your brain is doing when it appears to be doing nothing. The more pressing question is whether a life filled with constant stimulation leaves enough room for this kind of internal processing to occur. As more of your idle moments disappear, your brain may have fewer opportunities to do some of its most important unseen thinking.

Your Brain Was Never Designed to Be Busy All the Time

One of the most remarkable discoveries in modern neuroscience is that the brain doesn’t become inactive simply because you stop paying attention to the outside world. In fact, certain regions become more active when you are not focused on an external task. Together, these interconnected areas are known as the default mode network (DMN), a term first introduced after scientists noticed that the brain displayed a consistent pattern of activity during quiet wakefulness rather than entering a true resting state. That finding challenged decades of assumptions about how the brain spends its downtime.

Today, the DMN is understood to participate in a remarkable range of internally directed activities. It helps retrieve autobiographical memories, imagine possible futures, evaluate social interactions, construct a sense of self, and integrate new experiences with older ones. None of those tasks are visible from the outside. You may simply appear to be staring out the window or absentmindedly walking through the neighborhood, while beneath the surface your brain is organizing information gathered throughout the day. Far from wasting time, it may be accomplishing things that cannot happen as efficiently while your attention is constantly pulled outward.

This helps explain why solutions often appear after you’ve stopped actively searching for them—the familiar “aha” moment that seems to arrive out of nowhere. You may have wrestled with a difficult problem that seemed impossible to solve, only to have the answer surface unexpectedly in the shower, while driving home from work, or halfway through pulling weeds in the garden. This phenomenon has been studied for more than a century. Researchers refer to it as incubation—a period away from conscious problem-solving that may allow unconscious processing to continue. Rather than abandoning the thought altogether, your brain continues exploring possible solutions behind the scenes.

Incubation can improve creative problem-solving under the right conditions. In one well-known experiment, participants first attempted a challenging creativity task before taking different types of breaks. Those who spent time performing a simple, undemanding activity that encouraged mind wandering generated significantly more creative solutions when they returned than participants who rested completely or continued concentrating on demanding tasks. Allowing the mind to wander appeared to facilitate the incubation process rather than interrupt it. A meta-analysis titled “Does Incubation Enhance Problem Solving?” found an overall benefit of incubation across studies, although scientists caution that it does not work equally well for every person or every type of problem.

The important point is not that your brain performs magic whenever you become bored. Rather, it appears to benefit from alternating between periods of focused attention and periods of gentle mental drift. When every pause is quickly filled with another task, conversation, or source of input, your brain may have fewer opportunities to reorganize what it has already learned before the next wave of information arrives.

A 2024 study from the University of Notre Dame, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, found that trying to power through boredom—suppressing it in order to stay on task—actually prolonged its effects. Participants who stifled their boredom experienced more mind-wandering and reduced productivity afterward. Following boring tasks with meaningful ones helped prevent those effects from spilling into subsequent work. The implication is counterintuitive: acknowledging boredom rather than fighting it may serve you better in the long run.

More Than a Break: Giving New Memories Time to Settle

That same pattern—engaging, then releasing—may also shape how well you hold on to what you’ve learned. If you’ve ever read a chapter of a book, attended a lecture, or finished an important meeting only to immediately turn your attention elsewhere, it may feel as though you’ve made efficient use of your time. Yet learning doesn’t necessarily end when you close the book or leave the classroom. When you encounter new information, your brain begins the complex process of memory consolidation—gradually stabilizing and integrating those experiences so they become part of long-term memory. Sleep is perhaps the best-known contributor to this process, but periods of restful wakefulness may also play an important role. Rather than requiring complete inactivity, these intervals simply reduce the stream of new information competing for your attention while recently acquired memories are still being organized.

Over the past decade, studies have repeatedly shown that people often remember information better after a brief period of simply doing nothing than after immediately switching to another mentally demanding activity. In one series of experiments, participants who rested quietly for several minutes after learning new material consistently demonstrated stronger recall than those who spent the same amount of time completing unrelated cognitive tasks. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis, “Effects of Wakeful Rest on Memory Consolidation,” found that periods of wakeful rest generally supported stronger memory across studies involving different age groups, types of learning and testing methods, although not every study found identical results.

If giving your brain time to settle after learning helps consolidate memory, what happens when those opportunities rarely occur? Your mind is constantly asked to process new material before it has fully organized what came before. No single interruption is likely to matter very much, but thousands accumulated over months and years may create an environment very different from the one in which human attention evolved. This doesn’t mean you should spend hours sitting silently after every learning experience. Even brief periods of reduced stimulation may be worthwhile. A leisurely walk, a few minutes being outside, or simply resting before moving on to something else may give your mind an opportunity to continue working in ways you cannot directly observe. Those pauses may not feel like much in the moment, but over time, they may gradually add up to sharper recall, clearer thinking and a mind that feels less perpetually behind.

When Boredom Makes You Want Something New

Boredom can spark a surprisingly strong desire for change. In a series of experiments, researchers Shane Bench and Heather Lench found that boredom can create what they call a “seeking state,” increasing the desire for novelty, or simply something different from what you’re experiencing now. Those who became more bored were more likely to choose something new, even when it was less pleasant than what they had been doing. In that sense, the discomfort of boredom may serve a purpose. It can nudge you away from an experience that is no longer engaging and toward something that might be.

That pull toward something different may also help explain why boredom can make rewards suddenly seem more appealing. In the study “Reward Sensitivity Following Boredom and Cognitive Effort: A High-Powered Neurophysiological Investigation,” 243 participants were assigned to boredom, cognitive effort or control conditions. Those in the boredom condition subsequently showed greater neural sensitivity to reward than participants in the control condition. The finding suggests that the urge to escape an unstimulating state can sometimes send you searching for a quick change in how you feel.

This creates an interesting paradox. Boredom may be signaling that something needs to change, but that doesn’t mean every impulse it generates needs to be satisfied immediately. If you automatically reach for entertainment, food, shopping, conversation or another source of stimulation whenever restlessness appears, you may never discover whether the urge would have passed on its own or led somewhere more meaningful. Sometimes the most useful response may be to remain with the discomfort for a little while and notice what you’re actually seeking: something new, connection, challenge, movement, pleasure, purpose, or simply relief from having nothing to do.

Perhaps that’s another thing boredom can unlock: an opportunity to distinguish between wanting something because you genuinely need it and wanting something simply because your mind is asking for a change. You don’t need to eliminate the desire for new experiences. It’s part of what propels you toward exploration and discovery. But allowing a little space between the urge and the response may reveal something worth knowing: whether you’re moving toward something you genuinely want, or simply away from how you feel right now.

Reclaiming the Spaces You’ve Lost

Perhaps the common thread is this: your brain appears to thrive on rhythm rather than constancy. Periods of focused attention are essential for learning, problem-solving and accomplishing meaningful work. But they seem to be most effective when balanced with stretches of time that allow recently acquired information to settle, experiences to be integrated and thoughts to unfold without immediate interruption. The goal isn’t to return to a less technological era, but to consider whether constant stimulation has gradually changed the way you relate to your own thoughts. Your brain evolved under very different conditions than the ones you inhabit today. Many of the cognitive processes that shape your attention, creativity, memory and self-reflection developed long before notifications, autoplay and endless scrolling competed for every spare opening.

Fortunately, the potential benefits don’t appear to require dramatic lifestyle changes. You don’t need to schedule hours of silence or retreat to a cabin in the woods. Instead, begin by noticing the moments you’ve learned to erase—the next time you’re waiting for someone to arrive, walking to your car, standing in line at the grocery store, or taking the dog around the block, consider resisting the urge to immediately fill the space. The irony is that the experiences most easily dismissed as unimportant may also be the ones that help restore balance to an overstimulated mind.

That possibility extends beyond cognition. In the study “Solitude as an Approach to Affective Self-Regulation,” researchers found that brief periods alone tended to reduce high-arousal emotional states, with participants becoming less activated after as little as 15 minutes of solitude. When that solitude was freely chosen, it was also associated with greater relaxation and reduced stress. That same principle applies to the empty gaps in your day. Give your attention a few minutes to roam before reaching for something else. You may feel restless at first. That’s perfectly normal. An unstimulated mind can take some getting used to.

As you become more comfortable with that stillness, you may begin noticing subtle changes. Perhaps a conversation from earlier in the day suddenly makes more sense. A solution to a lingering problem appears. A creative idea you’ve been chasing finally comes into focus. Or perhaps nothing dramatic happens at all, and you simply experience a few minutes without feeling compelled to consume something new.

This is also a good opportunity to think practically about what to do with unstructured time—for yourself and for the children in your life. For adults, the most effective approaches tend to be low-demand activities that don’t require sustained focus: a slow walk, light gardening, cooking a familiar meal, or simply sitting without an agenda. These aren’t productivity hacks. They’re permission to let your thoughts unfold without guilt. For children, the invitation looks different but serves a similar purpose. Rather than immediately solving boredom with a screen or structured activity, leaving space for a child to sit with the discomfort, even briefly, gives imagination room to activate. Drawing, building, pretend play, exploring outside, or simply staring into space are not signs of wasted time. They are often where a child’s most original thinking begins.

When Boredom Deserves Your Attention

Not all boredom looks the same. There is an important distinction between temporary situational boredom and boredom proneness—a more persistent tendency to experience life as unstimulating or emotionally flat. Chronic boredom has been associated with a wide range of psychological and behavioral challenges, including depression, anxiety, substance misuse, impulsivity, loneliness, diminished well-being and patterns of mindless or emotionally driven eating. That doesn’t necessarily mean boredom causes these conditions or behaviors. In many cases, the relationship appears to work in both directions.

If you’re experiencing melancholy, chronic stress, burnout or social isolation, you may feel bored because activities that once felt meaningful no longer do. Likewise, if you repeatedly struggle to engage with life, you may become more vulnerable to unhealthy coping strategies—whether that’s substance use, compulsive scrolling, overeating or other habits that temporarily relieve discomfort. The broader message is clear: persistent boredom should not be dismissed as a personality quirk or accepted as an inevitable part of life.

This helps explain why the conversation around boredom can become confusing. A child who sighs “I’m bored” on a rainy afternoon may simply need time for imagination to take over. If you feel bored every day despite having meaningful opportunities, close relationships or engaging work, you may be experiencing something very different. And if you’re depleted or overwhelmed, you may not need more downtime. You may need genuine rest, emotional support or changes in your environment before curiosity and creativity can begin to return.

A roaming mind doesn’t always lead somewhere useful. When your thoughts become stuck in repetitive loops of fear, regret or harsh self-criticism, the experience is known as rumination. That’s different from the more open-ended mental drift that may support reflection, creativity or future planning. Although both occur internally, they do not appear to produce the same outcomes. Perhaps the greatest shift isn’t behavioral but philosophical. In a culture that measures value by output, an unoccupied mind can feel like a failure. But some of the most essentially human things—curiosity, empathy, imagination, a sense of what actually matters to you—tend to emerge in stillness rather than in motion.

The next time boredom appears, rather than immediately trying to make it disappear, you might simply ask what it’s telling you. Do you need rest, connection or something that genuinely engages you? Is your mind asking for time to process what has already happened? Or are you simply experiencing the temporary discomfort of having nothing demanding your attention? You don’t have to turn boredom into another task to master. Sometimes noticing it, allowing it and becoming curious about what comes next may be enough.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Lyme disease has been recognized for decades, yet some of its most consequential questions remain unsettled. From diagnostic blind spots and persistent symptoms to co-infections, overlooked pathogens and provocative clues buried in its history, the disease continues to challenge easy explanations. As tick-borne illness spreads, understanding what remains unknown may be just as important as what science has already established.

On a warm day in 1970, a tiny eight-legged creature emerged from the leaf litter of a Wisconsin woodland. Drawn by the carbon dioxide drifting from a nearby mammal, it stretched its front legs into the air until they brushed against skin. Its unsuspecting host was a man. Blind but exquisitely adapted to find its next meal, the arthropod began its slow ascent, searching for a warm, sheltered patch of skin. There, using a mouthpart equipped with cutting blades and backward-facing barbs, it pierced the surface and anchored itself in place. As it fed, it released a cocktail of compounds that dulled pain, prevented clotting and suppressed the man’s local immune response. At the same time, microbial passengers slipped silently into the wound, entering the bloodstream unnoticed with little initial opposition.

Days later, an unusual expanding rash appeared around the bite: a red ring that would eventually become one of Lyme disease’s most recognizable warning signs. Physicians treated the man with intramuscular penicillin, and the rash disappeared within days. At the time, however, no one knew exactly what had caused it. It would take several more years—and an unusual cluster of arthritis cases among children and adults in Lyme, Connecticut—before researchers recognized they were dealing with a distinct tick-borne disease. The breakthrough came in 1981, when Swiss-American medical entomologist Willy Burgdorfer identified a slender, corkscrew-shaped bacterium in blacklegged ticks collected on Shelter Island, New York. The organism would eventually bear his name: Borrelia burgdorferi.

Today, Lyme disease is the most common vector-borne illness in North America—meaning it is transmitted through organisms such as ticks or mosquitoes. It is passed on by infected Ixodes ticks, a genus that includes several species of hard-bodied ticks. In the eastern United States, Lyme disease is spread primarily by the blacklegged tick (Ixodes scapularis), while the western blacklegged tick (Ixodes pacificus) transmits the disease along the Pacific Coast.

Over the past three decades, Lyme disease has expanded dramatically beyond its historical strongholds in New England and the Upper Midwest. Reported cases have more than tripled since the mid-1990s, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that roughly 450,000 Americans are diagnosed and treated each year. Some experts attribute the expansion to changing land use, suburban development, warming temperatures that lengthen the active season for ticks and growing deer populations. Although deer do not carry the Lyme bacterium in a way that infects ticks, they play an important role in the tick life cycle, helping populations thrive and spread into new areas.

The growing number of Lyme disease cases is concerning not only because the infection is becoming more common, but because it can be remarkably difficult to recognize. Even when you seek medical attention early, diagnosis is far from straightforward. No single laboratory test can conclusively verify or rule out Lyme disease, and the standard two-tier antibody test—an enzyme immunoassay (EIA), followed by an immunoblot (commonly called a Western blot)—relies on your body’s immune response rather than detecting the bacteria directly.

During the first few weeks of illness, before enough antibodies have developed, these tests can miss up to half of infections. They also cannot distinguish between an active infection and one that occurred months or even years earlier. As a result, healthcare providers are encouraged to consider a patient’s symptoms, history of tick exposure and physical findings—not laboratory results alone—when making a diagnosis. Some Lyme specialists also use additional laboratory methods that can help detect co-infections that standard testing may not capture, such as polymerase chain reaction, fluorescence in situ hybridization and T-cell assays.

When Lyme Becomes Complicated

Lyme disease generally progresses through three recognized stages: early localized, early disseminated and late disseminated disease, although the stages can overlap and not every patient experiences each one. Early infection often produces an expanding rash—sometimes the characteristic bull’s-eye pattern—along with fever, fatigue and muscle aches. Left untreated, the bacteria can spread through the bloodstream over the following weeks or months, affecting the nervous system, heart and joints. People vary in their response to infection, with environmental, genetic and biological factors playing a role. In some individuals, the immune system overreacts, which can drive systemic inflammation that damages tissues even after the bacteria have been cleared. In others, persistent infection can lead to neurological complications, arthritis and other inflammatory conditions.

The sooner treatment begins, the better the chances of a good outcome. Patients with suspected early Lyme disease—particularly those with the distinctive rash or symptoms combined with known tick exposure—are often started on antibiotics before laboratory results are available or antibodies have had time to develop. Standard treatment usually includes doxycycline, amoxicillin or cefuroxime. But Lyme disease does not always follow a straightforward course. Researchers continue to study how Borrelia burgdorferi interacts with the immune system and adapts to stressful conditions, which may explain why some infections are more difficult to treat than others.

When diagnosis is delayed, symptoms persist or co-infections are present, some patients turn to integrative care, which combines conventional treatment with complementary therapies and lifestyle changes. Depending on the practitioner, this may include botanical antimicrobials, nutritional support, sleep optimization and anti-inflammatory diets intended to promote overall health. Two commonly discussed approaches are the Cowden Protocol, which uses rotating herbal extracts such as Samento, Banderol and Cumanda, and the Klinghardt Protocol, which combines botanical preparations with supplements and other therapies aimed at addressing factors such as biofilms—communities of microorganisms that adhere to surfaces—detoxification and co-infections. Common components of the Klinghardt Protocol include cistus tea, andrographis, artemisia, propolis and chlorella.

When symptoms continue or recovery stalls, some integrative practitioners look beyond Lyme disease itself for other factors that may be contributing to your condition. Because ticks can transmit multiple pathogens, you may be evaluated for co-infections such as Babesia, Bartonella, Anaplasma, Ehrlichia and Rickettsia, which can produce overlapping symptoms and require different treatments. They may also consider factors such as mold exposure, mast cell activation, mitochondrial dysfunction, gastrointestinal health and nutritional deficiencies.

Mold exposure may also warrant consideration when symptoms persist. If you spend time in a water-damaged building, you can develop fatigue, brain fog, headaches, muscle and joint pain, dizziness and cognitive difficulties—many of which can resemble symptoms attributed to Lyme disease. Ongoing mold exposure may contribute to inflammation or otherwise delay recovery. When significant indoor mold or water damage is identified, addressing the source through appropriate inspection and remediation is an important first step. Improving ventilation and indoor air quality with HEPA filtration can further limit contact with mold, while other approaches may include binders such as activated charcoal, bentonite clay or chlorella, adequate hydration and nutrition, and strategies to address inflammation.

A Controversial Chapter

The possibility that something beyond Borrelia burgdorferi could contribute to persistent illness is not new. In fact, it was a question that occupied Burgdorfer himself late in his career. While analyzing blood samples from patients with suspected Lyme disease, he noticed evidence of another organism—a rickettsia related to bacteria responsible for diseases such as typhus and Rocky Mountain spotted fever. He had previously encountered the organism in ticks in Switzerland and nicknamed it the “Swiss Agent.” Today it is known as Rickettsia helvetica. Burgdorfer believed it might contribute to illnesses attributed to Lyme disease, particularly because the two infections can present similarly, with fever, headache, muscle pain, fatigue, rash, and neurological or cardiac complications. He developed a diagnostic test for the organism, but it never became part of routine Lyme testing in the United States.

For decades, Burgdorfer’s observations received little attention. Then, in 2016, investigative reporters at STAT obtained boxes of his personal papers that had been discovered in his garage after his death. The collection included laboratory notebooks, correspondence with colleagues and unpublished blood test results suggesting that Burgdorfer had continued thinking about the Swiss Agent long after Borrelia burgdorferi became accepted as the primary cause of Lyme disease. The findings revived a question that remains unresolved: could some patients diagnosed with Lyme disease actually have another tick-borne infection—or perhaps more than one?

Near the end of his life, Burgdorfer began making statements that surprised even longtime colleagues. In interviews and private conversations, he suggested the original Lyme outbreak may not have been entirely natural, raising the possibility that it was connected to Cold War-era biological weapons research. His comments attracted attention because of his professional history. Long before discovering Borrelia burgdorferi, he spent decades researching tick-borne diseases while collaborating on federally funded programs connected to Fort Detrick, a center of U.S. biological weapons research during the Cold War. Historical records show that military scientists investigated insects and arthropods as potential disease vectors, although they do not definitively establish that Lyme disease originated from such research. Burgdorfer’s expertise extended well beyond Lyme disease, encompassing plague, relapsing fever, typhus, Q fever and other vector-borne illnesses.

Another site that has become part of the debate is Plum Island, located in Long Island Sound near the Connecticut coast. In 1952, the U.S. Army Chemical Corps constructed a biological research laboratory there. The extent to which the facility was used before the island was transferred to the Department of Agriculture in 1954 for research into foreign animal diseases remains unclear. Its proximity to Lyme, Connecticut, and its Cold War history have fueled speculation that the emergence of Lyme disease in the region was connected to research on the island. However, no definitive evidence has established that Lyme disease originated at Plum Island or escaped from the facility.

The idea of using insects to spread disease is well documented. Japan’s Unit 731 experimented with plague-infected fleas during World War II, and both the United States and the Soviet Union later investigated arthropods as potential carriers of disease. Lyme disease wasn’t the only tick-borne mystery puzzling researchers during that period. In 1968, physicians identified the first U.S. case of babesiosis on Nantucket—a malaria-like parasitic illness that infects and destroys red blood cells.

Within a few years, what The Boston Globe described as the world’s largest known outbreak had emerged there. Even experts struggled to explain why. In science writer Kris Newby’s 2019 book “Bitten,” CDC researcher Andrew Spielman, who specialized in tropical diseases, is quoted as saying: “We have no satisfactory explanation for the clustering of cases on Nantucket.” Meanwhile, Martha’s Vineyard also reported cases of Rocky Mountain spotted fever, adding to a growing pattern of unusual tick-borne illnesses in the region.

Another tick was attracting attention. Unlike blacklegged ticks, which typically wait on vegetation for an unsuspecting host to brush past, Lone Star ticks actively seek out humans and animals. As their range has expanded across the eastern and central United States, so too has the number of illnesses associated with them. In addition to transmitting pathogens that cause illnesses including Heartland virus and Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Lone Star ticks are the primary U.S. species linked to alpha-gal syndrome—a potentially severe allergy to red meat. In people with alpha-gal syndrome, eating beef, pork or lamb can trigger hives, gastrointestinal symptoms or even life-threatening anaphylaxis.

Whatever its origins, the questions surrounding Lyme disease extend far beyond how it first emerged. More than four decades after Borrelia burgdorferi was identified, researchers continue to debate how best to diagnose the disease, explain persistent symptoms and improve treatment for the growing number of people affected.

The Questions That Remain

While many patients recover completely after early treatment, others spend months or even years searching for answers as persistent symptoms disrupt their work, education and daily lives. The disease has earned the reputation of an “invisible illness” because those affected may appear outwardly healthy despite experiencing debilitating fatigue, chronic pain or cognitive impairment. When you look healthy but know something is wrong, the search for answers can become exhausting in its own right. You may move from doctor to doctor, struggle to explain what you’re experiencing or begin to wonder whether anyone will be able to tell you why you still don’t feel well. Living without an explanation can become another burden you carry.

Acknowledging these challenges, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a broad federal initiative in 2025 aimed at improving the nation’s response to Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses. The plan includes developing more accurate diagnostic tools, standardizing treatment protocols, expanding research into advanced therapies, strengthening prevention programs and partnering with Tribal communities, including the Wampanoag Tribe, to reduce tick populations on wildlife before infected ticks reach humans.

Kennedy has spoken publicly about his family’s experience with Lyme disease, noting that his wife and all six of his children were affected and that one son experienced paralysis for nearly a year. That close connection has helped elevate Lyme disease on the federal agenda as officials work to improve diagnostics, expand research and address tick-borne illnesses more broadly. Those efforts come as tick exposure remains widespread. Dr. Stephanie Haridopolos, director of National Health Communications for the Office of Surgeon General, says approximately 31 million Americans are bitten by ticks each year:

“Not all of them get Lyme disease but we know at least half a million do. Twenty percent of those who get Lyme disease go on to develop persistent symptoms associated with Lyme disease have autoimmune dysfunction and inflammation in their body that can take years to rectify.”

Haridopolos emphasizes that preventing tick bites remains the best defense against Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses. She recommends covering exposed skin, tucking pants into socks, using EPA-registered repellents and treating clothing and gear with permethrin—a synthetic insecticide modeled after the natural insecticidal compounds found in chrysanthemum flowers—when spending time in wooded or grassy areas.

If you prefer plant-based alternatives, several botanical repellents are available. Cedar oil, neem oil, oil of lemon eucalyptus and diluted apple cider vinegar have shown varying degrees of effectiveness against ticks, although they generally provide shorter-lasting protection and require more frequent application. Essential oils and vinegar should always be diluted and should never be applied directly to attached ticks or broken skin. No matter which repellent you choose, a thorough tick check after spending time outdoors is essential. Carefully inspect your body, use a sticky lint roller to remove unattached ticks from clothing, place dry clothes in a dryer on high heat for at least 10 minutes and inspect your pets before bringing them indoors.

If you discover an attached tick, don’t wait for a healthcare provider to remove it. Using fine-tipped tweezers, grasp the tick as close to the skin’s surface as possible and pull upward with steady, even pressure, avoiding twisting or jerking—as this can cause parts of the tick to break off and remain in the skin. Once the tick has been removed, thoroughly clean the bite site and your hands with soap and water, rubbing alcohol or hand sanitizer. Rather than discarding the tick, consider placing it in a sealed plastic bag or container. If symptoms develop in the following days or weeks, identifying the tick species or testing it for pathogens may provide helpful information for your healthcare provider’s evaluation. If any mouthparts remain embedded, leave them alone—your skin will usually expel them naturally as the area heals.

Post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS) refers to a constellation of symptoms—including fatigue, pain, cognitive difficulties and sleep disturbance—that persist for six months or more after standard antibiotic treatment. Estimates suggest that between 10 and 20 percent of treated patients experience some degree of lingering symptoms, though the figure varies across studies. The cause remains contested.

While PTLDS is recognized within the medical literature, researchers continue to debate what causes these lingering symptoms. Some studies suggest they result from immune dysregulation or residual inflammation after the infection has cleared, while others continue to investigate whether persistent infection, co-infections or other biological mechanisms may be contributing. Burgdorfer’s research into the Swiss Agent adds another layer to that debate. Investigative journalist Charles Piller wrote in STAT after reviewing Burgdorfer’s papers and interviewing infectious disease researchers:

“While the evidence is hardly conclusive, patients and doctors might be mistaking under-the-radar Swiss Agent infections for Lyme, the infectious disease specialists said. Or the bacteria could be co-infecting some Lyme patients, exacerbating symptoms and complicating their treatment—and even stoking a bitter debate about whether Lyme often becomes a persistent and serious illness.”

Whether Lyme disease’s origins are connected to Cold War research may never be answered. The documents Burgdorfer left behind raise intriguing questions but do not provide definitive proof. What is certain is that Lyme disease is no longer a rare illness confined to a handful of wooded counties. As warming temperatures expand tick habitat and millions of Americans venture outdoors each year, the disease carried by the tiny parasite that quietly climbed onto a Wisconsin man more than half a century ago has become one of the country’s fastest-growing vector-borne threats.

For families hiking forest trails, children playing in tall grass, gardeners tending backyard flower beds and pet owners whose dogs unknowingly carry ticks indoors, awareness remains the first line of defense. A careful tick check after time outside may seem like a small habit, but it has the potential to prevent an illness that, for some, can alter the course of a lifetime. If you do become ill, early diagnosis remains essential. Because tick-borne infections can be difficult to recognize and may occur alongside other pathogens, persistent symptoms deserve careful attention. Work closely with your integrative practitioner, ask questions and seek further evaluation rather than assume every lingering symptom has a simple explanation.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Once regarded as a trusted medicine, later condemned as a dangerous drug, and now undergoing renewed scientific scrutiny, cannabis has rarely been understood without controversy. This balanced examination explores its history, therapeutic potential, safety considerations and evolving role in healthcare, inviting you to look beyond decades of fear and enthusiasm alike and instead follow the evidence wherever it leads.

For much of the twentieth century, marijuana—also commonly known as weed, grass, pot, ganja, herb and Mary Jane—was portrayed as a societal menace. Public service announcements warned that a single puff could destroy lives. Newspapers printed sensational stories linking it to violence and insanity. Terms like “devil’s lettuce“ entered the cultural lexicon during the early decades of prohibition, while television and movies later portrayed marijuana users as lazy, unmotivated, forgetful or unintelligent at best, and deranged and dangerous at their worst. These fear campaigns were fueled by a mix of moral panic, cultural and racial prejudice toward African Americans and Mexican immigrants who used marijuana, along with political forces that helped shape emerging drug policy.

Although no single factor explains marijuana prohibition, historians have pointed to a combination of political, economic and cultural forces. Some accounts have also argued that hemp’s potential competition with industries such as timber, paper and synthetic materials played a role, although the historical evidence for this explanation remains debated. Lost amid the headlines and political battles was the plant’s long history as a source of medicine, fiber, nutrition and spiritual practice across cultures.

From Reverence to Reefer Madness: Cannabis, Hemp, and a Forgotten History

As early as 2800 BCE, ancient Chinese medical texts have referenced cannabis preparations for healing. Archaeological evidence also suggests cannabis was used in religious ceremonies throughout Central Asia with the first reported cultivation recorded in this area 12,000 years ago. In India, cannabis became intertwined with spiritual practices and Ayurvedic medicine. Ironically, as the United States moved toward prohibition in the 1930s, Rastafarian communities embraced cannabis as a sacrament, using it to support meditation, prayer and spiritual connection.

Historically, cannabis served many purposes. Varieties cultivated for their medicinal, ceremonial or psychoactive properties became known as marijuana, while those grown for fiber, paper, textiles, rope and nutrition were known as hemp. This versatile crop supported commerce and exploration for centuries, supplying material for everything from important historical documents to the rigging and sails of early ships.

Marijuana remained part of American medicine into the early 1900s. It appeared in medical formularies and was prescribed by physicians for pain, muscle spasms, insomnia, and a variety of other conditions. That would soon change dramatically. By the 1930s, a combination of political, cultural and economic forces fueled a growing anti-marijuana movement. The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act effectively criminalized its use, while films such as “Reefer Madness” portrayed cannabis users as descending into madness, crime and moral decay. The film opens by warning viewers that marijuana is “The Real Public Enemy Number One,” claiming it causes “dangerous hallucinations,” “acts of shocking violence,” and “incurable insanity.”

Decades later the federal government would take an even stronger stance. In 1970, President Richard Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act, creating a system that classified drugs according to medical use and abuse potential. Cannabis was placed into Schedule I, the most restrictive category, alongside heroin. Schedule I substances were defined as having a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. What is often overlooked, however, is that marijuana’s placement into Schedule I was intended to be temporary. During the drafting of the legislation, Assistant Secretary of Health Roger O. Egeberg recommended that cannabis be placed in Schedule I only until further scientific review could be completed. Congress created the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, better known as the “Shafer Commission,” chaired by former Pennsylvania Governor Raymond P. Shafer.

After nearly two years of research and testimony, the Shafer Commission released its landmark 1972 report, “Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding.” Rather than supporting continued prohibition, the commission recommended decriminalizing the personal possession and use of marijuana, concluding that the social harms associated with cannabis had been greatly exaggerated and that criminal penalties often caused more damage than the behavior itself. Despite being commissioned by the federal government and chaired by a Nixon appointee, the report’s recommendations were largely ignored, and marijuana remained in Schedule I for more than five decades.

In the years that followed, a growing body of research began suggesting that cannabis possessed genuine therapeutic value. As evidence accumulated, the federal government’s position began to shift. In 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services concluded that marijuana had legitimate accepted medical uses and recommended rescheduling. Federal officials cited evidence supporting its use for pain management, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation. In 2026, federal authorities took the most significant step yet. On April 23, 2026, the Justice Department issued an order announcing it was:

“...immediately placing both FDA-approved products containing marijuana and marijuana products regulated by a state medical marijuana license in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act, as well as the initiation of an expedited administrative hearing process to consider the broader rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.”

As attitudes toward cannabis have evolved, so too has public discussion surrounding the legal consequences of prohibition. Millions of Americans accumulated criminal records for marijuana-related offenses during decades of enforcement. In response, states have adopted expungement programs that allow certain past convictions to be reduced, sealed, or erased. Supporters argue that individuals should not continue facing barriers to employment, housing, education, or professional licensing for conduct that is now legal in many jurisdictions. These reforms represent one of the most significant social consequences of cannabis legalization and continue to shape policy discussions nationwide.

Understanding Modern Cannabis Products

The terminology surrounding the plant can be confusing because cannabis, hemp, and marijuana are often used interchangeably, even though they are not exactly the same thing. Cannabis is the scientific name for the entire plant family, which includes indica, sativa and hybrid varieties. Hemp refers to cannabis varieties bred primarily for industrial and nutritional purposes and, under U.S. law, contains no more than 0.3% Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (the full, scientific name of THC), the primary intoxicating compound. Hemp has historically been what was used to produce industrial materials and animal feed because of its strong fibers and nutrient-rich seeds and oils. Marijuana, by contrast, is a cultural and legal term used to describe cannabis varieties that contain higher levels of THC especially in its flowers and are typically cultivated for medicinal or recreational use.

Despite their different legal classifications and uses, hemp and marijuana are biologically the same species. Both contain at least 550 naturally occurring compounds, including cannabinoids such as THC and CBD, as well as aromatic compounds known as terpenes. While Delta-9 THC is the primary intoxicating cannabinoid found in cannabis, others have unique biological effects. Delta-8 THC generally produces a milder psychoactive experience, while tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) may provide a shorter-lasting, more energizing effect and, in some individuals, appears to temper the intoxicating effects of THC. Other cannabinoids, including cannabigerol (CBG) and cannabinol (CBN), continue to be investigated for their potential therapeutic properties.

In 2024, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved a genetically modified hemp strain free of THC and cannabidiol (CBD), a development intended to reduce production costs and waste. As with other genetically engineered crops, its long-term adoption, public acceptance and safety remain to be seen. Flower, the dried buds of the plant, remains the most recognizable form. It is typically smoked or vaporized, allowing cannabinoids to enter the bloodstream through the lungs, often within minutes.

Concentrates take potency a step further. Produced by extracting cannabinoids and terpenes from cannabis flower, products such as wax, shatter, live resin and rosin often contain THC concentrations of 60 to 90 percent or more. Some are produced with chemical solvents, while others rely on heat and pressure. Because improperly manufactured concentrates may contain residual solvents or other contaminants, quality testing has become increasingly important in regulated markets.

Vaporization is often promoted as a safer alternative to smoking because it avoids combustion, but it introduces concerns of its own. Some vape cartridges and electronic delivery devices have been found to release heavy metals such as lead, nickel, chromium and cadmium from internal heating components. Poorly manufactured or counterfeit vape products may also contain contaminants, cutting agents or residual solvents that can be inhaled deep into the lungs. For these reasons, you should not assume that all cannabis products are equally safe simply because they are legal or commercially available. When possible, choose products from transparent, reputable sources that disclose where and how the cannabis was grown and provide independent laboratory results for potency and contaminants. As with any medicine, supplement or therapeutic intervention, informed use, moderation, product quality and careful consideration of potential risks remain essential.

Cannabis-infused butter or oil is often used as the foundation for homemade edible products. Because cannabinoids readily bind to fats, butter and oils serve as effective delivery vehicles for compounds such as THC and CBD. Edibles include gummies, chocolates, beverages, baked goods and other cannabinoid-infused foods, many of which are manufactured using sugars, sugar substitutes, additives and dyes. Unlike inhaled cannabis, which enters the bloodstream through the lungs and produces effects within minutes, edibles must first pass through digestion and liver metabolism. As a result, their effects typically take thirty minutes to two hours to appear but may last significantly longer than those produced by smoking or vaporizing.

Tinctures are prepared differently. Cannabis is suspended in alcohol, oil or glycerin to extract its bioactive compounds, then administered under the tongue, also called sublingual delivery. When held in the mouth for 30 to 60 seconds before swallowing, some of the active compounds can be absorbed directly through the tissues of the mouth into the bloodstream. As a result, effects often occur more quickly than with traditional edibles while allowing for more consistent and precise dosing than smoking or vaporizing.

Each method of cannabis consumption offers distinct advantages and disadvantages. Factors such as onset time, duration of effects, bioavailability, dosing precision, convenience, personal preference and individual health considerations all influence which option may be most appropriate. For this reason, medical cannabis users often choose different delivery methods depending on the situation. Someone seeking rapid relief from acute pain, nausea or muscle spasms may prefer inhalation because the effects are felt almost immediately. Others managing chronic symptoms throughout the day may favor edibles, capsules, tinctures or other longer-acting preparations that provide more sustained effects. Ultimately, the ideal method depends on your health goals, symptoms, lifestyle and personal preferences. Understanding the differences in onset, duration, dosing and potential side effects can help you make a more informed choice.

The endocannabinoid system

The body’s response to cannabis is rooted in the endocannabinoid system (ECS), discovered by researchers in the 1990s. This discovery revealed a vast network of receptors located throughout your brain, immune system, digestive tract, nervous system, connective tissues and other organs. The ECS helps regulate pain perception, inflammation, mood, sleep, appetite, memory and immune function. The body’s naturally produced cannabinoids, called endocannabinoids, interact with receptors known as CB1 and CB2. Plant-derived cannabinoids found in cannabis appear capable of influencing these same pathways. This unique relationship between the cannabis plant and your body’s own endocannabinoid system forms the biological foundation for the growing use of medical cannabis to help relieve symptoms and improve quality of life.

The Entourage Effect

One of the most significant changes in cannabis over the past several decades involves potency. In the 1970s, marijuana commonly contained THC concentrations of roughly 1 to 4 percent. Today, commercial flower products routinely exceed 20 percent THC, while some products contain even higher levels. This dramatic increase reflects decades of selective breeding focused on maximizing THC production. While higher potency appeals to some consumers who are either chasing a stronger “high” or a product that can confidently replace powerful pharmaceuticals for pain, others question whether the pursuit of ever-increasing THC levels has altered the plant’s natural balance of cannabinoids and terpenes that may contribute to its therapeutic effects. While THC receives most of the public attention, it is only one of well over one hundred identified cannabinoids, many of which appear to exert distinct biological effects.

Terpenes, the aromatic compounds responsible for the distinctive scents in different strains of marijuana, also possess biological properties and healing potential of their own. Limonene contributes citrus notes and has been studied for potential tissue-repair properties, pinene produces a pine-like aroma and has demonstrated anti-inflammatory activity, myrcene offers earthy characteristics and has been investigated for analgesic effects, while linalool provides floral, lavender-like scents and has been studied for its calming properties. Together, these compounds not only contribute to the aromatic complexity of the cannabis plant, they influence its medicinal potential. Researchers and clinicians believe cannabinoids and terpenes may work together synergistically through what has become known as the “entourage effect.” The theory proposes that these compounds influence one another’s activity, creating effects that differ from those produced by isolated cannabinoids alone.

The entourage effect may help explain why two cannabis products containing similar THC levels can produce different experiences. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted by Johns Hopkins in collaboration with the University of Colorado, the terpene d-limonene, commonly found in cannabis, reduced THC-induced feelings of anxiety and paranoia without diminishing THC’s other effects. These findings suggest that certain terpenes may improve the therapeutic experience of cannabis by moderating some of its unwanted side effects.

Does sun-grown cannabis offer advantages?

As the legal cannabis industry has expanded, a debate has emerged between advocates of sun-grown cannabis and those who favor indoor cultivation. Both methods can produce high-quality products, but they are not identical. Outdoor cannabis evolved under the sun for thousands of years. Natural sunlight provides a full spectrum of wavelengths that artificial lighting cannot perfectly replicate. Throughout the growing season, outdoor plants are exposed to changing temperatures, humidity, wind and ultraviolet light, factors that may stimulate the production of cannabinoids, terpenes, flavonoids and other protective plant compounds.

Some researchers believe these environmental influences contribute to a more diverse chemical profile and may enhance the entourage effect. A review titled “Cannabinoids and Terpenes: How Production of Photo-Protectants Can Be Manipulated to Enhance Cannabis sativa L. Phytochemistry” supports this connection, reporting that “increased solar UV radiation results in higher CBDA, terpene, and cannaflavin content…”

Indoor cultivation offers advantages as well. Growers can precisely control light, temperature, humidity, irrigation and nutrients, often producing consistent harvests and higher cannabinoid concentrations. However, some critics argue that the pursuit of maximum THC levels may come at the expense of the plant’s broader chemical complexity. Indoor plants also spend much of their growth cycle in close proximity to electrically powered lighting and equipment. Research in plant biology shows that electric and magnetic fields can influence plant physiology, although whether the exposures typical of indoor cannabis cultivation meaningfully affect its cannabinoid profile, terpene content or safety remains unclear. Indoor cultivation also requires substantially more energy for lighting, ventilation, cooling and dehumidification.

Neither method is inherently superior. The quality of the final product ultimately depends on genetics, cultivation practices, harvesting, curing and storage. Still, many patients and cultivators favor sun-grown cannabis, believing that a plant cultivated under the same sun that shaped its evolution may offer a more complete expression of its natural chemistry.

The Therapeutic Potential of Cannabis

Cannabis has been studied for a wide range of potential therapeutic applications. Chronic pain remains one of the most common reasons patients seek medical cannabis. Unlike opioids, which primarily alter pain perception through opioid receptors, cannabinoids influence multiple processes simultaneously. THC interacts strongly with CB1 receptors found throughout the central nervous system, while CBD appears to modulate inflammation, immune activity, and pain signaling through several mechanisms. Patients report meaningful reductions in moderate to severe pain, nausea, vomiting, anxiety and depression. On August 23, 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services specifically referenced scientific evidence supporting marijuana’s role in pain management when recommending rescheduling saying:

“...an evaluation of available credible scientific support described herein for at least some therapeutic uses identified in the Part 1 test, we find that that, for purposes of the drug scheduling criteria in 21 U.S.C. 812(b), marijuana has a CAMU [current accepted medical use] in the United States for: anorexia related to a medical condition; nausea and vomiting (e.g., chemotherapy-induced); and pain.”

Pain and inflammation often travel together. While inflammation serves as an essential part of your body’s healing response, chronic inflammation has been implicated in numerous conditions including arthritis, autoimmune disease, cardiovascular disease, metabolic dysfunction, and neurodegenerative disorders. Cannabinoids appear capable of influencing inflammation through interactions with CB2 receptors found primarily on immune cells. Laboratory and animal studies suggest cannabinoids may help regulate immune responses and reduce the production of inflammatory signaling molecules, helping explain why patients report improvement in inflammatory conditions.

Researchers have also explored cannabis for other medical conditions. One of the earliest recognized applications involved glaucoma, a disease that damages the optic nerve and remains a leading cause of blindness worldwide. Studies demonstrated that THC can temporarily reduce elevated intraocular pressure, one of glaucoma’s primary risk factors. Although the effect is relatively short-lived and most ophthalmologists view cannabis as an adjunct rather than a replacement for conventional treatment, it remains one of the clearest examples of cannabinoids producing measurable physiological effects.

Perhaps no medical application has changed public perception of cannabis more dramatically than its role in seizure disorders. Researchers eventually demonstrated that purified CBD could significantly reduce seizure frequency in certain rare forms of epilepsy, including Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. These findings ultimately led to FDA approval of a CBD-based pharmaceutical and provided some of the strongest scientific evidence supporting a cannabinoid-derived medicine.

AVFCA spoke with Jason David, a longtime advocate for medical cannabis whose son, Jayden, was diagnosed with Dravet syndrome after experiencing a grand mal seizure at a doctor’s appointment shortly following his six-month Tdap vaccination. According to Jason, by the time Jayden was four years old, he was taking as many as 22 pharmaceutical pills each day, yet continued to experience frequent, debilitating seizures as his health and quality of life steadily declined. Desperate to find another option, Jason turned to medical cannabis. He says that within one month of treatment, Jayden improved enough to begin gradually tapering many of his medications while continuing cannabis therapy. The experience ultimately led Jason to become an advocate for families exploring medical cannabis, although he is careful not to overstate what one family’s experience can demonstrate. “I’m not saying cannabis is a cure-all or anything like that,” he explains, “but what I’m saying is that it can be a huge part of the puzzle.”

Jayden’s experience is one family’s account, not evidence that cannabis will produce similar results for others. It does, however, illustrate why patients and families facing difficult-to-treat conditions have helped drive renewed interest in cannabis as a therapeutic option. Clinical research provides the stronger foundation: a growing body of evidence suggests that cannabis and specific cannabinoids may offer therapeutic benefits for certain conditions, while their use also carries risks that vary by product, dose and individual.

Testing, Labeling, and Consumer Protection

One of the strongest arguments in favor of legalization and regulation is consumer safety. For decades, much of the marijuana consumed in the United States originated from backyard gardens, clandestine indoor grows, imported products, or illegal outdoor operations. While plenty of growers took pride in producing a clean product, there were few standards, little oversight, and no mandatory testing. If a crop developed powdery mildew, mold, spider mites, caterpillars, aphids, or other pests, growers often faced losing an entire harvest worth thousands or even millions of dollars.

To save a crop, some growers turned to fungicides, pesticides, miticides and insecticides, including chemicals that have been documented within portions of the cannabis industry over the years. When cannabis is smoked or vaporized, contaminants present on the flower may also be inhaled directly into the lungs. Because marijuana remains federally illegal, the EPA cannot establish pesticide tolerance levels for cannabis, leaving consumers to evaluate product quality carefully.

Cannabis contamination concerns go beyond pesticides. As a bioaccumulator, it can absorb and retain heavy metals like lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury from soil and water. While useful for environmental cleanup, this highlights the need for clean growing conditions and rigorous contaminant testing.

Plants are also often treated with growth regulators and synthetic fertilizers that may further increase contaminant risks. After harvest, improper drying or storage may allow mold and fungal organisms such as Aspergillus to proliferate. Concentrated cannabis extracts can also contain residual solvents if manufactured improperly. These concerns are particularly meaningful if you have a compromised immune system, chronic illness, respiratory condition, or other health challenges.

Legalization has prompted some states, including California, to implement mandatory testing requirements designed to reduce these risks. Today, most regulated cannabis products undergo laboratory screening for cannabinoid potency, microbial contamination, mold, pesticides, heavy metals, and residual solvents before reaching dispensary shelves. Labels often disclose THC and CBD concentrations, serving sizes, ingredients, batch numbers, laboratory verification, and health warnings regarding impairment, pregnancy, or accidental pediatric exposure. These regulations provide consumers with significantly more information and protection than was available in the illicit market. However, black-market products can still appear on dispensary shelves and at unregulated “pop-up” events.

Testing standards, allowable contaminant levels and laboratory protocols vary from state to state. Product recalls still occur, and critics continue to raise concerns about inconsistent testing methodologies and “laboratory shopping,” in which producers seek out labs more likely to deliver favorable potency or contaminant results. Nevertheless, the regulated market has generally improved transparency and accountability, giving you access to information that was largely unavailable when cannabis was produced and sold outside the legal system.

If you’re seeking the cleanest available cannabis, look for third-party organic-equivalent certifications such as Clean Green Certified or California’s OCal program, along with independent lab testing that goes beyond basic state requirements. Since cannabis cannot carry a USDA Organic label, these programs verify cleaner growing practices through farm inspections, soil and input reviews, and rigorous testing. The highest-quality products should include expanded screening for hundreds of contaminants. Look for transparency, full-panel lab results, and cultivation practices focused on clean soil and regenerative methods.

Like any biologically active substance, cannabis is not without risks. Although many people use marijuana without developing problems, dependence and cannabis use disorder can occur, particularly with frequent use of high-potency products. You may develop tolerance over time, requiring larger amounts to achieve the same effects, or experience withdrawal symptoms such as irritability, sleep disturbances, anxiety, decreased appetite, or mood changes when attempting to stop.

Smoking cannabis also carries respiratory risks, as combustion produces the same irritants and particulates found in other forms of smoke. While cannabis smoke differs chemically from tobacco smoke, inhaling any burned plant material can irritate the lungs and airways. If you’re seeking potential therapeutic benefits without intoxication or concerns about feeling “high,” CBD, the non-intoxicating compound found in cannabis, may be worth exploring. CBD is commonly used for concerns such as anxiety, sleep difficulties, inflammation and pain, although evidence for its effectiveness varies by condition.

If you’re exploring cannabis for serious therapeutic needs, full-spectrum, organically grown products are one option because they retain a broad range of the plant’s naturally occurring compounds, including multiple cannabinoids and terpenes, rather than isolating a single compound such as THC or CBD. Depending on the condition and individual response, moderate-to-higher levels of THC are sometimes used for severe injury-related pain, cancer-related pain, neuropathy or appetite loss and nausea associated with treatments such as chemotherapy. The presence of CBD may complement THC’s effects by supporting relaxation and reducing THC-related effects such as anxiety, overstimulation or mental fog in some people. Because higher-THC products also increase the risk of impairment, tolerance and unwanted effects, start with the lowest effective amount and adjust carefully, paying close attention to product quality, testing and your personal response.

Beyond the Smoke

Few substances have traveled a stranger path through American history than cannabis. Once a foundational resource, later demonized as a social menace, and now increasingly recognized for its therapeutic potential, marijuana has spent much of the past century caught between politics, culture, economics, and science. The result has been decades of confusion, controversy, and often contradictory public policy.

Today, the conversation has shifted from ideology toward evidence. Medical marijuana is now legal in many states, and millions of Americans use cannabis under the guidance of healthcare practitioners for conditions ranging from chronic pain and inflammation to epilepsy, cancer-related symptoms and other debilitating illnesses. While cannabis is not without risks, neither are many of the pharmaceuticals routinely prescribed for those same conditions. In fact, some patients and physicians have found that cannabis may help reduce reliance on medications such as opioids, benzodiazepines and certain sleep aids, each of which carries significant risks of dependence, overdose, adverse effects and withdrawal.

As with any medicine, cannabis should be approached thoughtfully and used responsibly. Informed consent requires access to accurate information about both benefits and risks, not fear-based propaganda on one hand or exaggerated claims on the other. Adults are routinely trusted to make decisions about substances that carry substantial health risks, including alcohol, which contributes to more than 100,000 deaths each year in the United States while marijuana has not been linked to fatal overdose. Whether you choose to use cannabis is ultimately a personal decision, but it is increasingly difficult to argue that a substance with recognized medical applications should remain inaccessible to people who may benefit from it.

Perhaps the most important lesson from the cannabis story is not about marijuana itself, but about the importance of allowing science, evidence, and personal liberty to guide public policy. The truth, as is often the case, lies somewhere between the extremes. Cannabis is neither the miracle cure portrayed by its most enthusiastic advocates nor the societal menace depicted by twentieth-century prohibition campaigns. It is a powerful plant with genuine healing potential, real limitations and some legitimate risks. Like many public health stories, the history of cannabis reminds you that science evolves, policies change and today’s assumptions deserve the same careful scrutiny as yesterday’s.

The challenge moving forward is not deciding whether cannabis is good or bad, but ensuring that you have the freedom, information and access needed to make informed choices about your own health. You should not be forced to wait until you are terminally ill to exercise your “right to try“ therapies that have demonstrated scientific promise or documented clinical benefits. When credible evidence supports a treatment’s potential to improve quality of life or relieve suffering, you and your healthcare provider should have the opportunity to consider it without first exhausting every other option while suffering continues.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Propylparaben has been used as a preservative in personal care products, pharmaceuticals and food for nearly a century, and it remains one of the most studied and debated ingredients in consumer products. The controversy centers not on dramatic toxicity but on something subtler: its ability to interact with the body’s estrogen receptors, raising questions about what repeated, low-level exposure means over a lifetime. Laboratory and animal studies have identified reproductive concerns, and a 2024 study found toxic effects in human placental cells. The FDA continues to classify it as generally recognized as safe, while the European Union has established concentration limits on precautionary grounds.

If you live in America, chances are high that propylparaben touches your skin every day. A preservative found in countless personal care products, from moisturizers and sunscreens to foundations, shampoos, body lotions and deodorants, you may have encountered it several times before finishing your morning routine. Also found in pharmaceuticals and certain foods, it is used to prevent the growth of mold, bacteria and yeast since its patent in the 1920s. It extends shelf life and is inexpensive to produce. Its widespread use has also made propylparaben one of the most extensively researched preservatives for its potential effects on the hormone system.

The research has generated a debate that remains unresolved. While regulators in the United States continue to permit its use, scientists have repeatedly documented estrogenic activity, identified reproductive concerns in laboratory and animal studies, and raised questions about the long-term consequences of repeated exposure. European regulators have taken a more precautionary approach. The European Union has limited the combined concentration of propylparaben and butylparaben to 0.14 percent of finished cosmetic products. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not established a comparable limit for cosmetics in the United States. The FDA classifies propylparaben as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS). For many consumers, this designation suggests there is little reason for concern. Yet being on the GRAS list does little to answer the question: Is cumulative exposure to hormonally active compounds safe over a lifetime?

Propylparaben is a synthetic compound derived from para-hydroxybenzoic acid, a naturally occurring substance found in some fruits and vegetables. It belongs to a family of preservatives known as parabens. Manufacturers combine this acid with different alcohols to create various parabens, including methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben and butylparaben.

The study that changed the conversation

For much of the twentieth century, parabens attracted little public attention. That changed in 2004 when researchers published a study in the Journal of Applied Toxicology reporting the presence of parabens in samples of human breast tumors. The study generated international headlines. Many consumers interpreted the results as evidence that parabens caused breast cancer. But although the study detected parabens in breast tissue, it did not establish that the chemicals caused tumors to form.

Scientists continue to debate the significance of those findings, and subsequent reviews have not established a causal relationship between paraben exposure and breast cancer. Nevertheless, the study turned propylparaben and related preservatives from largely unnoticed ingredients into subjects of ongoing scientific investigation. It also prompted more research into whether the accumulation of parabens in human tissues carries a biological cost.

More than just a preservative

The main controversy surrounding propylparaben stems from evidence showing that it can interact with the body’s hormone systems. “Parabens are called hormone- or endocrine-disrupting chemicals,” says endocrinologist Shannon Taylor, DO. Hormones regulate everything from growth and metabolism to reproduction. This has led scientists to question whether these chemicals should be evaluated differently than traditional toxins.

Parabens have repeatedly been shown to possess estrogenic activity, meaning they can bind to estrogen receptors. This ability also increases with the length of the chemical chain, placing propylparaben among the more biologically active parabens commonly used in everyday products. At the same time, regulators and toxicologists who consider current uses of propylparaben to be safe note that its estrogenic effects are substantially weaker than the body’s natural estrogen, 17β-estradiol, with some estimates suggesting it is thousands to tens of thousands times less potent. Some scientists argue that potency alone doesn’t fully explain the implications of repeated exposure, particularly when you are exposed to small amounts of hormonally active chemicals every day through multiple products.

The Exposure Problem

One of the most difficult aspects of evaluating propylparaben is that you are not exposed to it the way scientists study it. Safety assessments often evaluate individual products or individual exposure amounts. Real life doesn’t work that way. You might apply body lotion, sunscreen, foundation, prescription creams, hair products and deodorant after a morning shower, sending a significant chemical load through one of your body’s largest organs: your skin.

Recent reviews of methylparaben and propylparaben suggest that these compounds are absorbed through the skin, raising questions about the health effects of repeated, long-term exposure. This ongoing contact is often referred to as a “chemical burden,” because parabens are also found in food packaging, household cleaners, plastics, pesticides and medications. While each individual product may fall within regulatory limits, the combined effect of small amounts from multiple sources remains far more difficult to measure.

The timing of exposure may be just as important as the amount. According to the Endocrine Society, fetal development, infancy, childhood and puberty are particularly sensitive periods because hormones direct growth and development during these stages. Developing tissues may therefore respond differently to hormonally active chemicals than they do later in life. Girls today often begin using personal care products before puberty, which is significant because puberty represents one of the most hormonally active periods of life. During these years, estrogen and other hormones help regulate the development of reproductive organs, breast tissue, bone growth and metabolism. This is one reason researchers pay particular attention to puberty when studying chemicals that may interact with the body’s hormone system.

Sunscreens, lotions, shampoos, conditioners, acne treatments and cosmetics may become part of a girl’s daily routine years before reproductive maturity. While no study has demonstrated that propylparaben causes developmental harm in humans, none has ruled it out. In 2024, researchers found that propylparaben produced toxic effects in human trophoblast cells, which play a crucial role in placental development. The chemical damaged the cells and interfered with their normal function—findings the authors said warrant further investigation into its potential effects on reproductive health.

Animal studies have also shown changes in sperm production, testosterone levels, ovarian function and implantation processes. Critics point out that animal studies cannot be directly translated into human outcomes. However, toxicologists rely on animal and laboratory research for a reason: these findings often provide the earliest indications that a substance deserves closer examination.

Europe’s precautionary approach

The European response to propylparaben offers an important case study in how regulators respond to scientific uncertainty. After reviewing the available evidence, the European Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety restricted the use of propylparaben in cosmetic products by establishing concentration limits based on concerns about its potential endocrine-disrupting properties. European authorities also restricted certain uses involving young children. According to Science Insights:

“Any cosmetic product that contains these two parabens and is marketed for children under three must carry a mandatory warning label stating the product should not be used on the diaper area.”

This approach reflects the precautionary principle—a cornerstone of European environmental health policy that favors limiting potential risks while scientific evidence continues to evolve. The propylparaben debate illustrates this divide clearly: the same body of evidence that prompts caution in one jurisdiction is interpreted as insufficient in another.

If concerns exist, why is propylparaben still used?

One reason propylparaben continues to be used is that preservatives perform an important function. Without them, products can become contaminated with bacteria and other microorganisms that pose serious health risks. Replacing them is not always straightforward.

Consumer concerns have been influential enough to reshape the marketplace. Over the past two decades, many cosmetic and personal care companies have reformulated products to remove parabens, creating an entirely new segment of the beauty industry built around paraben-free alternatives. Each replacement preservative comes with its own strengths and limitations. Some are less effective against certain microorganisms, while others have raised separate questions regarding irritation, sensitivity or their own potential risks. Removing one ingredient does not automatically eliminate every concern.

Common Paraben Alternatives and Their Tradeoffs

Many companies now make products without parabens, but that doesn’t mean they’re preservative-free. Preservatives are still needed to prevent the growth of contaminants. Instead, manufacturers rely on other ingredients to perform the same function:

Synthetic preservatives: Many paraben-free products rely on ingredients such as phenoxyethanol, potassium sorbate, sodium benzoate or benzyl alcohol. While these compounds have been associated with less estrogenic activity than parabens, they can present other challenges, such as skin irritation or allergic reactions, particularly for people with sensitive skin.

Packaging and formulation innovations: Manufacturers have begun exploring approaches that reduce the need for traditional chemical preservatives altogether. Airless packaging, single-use products, powder formulations and products with lower water content can decrease the risk of microbial growth while reducing reliance on certain additives. While these approaches are not practical for every product category, they show that preservation doesn’t always require the same ingredients that have been used for decades.

Natural preservative approaches: Some companies are exploring more natural options such as vitamin E (tocopherol), an antioxidant that can help prevent oils from going rancid, as well as rosemary extract, which may help slow the chemical reactions that cause ingredients to break down. Certain essential oils may also have preservative properties in some formulations.

Reading labels: Preservative ingredients can be listed under different names, so reading labels carefully is worthwhile if you are trying to avoid them. Any term ending in “-paraben“ indicates the presence of a paraben.

The question is how much uncertainty you are willing to accept. You may decide that the available evidence is not concerning enough to justify changing products, or that an ingredient capable of interacting with hormone systems deserves a greater margin of safety. The decision depends on how you weigh the findings alongside what is still unknown. If reducing your exposure to hormonally active chemicals matters to you, propylparaben may be one ingredient worth a second look.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Vitamin D has one of the best-documented deficiency diseases in medical history—and one of the clearest examples of a fat-soluble nutrient that can build up to harmful levels if overdone. Both things are true at once. The evidence shows real benefits for people who are deficient, real risks at the extremes, and why “how much you need” depends more on your individual biology than any single number on a lab report.

It’s common knowledge that the human body requires an array of vitamins and minerals to function normally, and few nutrients have captured public attention in recent decades quite like vitamin D. Traditionally classified as a vitamin, it is converted in the body into a hormone that regulates calcium balance and influences the activity of hundreds of genes involved in many physiological processes. Once known mainly as the “sunshine vitamin” that prevents rickets, it’s now credited with everything from stronger immunity to lower cancer risk. Some of that reputation is well earned. Some of it has gotten ahead of the evidence. And because vitamin D is fat-soluble—stored in the body rather than flushed out like vitamin C—getting the dose wrong in either direction carries consequences.

A Disease of Civilization

The story of vitamin D’s discovery begins with the disappearance of England’s trees. As land enclosures spread across the countryside, communal forests that had sustained villages for generations were converted into private sheep pasture. Displaced rural families crowded into cities, which increasingly burned coal instead of wood. As the trees fell and coal smoke thickened the air, something else began happening to children: their bones started to bend.

Rickets, now understood to result from vitamin D deficiency, had taken hold in England by the 1500s and spread across Europe wherever coal burning took place. Affected children developed bowed legs, deformed rib cages that made breathing painful, seizures and heart failure. Even mild cases could distort a woman’s pelvis enough to make childbirth fatal. By the 19th century, physicians described the condition as strikingly common among the poor of industrial cities—a textbook example of what a genuine, population-wide vitamin D deficiency looks like.

By the 1920s, researchers had proven rickets could be cured by exposure to sunlight or ultraviolet-B light. Even exposing just one arm to a UV-B lamp could resolve the condition throughout the body. Around the same time, researchers Edward and May Mellanby, working with laboratory puppies, showed rickets could also be reversed through diet, particularly with cod liver oil and other animal fats.

Their work revealed a curious insight: while animal fats helped, certain foods—especially bread and oats—made rickets worse. Today we understand why. Vitamin D depends on cofactors, chiefly calcium and magnesium, to do its job. Diets heavily reliant on grains can reduce the absorption of these minerals because many grains contain phytates. Wealthier London children, who could afford dairy alongside their bread, largely escaped rickets despite minimal sunlight; poorer children could not. Once vitamin D fortification, milk and school lunch programs became widespread in the 1930s, the disease all but vanished. Rickets among five-year-olds in London fell from 87 percent in 1928 to nearly zero by the early 1950s. It stands as one of the clearest public-health success stories of the 20th century, and a reminder of how serious deficiency actually is.

More than a bone vitamin

Later in the 20th century, scientists discovered vitamin D’s role went well beyond bone. Rather than being a structural component of bone itself, it functions as a signaling molecule—more hormone than vitamin—that switches genes on and off throughout the body. That expanded role is where most of vitamin D’s genuine benefits come from:

Calcium and bone metabolism: This is vitamin D’s best-established function. Adequate levels are essential for calcium absorption and bone mineralization at every age, not just in childhood.

Immune function: Vitamin D receptors sit on immune cells throughout the body, and low levels have been associated with more frequent and more severe respiratory infections. Some trials in deficient populations have shown modest reductions in infection risk with supplementation.

Muscle strength and fall prevention: In older adults, correcting deficiency has been linked to improved muscle strength and fewer falls—a meaningful benefit given how often falls lead to serious injury later in life.

Pregnancy outcomes: In deficient pregnant women, supplementation has been linked to lower rates of preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and preterm delivery.

Cardiovascular, metabolic and mood-related connections: Lower vitamin D levels have been linked to poorer cardiac health, impaired mitochondrial function, mood disorders and less favorable COVID-19 outcomes in observational studies. These findings are more consistent than the interventional evidence, so they should be interpreted as associations rather than proof of cause and effect.

That distinction matters. Vitamin D has a broad biological influence, making it tempting to attribute a wide range of health benefits to the vitamin. But broad biological influence is not the same as strong clinical evidence. Some benefits—such as those involving bone health, muscle function and certain immune and pregnancy outcomes in people with deficiency—are well established. Others, including much of the cardiovascular and mood research, remain largely associational.

Why more isn’t automatically better

In light of vitamin D’s benefits, high-dose supplementation has become popular. But vitamin D is fat-soluble, meaning the body can’t simply flush out the excess through urine the way it does with vitamin C. Instead, excess vitamin D can accumulate in body fat, which is why toxicity generally develops gradually after prolonged excessive intake rather than from a single high dose. Historically this wasn’t much of an issue: food sources like organ meats, eggs, milk and fatty fish provide only modest amounts, and before supplements existed, roughly 90 percent of people’s vitamin D came from sunlight. The skin carefully regulates how much vitamin D it produces, which is why sun exposure essentially can’t cause an overdose.

The gut has no comparable safeguard. People consistently taking more than 10,000 IU per day may eventually develop vitamin D toxicity, although susceptibility varies considerably among individuals. Excess vitamin D can overstimulate genes involved in calcium regulation, increasing calcium absorption and, in some individuals, leading to hypercalcemia. Symptoms range from vomiting, excessive thirst and muscle weakness to confusion, kidney and heart damage, and in severe cases, seizures, coma and death. Acute toxicity of this kind is well documented but relatively uncommon.

There’s a subtler, less-discussed zone: blood levels that are elevated but fall short of classic toxicity. Above roughly 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L)—still within the “normal” range at many labs—some studies link higher vitamin D to increased cardiovascular disease, vascular calcification, falls, frailty, pancreatic cancer and overall mortality, possibly by disrupting minerals such as magnesium and boron. For Caucasian populations, the lowest observed mortality tends to fall around 20–24 ng/mL (50–60 nmol/L), as an annual average that naturally rises in summer and falls in winter. The average American sits at 27.5 ng/mL (68.7 nmol/L)—comfortably within that range, even though headlines often claim most Americans are deficient.

Scientific Disagreement Over Where to Draw the Line

Part of why “deficient” gets defined so differently depending on the source stems from enduring disagreement over how the available evidence should be interpreted and where the threshold should be set. The longer-standing cutoff—above which about 98 percent of people maintain healthy bones—is 20 ng/mL. In 2011, the Endocrine Society endorsed 30 ng/mL, a threshold that traces back to a 2002 opinion piece by Dr. Michael Holick, a longtime vitamin D researcher whose academic standing helped the higher number gain traction—and who was also an influential voice in bringing high-profile media figures to the cause. That same year, the Institute of Medicine (IOM), an independent nonprofit, completed its own review and set the threshold at 20 ng/mL, closer to the traditional figure. The two organizations have since published direct comparisons of their methodology, and the 2011 Endocrine Society report itself acknowledged that few randomized trials had tested levels above 30 ng/mL and that some data linked mortality increases to levels above roughly 50 ng/mL.

The debate extended beyond methodology. A Kaiser Health News investigation, published with the New York Times, found that Dr. Holick had financial ties to companies that benefit from higher vitamin D recommendations, including testing laboratories and the indoor tanning industry. These are relevant disclosures for readers evaluating the 30 ng/mL recommendation, though they do not by themselves determine which threshold is scientifically correct. In 2024, the Endocrine Society published a more rigorous review, without Dr. Holick’s involvement, that walked back the 30 ng/mL recommendation and aligned more closely with the IOM’s original position. The updated guideline also recommends against routine vitamin D screening and high-dose supplementation for generally healthy adults without specific risk factors, favoring a more targeted approach for specific populations. The 2024 guidance received noticeably less public attention than the original 2011 announcement.

The disagreement over thresholds partly explains why large supplementation trials have produced mixed results: most enroll people regardless of their starting vitamin D levels, which dilutes any real effect. When researchers instead look specifically at people who are deficient (generally under 20 ng/mL) going into a study, the benefits show up more clearly:

• Elderly participants who were vitamin D deficient only in winter maintained bone mass better when supplemented seasonally.

• Ballet dancers given vitamin D during winter months for known seasonal deficiency showed greater strength and fewer injuries.

• Children at high latitude with seasonal atopic dermatitis improved when supplemented only during winter.

• Pregnant women in Iran with vitamin D under 20 ng/mL—especially those under 10 ng/mL who received larger doses—saw meaningful reductions in preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and preterm delivery.

This pattern echoes traditional Nordic practice, where cod liver oil was historically taken only during winter months. A large meta-analysis of placebo-controlled vitamin D trials shows the same principle at scale: participants who began with levels under 20 ng/mL saw a 5 percent reduction in all-cause mortality, while those who started above 20 ng/mL saw a 4 percent increase—the two effects largely canceling out in pooled data. The takeaway isn’t that supplements are useless or that they’re risky across the board; it’s that they behave like a targeted treatment, most beneficial for people who are actually deficient and less beneficial—or potentially net negative—if you already have adequate levels.

Why One Number Doesn’t Fit Everyone

Optimal vitamin D levels aren’t identical across individuals. Body weight matters—people with more body fat store more vitamin D, so less shows up in a blood test even when they’re getting enough. Ethnicity and skin tone matter too. Darker skin produces less vitamin D per unit of sun exposure, but that doesn’t mean people with darker skin need to reach the same blood levels as those with lighter skin to be healthy. Historical Native Canadian populations—dark-skinned people living at high latitudes without vitamin-D-rich diets—never appear to have reached “sufficient” levels by Caucasian standards, yet showed no signs of rickets. In India, outdoor workers with dark skin at their native latitude showed vitamin D “deficiency” rates of 44 percent in men and 70 percent in women by Caucasian benchmarks. African Americans typically show lower vitamin D levels than other Americans, yet have stronger bones on average. Researchers believe different populations have evolved differing genetic sensitivity to the storage form of vitamin D measured in standard blood tests—which is why a single universal target can be misleading.

This cuts in both directions: pushing non-European individuals to reach “European optimal” levels through supplementation has been associated with heart damage in African Americans in some studies, and doses as low as 1,000 IU per day have been linked to immune effects in some Native American populations. On the other end of the spectrum, roughly 1 in 50 people appear to need higher-than-average blood levels to feel well. The practical point is the same either way: individual variation is real, and neither “supplement heavily” nor “avoid supplements entirely” is the right answer universally.

Finding your level

Given this variability, a reasonable approach is to let sunlight do much of the work, since the skin naturally limits how much vitamin D it produces. For many people, regular unshaded, unblocked UVB exposure on the arms, face and neck, paired with a mineral-rich diet that includes animal fats, which help the body produce and use vitamin D from sunlight, is often sufficient without risking excessive production. It’s also worth noting that magnesium is required to activate vitamin D in the body—without adequate magnesium, supplementation may be less effective than expected.

UVB availability varies by latitude and season, and online tools exist to check local conditions. If sunlight isn’t practical, a broad-spectrum UV lamp is a reasonable substitute, since other wavelengths in natural light carry their own benefits. Testing is worthwhile if you take medications or have conditions—such as prior gastric bypass surgery or inflammatory bowel disease—that affect vitamin D production, sun exposure, or fat and mineral absorption, or if you are specifically trying to correct a known deficiency.

As a general benchmark, vitamin D levels should remain above 12 ng/mL (30 nmol/L) across ethnicities, a level considered severely deficient by Caucasian standards. Beyond that floor, some evidence suggests people of color may remain healthy at levels around 16 ng/mL, while those of European descent might target 20 ng/mL. For those who choose to supplement, the IOM recommends 600 IU per day for people without regular sun access. (The IOM raises this to 800 IU per day for adults over 70, reflecting the reduced ability to synthesize vitamin D from sunlight and absorb it from food that often comes with age.) Individual absorption varies enough that retesting every three to six months is worthwhile.

Health benefits appear to plateau around 24 ng/mL (60 nmol/L), with normal seasonal swings above and below that, and there’s little reason to exceed 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L) unless sunlight alone puts you there. It’s also worth tracking vitamin D from fortified foods and multivitamins, since these add up alongside any standalone supplement.

A Precedent Worth Remembering

Today’s vitamin D enthusiasm has a precedent that illustrates both sides of this story well. In the 1950s, manufacturers fortified not just milk and cereal but margarine, soda, custard, hot dogs and even shaving cream with vitamin D, while Britain kept promoting cod liver oil—reflecting justified enthusiasm for a nutrient that had just eliminated a major childhood disease. But some infants ended up getting too much: British researchers calculated that a baby eating fortified milk, cereal and cod liver oil together could easily take in around 4,000 IU per day, and in Australia, physicians diagnosed hypercalcemia in infants consuming as little as 1,000 to just over 2,000 IU daily. Affected babies experienced appetite loss, weight loss, vomiting, constipation and in some cases heart murmurs.

Most infants tolerated these doses without issue—but not all of them did. That’s the real lesson, and it cuts both ways: vitamin D deficiency is a genuine, well-documented problem, and correcting it provides real benefits, especially for bone, muscle and immune health. At the same time, because vitamin D accumulates in the body, individual tolerance varies, and more is not automatically better once you’re already in a healthy range. Sunlight, a nutrient-dense diet built around minimally processed whole foods, and supplementation targeted at documented deficiency—rather than blanket high-dose supplementation for everyone—remains the best-supported approach.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: GLP-1 medications like Ozempic and Mounjaro have rapidly become some of the most prescribed drugs in the United States, offering meaningful weight loss for many people by altering the biology of hunger. But their rise comes with significant tradeoffs, including muscle loss, nutritional deficiencies, bone density concerns, mood changes, and a dependence on continued treatment that raises questions about what happens when the medication is discontinued. Understanding both the evidence and the uncertainties can help inform decisions about whether these medications are the right fit.

“The destiny of nations depends on the manner in which they are fed,” wrote Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, capturing a belief that food shapes not just individual health, but the character of a society. For much of history, people relied primarily on the foods they could grow, raise, preserve, or obtain locally, creating a more direct relationship between diet and health than you may experience today.

That relationship became more complicated over time. Industrialized food production, increasingly sedentary lifestyles, and the widespread availability of highly processed foods have contributed to a growing burden of chronic disease worldwide, including in the United States. As excess weight has become linked to rising rates of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and other chronic illnesses, the search for solutions has expanded beyond diet and exercise. As obesity continues to affect millions of Americans, a class of medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs is redefining the biology of hunger and fullness, making significant weight loss possible without relying on willpower alone. Their growing use is shifting the conversation from dieting and personal discipline toward the biological signals that shape appetite, nutrition, and weight.

What’s actually available

Drugs once used primarily for type 2 diabetes are now widely prescribed for weight loss, with names like Mounjaro and Ozempic becoming part of everyday conversations. In clinical studies, participants lost upwards of 15 percent of their body weight in just over a year. It’s easy to understand the appeal. If managing your weight has been a long-term challenge, tools that reduce hunger can provide relief. Direct-to-consumer advertising, celebrity endorsements, and social media have helped accelerate their growth, but how they actually work—and who they are best suited for—is often unclear. According to Kim Fisher, director of programs at the UC Davis Innovation Institute for Food and Health, “About 1 in 8 adult Americans has already used GLP-1 drugs.” With so many people taking them, understanding both their strengths and limitations becomes increasingly important.

Although GLP-1s dominate the discussion, they are not the only drugs approved by the FDA for chronic weight management. GLP-1-based medications, known formally as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, act on hormones that regulate appetite and digestion. Most are self-administered as once-weekly or daily injections using prefilled pen devices, although oral formulations are beginning to emerge. Other medications work through different mechanisms. Fat absorption inhibitors, such as orlistat, reduce the amount of dietary fat the body absorbs by blocking digestive enzymes. Central nervous system medications, including Qsymia and Contrave, act on the brain’s appetite and reward centers to influence hunger and cravings. These options generally produce more modest weight loss. GLP-1s stand out for both their effectiveness and their ability to alter hunger and satiety, making them the most widely used and closely watched treatments for chronic weight management. Other approaches, including bariatric surgery, are also available but are considered separately because of their level of intervention.

GLP-1 medications are typically prescribed for adults with obesity or for those who are overweight and have weight-related health conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, or obstructive sleep apnea. Whether they are an appropriate option depends on your overall health, medical history, and guidance from a qualified healthcare provider.

The biology behind the drug

GLP-1 receptor agonists belong to a therapeutic category known as incretin mimetics, meaning they mimic the action of a naturally occurring hormone released in the gut after eating. This hormone helps stabilize blood sugar by stimulating insulin release, slowing stomach emptying, blocking the liver from overproducing sugar and signaling to your brain that you are full. This helps reduce the cycle of spikes and crashes that can drive food cravings. Rather than simply restricting calories, GLP-1 medications change the biology of appetite by connecting the gut and brain. GLP-1 receptors are present in regions involved in appetite and reward, and activating these pathways can lessen the appeal of highly processed or higher-calorie foods.

People often describe less interest in certain foods instead of making a constant effort to avoid them. This represents a fundamental shift from the restraint often associated with traditional dieting. This change can make it easier to feel satisfied with smaller portions and less attracted to foods that once felt difficult to resist. The effectiveness of these medications, however, is often tied to ongoing treatment. When the medication is discontinued, hunger returns to its previous state, which is why continued use remains controversial. In follow-up studies, participants who remained on GLP-1 therapy largely maintained their weight loss, while those who stopped treatment began to regain it.

Side Effects and Tradeoffs

Weight loss is only one effect of GLP-1 medications. Digestion, nutrient intake, muscle mass, and other aspects of health may also change during treatment. Some changes appear early, while others may develop over time. Understanding these potential effects provides important context for anyone considering these medications. According to 2024 research from the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology, “The most common side effects of GLP-1 RAs are nausea and vomiting, which have been attributed to delayed gastric emptying.” Because these medications slow the movement of food through the stomach, you may experience persistent fullness and delayed digestion. In some cases, this slowing of digestion can resemble gastroparesis, which may make eating uncomfortable and, potentially, interfere with nutrient absorption. Although these symptoms may improve over time, they can persist.

Weight loss on GLP-1s includes not only fat loss but also a reduction in lean muscle mass. Since muscle plays a central role in strength, metabolism and long-term weight management, preserving muscle becomes an important priority. This typically involves adequate protein intake and regular resistance training. Without sufficient muscle, your body burns fewer calories, making it more challenging to maintain weight loss.

Growing evidence suggests that muscle mass is one of the strongest predictors of healthy aging. It helps support mobility, balance, bone health and blood sugar regulation later in life. Dr. Gabrielle Lyon, a physician who focuses on the role of muscle in long-term health, has argued that “the more muscle health you have, the better your trajectory of aging.” Protecting muscle during weight loss is just as important as decreasing body fat.

A reduced appetite can make it easier to eat less, but it can also make it harder to get enough essential nutrients. When you limit calories, meeting protein, vitamin and mineral needs requires more attention and planning—raising the risk of deficiencies that affect energy levels, immune function, and contribute to muscle loss. Rapid weight loss and nutritional deficiencies can lower bone density. This happens when overall nutrition is insufficient and muscle mass declines, both of which help support the skeletal system. Reduced bone density makes bones more fragile and more susceptible to injury. Maintaining skeletal integrity requires consistent intake of nutrients such as calcium and vitamin D, along with regular resistance training. Hair shedding and changes in appearance—including loss of facial volume, often referred to as “Ozempic face“—can also occur. These changes are not unique to GLP-1s but reflect how the body responds to significant weight loss over a short period of time. Because GLP-1s reduce hunger cues, eating often becomes less intuitive. Some people report eating more by routine or intention rather than hunger, while others describe a loss of appetite altogether.

Research has also begun to examine how these shifts may affect mood and behavior. While findings are still developing, studies have reported changes such as reduced interest in food and, in some cases, symptoms like anxiety. These effects are not universal, but they suggest the impact of the drugs may extend to mental and emotional health. Starting these medications also means recognizing that your eating habits, food preferences, and thoughts about food may change over time. You may experience relief from persistent hunger or food cravings, or you may find these changes unfamiliar and difficult to navigate. Additional reactions can include dizziness, increased heart rate, infections, headaches, and indigestion. You may experience temporary itchiness or redness at the injection site. Although rare, serious adverse events, including pancreatitis, medullary thyroid cancer, acute kidney injury, and worsening diabetes-related eye conditions, highlight why these medications require medical supervision and are not a one-size-fits-all solution.

What Is Not Known Yet

For many people, maintaining the benefits of GLP-1 therapy requires continued use of the medication. Unlike traditional lifestyle approaches, which aim to establish lasting eating and exercise habits, these medications modify the biological signals that regulate hunger and fullness. As their appetite-regulating effects fade after treatment ends, appetite often returns. The central question is whether those results can be maintained without the medication. Clinicians compare this pattern to the management of other chronic conditions—like high cholesterol, asthma or hypothyroidism—where medication is taken on an ongoing basis. Much of the debate centers on how obesity is viewed. If it is considered primarily the result of lifestyle choices, lifelong medication may seem difficult to justify. If it is recognized as a chronic disease, however, ongoing pharmacological treatment becomes a more widely accepted approach. Dr. Diana Thiara, medical director of the UCSF Weight Management Clinic and assistant clinical professor at UCSF, told Healthline that obesity “is a chronic disease that requires long-term management.”

Emerging studies suggest that GLP-1s may also influence the brain’s reward pathways and reduce cravings related to alcohol and other substances. While this research is still developing, it suggests that the effects of these medications may extend beyond appetite regulation alone. Ultimately, whether the benefits of weight loss outweigh the commitment to continued treatment depends on your health status, risk factors, and goals. Although studies demonstrate substantial improvements in weight and metabolic health, important questions remain about their safety and effectiveness over decades of use. Current evidence is based on clinical trials and real-world use, but most studies have followed patients for only a few years. As millions of people begin using these medications, longer follow-up will help clarify how they perform over decades rather than years.

Medical history illustrates why safety over decades of use deserves careful evaluation. Some medications have appeared highly effective before important safety concerns became apparent. Vioxx, a prescription pain medication widely used to treat arthritis and other chronic pain conditions, was later linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular events, ultimately leading to its withdrawal from the market. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, more than 80 million patients had taken the drug before it was removed in 2004. Some weight-loss medications have followed a similar pattern. Fen-Phen, once promoted as a breakthrough treatment for obesity, was later linked to heart valve disease and pulmonary hypertension. In 1997, key components of the Fen-Phen regimen were voluntarily withdrawn from the market at the FDA’s request. The lesson is not that GLP-1s will follow the same path, but that the safety profile of widely used medications often becomes clearer only after years of real-world use and continued study.

Another consideration is how GLP-1s work alongside other medications commonly used to treat chronic conditions such as high blood pressure or heart disease. The more medications you take, the greater the potential for drug interactions and unexpected adverse events. Although researchers continue to study how GLP-1s affect other medications, no clinical trial can evaluate every potential medication combination encountered in everyday practice. This doesn’t mean they can’t be safely taken with other drugs, but it does highlight the importance of individualized medical oversight.

Insurance coverage for GLP-1s is far from straightforward. Drugs like Ozempic and Mounjaro are often more likely to be covered when prescribed for type 2 diabetes than when prescribed for weight management. Much of this comes down to how insurers define medical necessity. Diabetes is classified as a chronic disease requiring ongoing treatment, with clear clinical guidelines for medication coverage, whereas obesity treatment has historically been viewed differently. Many insurance plans continue to classify weight loss drugs as optional or lifestyle-related, even when excess weight can contribute to serious health conditions.

Cost also plays a role. “Without insurance, these medications can cost anywhere from about $900 to $1,400 per month, depending on the specific drug,” said Peter Balzs, M.D., a board-certified obstetrician and hormone and weight loss specialist, in an interview with Forbes. Covering these medications can significantly increase costs for insurers, particularly if patients remain on them indefinitely. As a result, many insurers either exclude them entirely or impose strict eligibility requirements, such as a higher body mass index or obesity-related conditions like type 2 diabetes or high blood pressure. As a result, many employer-sponsored plans and private policies exclude weight management drugs altogether.

Public insurance adds another layer of complexity. Medicare has historically excluded coverage for medications prescribed specifically for weight management, even when the same drugs are covered for other conditions. Medicaid coverage varies by state, creating an uneven system where access depends heavily on location. As a result, the same medication may be affordable for one person and entirely out of reach for another, depending less on the drug itself and more on your diagnosis, insurance plan and where you live.

When medication meets lifestyle

For decades, organizations such as the American Heart Association have emphasized whole-food diets, physical activity, and other lifestyle behaviors as the foundation of health. More recently, movements such as Make America Healthy Again have also brought renewed attention to the role of food in preventing chronic disease. With the introduction of medications that directly alter appetite, that framework is changing. More than 40 million people in the United States have been prescribed GLP-1s, making pharmacologic intervention part of the journey toward better health rather than a last resort. Instead of viewing medication and lifestyle as competing approaches, experts increasingly see them as complementary. Medication may help address the biological drivers of obesity, while nutrition, physical activity, sleep, and stress management remain essential to overall health and well-being.

A large study of more than 98,000 military veterans found that those using GLP-1s who also maintained six to eight healthy lifestyle habits had a 43 percent lower risk of major cardiovascular events, including stroke and heart attack. The factors included a high-quality diet, regular physical activity, nonsmoking status, restful sleep, limited alcohol intake, effective stress management, social connection and support, and no opioid use disorder diagnosis. As Dr. Frank Hu, a lead author of the study and chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, noted, lifestyle factors can “substantially amplify the benefits of modern medications”—reinforcing that these drugs are most effective when paired with consistent behavioral approaches.

The Longer Game

Medication is one approach to weight management, but it is not the only one. Nutrition, behavior, and lifestyle remain foundational approaches, whether used independently or alongside pharmacologic treatment. These strategies typically take longer to produce results, but they emphasize lasting changes in eating patterns, physical activity, and daily habits. One supplement that has gained attention is berberine, a plant-derived compound used in traditional medicine. Rather than reducing appetite, it improves blood sugar regulation. Research suggests it can support metabolic health, although its effects on weight are generally more modest than those seen with GLP-1 medications. It is not a quick fix and should be viewed as one part of a broader approach to nutrition and lifestyle. Several foundational behaviors are consistently associated with healthier weight regulation:

• Nutrition: Higher protein intake will increase satiety and build muscle mass, which can boost metabolism and help burn calories. The FDA suggests 50 g per day, but many dietitians recommend more for healthy and active adults. Whole-food, fiber-rich diets slow digestion naturally and regulate blood sugar, which can reduce the urge to snack. Specific dietary approaches—including intermittent fasting, keto, and the Mediterranean diet, along with diets centered on unprocessed foods—have all been shown to support weight management.

• Physical activity: Resistance training helps preserve muscle mass, allowing the body to use energy more efficiently. Regular physical activity, including walking, swimming, cycling, and yoga, can support metabolic health by improving insulin sensitivity, reducing stress, and contributing to stable blood sugar over time.

• Lifestyle: Steady sleep and stress reduction can influence appetite-related hormones and eating patterns. Chronic sleep deprivation and elevated cortisol have both been linked to increased hunger, stronger cravings and greater difficulty maintaining a healthy weight.

• Behavioral support: Counseling or group-based programs can help you better understand the psychological and emotional factors that influence eating patterns. They may also help reinforce healthy habits, improve accountability, and support changes that are more likely to be sustained over time.

Each of these strategies plays a different role. While they may not produce the rapid weight loss seen with GLP-1 medications, together they can support metabolic health and help build sustainable lifestyle practices. Successful weight management depends on consistency rather than intensity. Rapid changes can be effective in the short term, but lasting health is built through sustainable habits. Health is not defined by a single number, nor is body size the sole measure of well-being. Progress looks different for everyone because weight is influenced by the interaction of genetics, behavior, physiology, and life circumstances. Focusing on broader health markers allows for more personalized decisions, whether those include medication, lifestyle changes, or a combination of both.

GLP-1s have introduced a powerful tool for managing weight, but no single approach is right for everyone. Whether medication becomes part of your plan or not, the most effective strategy is one that aligns with your health status, risk factors, and goals. Informed decision-making, grounded in the best available evidence and your individual circumstances, offers the strongest foundation for improving health.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Wool has clothed humanity for thousands of years—breathable, biodegradable, renewable and remarkably durable. But the fiber in your sweater today bears little resemblance to what early shepherds gathered by hand. Industrial processing, synthetic blending, toxic dyes, pesticide treatments and selective breeding practices have transformed one of nature’s most functional materials into something far more complicated. The environmental toll is significant, animal welfare concerns are widespread, and certifications that promise otherwise don’t always deliver. When sourced with care—regenerative grazing, minimal processing, organic standards—wool remains one of the most extraordinary natural fibers available.

The first humans to gather wool had a laborious task at hand. They would bide their time until spring, when wild sheep would shed their soft undercoat by rubbing their bodies onto rocks, thorns, bushes and the ground. Early herding societies that kept sheep within their settlements developed manual plucking techniques for loose clumps of fleece known as “rooing.” These molted hairs would then be stuffed into footwear or matted together to create a warm rudimentary covering that trapped air, repelled water, absorbed water vapor and remained highly breathable. While rough, scratchy and uncomfortable for everyday wear, they helped ensure survival across extreme environments. Crude wool blankets and sheepskins made it possible for nomadic tribes such as the Mongols of the Eurasian Steppe to withstand both sub-zero winds and scorching desert sun.

Sheep were initially domesticated for their meat, milk and hides, with fiber considered only a secondary benefit. It would be thousands of years before sheep would be selected specifically for their wool quality, leading to the eventual phasing out of coarser hairs. Early wool production in Mesopotamia and Persia around 6000 BC involved primitive shearing tools—two blades joined by a spring—that carefully removed fleece from the sheep’s body. The wool was then skirted and sorted to remove debris and short fibers, before being spun by rolling tufts along the thigh and twisting them into thread by hand.

Wool was long revered for its warmth and durability. As finer breeds like Merino emerged, it broadened its reputation as both practical and luxurious. It is also biodegradable: when left in the soil, wool fibers break down after three to six months and release sulfur, nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus back to the earth, acting as an effective soil conditioner and fertilizer. At a time when growing attention is focused on synthetic textiles and microplastic exposure, natural fibers can seem like an obvious alternative. The picture, however, is more nuanced. Many wool products contain plastic-based fibers, while others carry environmental and animal welfare concerns that are far less apparent to consumers.

From Pastoral to Processed

Industrial processing entered the picture, and sheep went from naturally shedding animals to artificially bred commodities. Today, large-scale manufacturers cut corners by using short-staple fibers and harsh chemical treatments. These manufacturing methods help standardize production, yet the end result is a cheaply made garment that shrinks, pills and wears out far more quickly than it should. Coarse hairs are transformed into a machine-washable garment by means of conventional processing that employs toxic substances, heavy-metal dyes and plastic coatings. In order to make them stand up to machine washing, they are often treated with chlorine and then coated in a petroleum-based polymer to prevent matting.

While these processes can improve durability and produce a more consistent product, they also introduce additional chemical treatments that can diminish the fiber’s natural qualities and shorten its lifespan. This extends even to luxury wool fibers such as cashmere. High-quality cashmere, sourced from the soft undercoat of cashmere goats, typically requires minimal processing—washed with mild detergents before being spun into yarn. Lower-grade cashmere, by contrast, is often composed of shorter, coarser fibers that need to be chemically softened and treated with silicone-based finishes to mimic the feel of higher-quality material.

Modern wool products rarely exist in isolation, but within a larger textile ecosystem increasingly dominated by synthetic fibers. More than half of the wool produced today is blended with petroleum-based materials like polyester and nylon, which come with their own set of environmental concerns. Polyester, for example, is a spun plastic derived from fossil fuels through energy-intensive processes that generate significant greenhouse gas emissions. While it requires less land and water than natural fibers, it persists in the environment for centuries after disposal. In fact, the polyester in your yoga pants may take up to 500 years to fully break down, all while shedding microplastics and potentially releasing chemical additives into the environment.

Polyester accounts for more than half of all global fiber production. Nylon, another petroleum-based polymer, is manufactured through a similarly energy-intensive process and also takes hundreds of years to decompose, contributing to microplastic pollution as it breaks down in oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. These synthetic fibers, while often marketed as performance-enhancing and cost-effective, have become a dominant force in throwaway fashion—and a major driver of long-term environmental pollution.

Thousands of years ago, artisans would clean wool through a slow, painstaking process. Days and sometimes weeks were spent combing through raw fleeces, plucking out stubborn burrs and straw by hand. The fleeces were then soaked in warm water to release sheep oils (lanolin), grime and dirt. Some cultures used stale urine or plant extracts as early cleaning agents to break down stubborn debris. After drying in the sun, wool would be laid on wooden slats and beaten with thin branches to loosen any remaining seeds. The last stage was combing and carding, in which the wool would be drawn through fine-toothed combs or wooden hand cards.

In today’s fast-paced world of fashion, this process is too time-consuming to justify economically. As a result, manual labor has been replaced with industrialized methods such as carbonization, a treatment that rapidly removes stubborn plant materials using acid solutions, high heat and mechanical crushing. While remarkably effective, it introduces trace chemical residues such as sulfuric acid and sodium carbonate that may remain on the fabric and irritate your skin if you are sensitive to these substances.

Then there are the pesticides. Moths, beetles and other pests threaten every stage of the wool supply chain. Insects and parasites can degrade fleece quality through disease and physical damage. Sheep ticks and lice can cause animals to vigorously scratch, bite and rub against fences, reducing the overall weight and quality of the fleece fibers. In response, many carpet and textile companies resort to insecticides or insect-resistant agents, sometimes fully dipping sheep in pesticides before harvesting their fleece. While the health impact of residual pesticides on everyday wool garments is unclear, some studies have shown that pesticide residues in wool from major suppliers in Australia and New Zealand have declined to nearly zero—although traces may still remain. Washing wool items with gentle eco-friendly detergents by hand and drying them in sunlight may help break down any lingering chemical compounds over time.

The dyeing process is another major source of toxins. Commercial wool dyeing involves synthetic dyes, chemical auxiliaries and heavy metals like chromium and copper. Chromium VI, a known carcinogen, is frequently used as a dye fixative to ensure a deep bond with the fiber. Most conventional dyes are known to break down into aromatic amines, which are linked to endocrine disruption, skin allergies, respiratory problems and several types of cancer. Animal welfare concerns also shape the wool industry. Shearers are often paid by volume rather than by hour, which can incentivize speed over care. Poor handling practices have been documented, with one eyewitness telling People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA):

“The shearing shed must be one of the worst places in the world for cruelty to animals …. I have seen shearers punch sheep with their shears or their fists until the sheep’s nose bled. I have seen sheep with half their faces shorn off …”

Beyond day-to-day treatment, the production system has also influenced the very bodies of sheep themselves. Selective breeding has significantly altered their physiology, with Merino sheep in particular bred to produce dense, heavily wrinkled fleece to maximize wool yield. While advantageous for wool production, these traits can create serious health complications for the animals, including overheating and flystrike—a painful and dangerous condition where flies lay their eggs in folds of damp skin or wool. The eggs hatch rapidly into maggots that feed on the sheep’s flesh and can become life-threatening. For some producers, the solution is “mulesing“: carving wide strips of flesh off the sheep’s hindquarters to create scar tissue that’s less susceptible to fly infestation.

“Almost all Merino wool—from an ancient breed of hardy sheep—on the High Street comes from Australia and New Zealand, including anything labelled with the Woolmark logo, and unless a brand states its opposition to mulesing, it is likely to have been subject to the practice.”

These wounds often become infested with larvae before they can heal properly. Some shearers have been reported for crude negligence, sewing up wounds with no pain relief. Likewise, goats are frequently shorn in midwinter so manufacturers can meet market demand, which can be fatal for animals farmed in places like Mongolia and China where they are exposed to bitter cold.

Clever marketing has framed shearing sheep as a kindness—with fleece as just a welcome byproduct. Yet the sheep’s primary ancestry, the wild mouflon, needed no intervention to survive. The reality is that selective breeding has put modern sheep at the mercy of humans. And while some farms operate under high welfare standards, conditions vary widely across regions and production systems, with some involving starvation and harsh physical handling to make shearing quicker.

The Cost the Label Doesn’t Show

When manufactured on a large scale, wool is more ecologically complex than its natural fiber reputation suggests. The not-for-profit organization Made-By Environmental Benchmark for Fibres ranked mass-produced wool as a “Class E” fiber—the worst category possible—for its human toxicity, eco-toxicity, methane emissions, overgrazing, and water, land and energy use. By comparison, textiles that received Class A designation included recycled wool, organic hemp and recycled cotton. The International Wool Textile Organization makes claims about renewability and conservation, yet others tell a different story. Stephanie Feldstein, population and sustainability director at the Center for Biological Diversity and author at Collective Fashion Justice, says:

“The fashion industry has tried to pass wool off as a sustainable alternative to synthetics, but that claim quickly unravels when you take a closer look. Even 100 percent wool fiber production leads to deforestation and threatens wildlife. There are real eco-friendly materials out there, but wool isn’t one of them.”

An analysis of mainstream clothing brands revealed that 55 percent of wool items examined were blended with fossil-fuel-based synthetic fibers, with mass-market retailers being the biggest offenders. Even luxury knitwear brands were found to be cutting their wool with other materials. A 2021 report found that one kilogram of wool can create as much climate pollution as driving more than 100 miles, and a single Australian bale uses up to 367 times more land than cotton. These figures vary significantly depending on grazing intensity, land management and regional practices.

This can be daunting information for the eco-conscious shopper, but there is a silver lining—you just have to do a bit of digging. The American Sheep Industry Association offers resources on small, ethically-minded mills in the United States, and the American Wool Council can help guide you toward brands that prioritize regenerative grazing—a nature-mimicking management approach that uses livestock as a tool for restoring soil health and supporting thriving habitats for wildlife and pollinators. When managed well, sheep grazing in forested systems can contribute to healthier tree growth and ecosystem balance. Rotational grazing—moving sheep frequently through pastures—combined with practices like windbreak planting (the strategic arranging of shrubs and trees to slow wind speed) can further protect biodiversity. These methods also have downstream benefits for waterways, helping reduce sediment runoff and nutrient pollution that can otherwise disrupt marine ecosystems.

ZQ Merino is a premium wool certification program that aims to guarantee social responsibility, ecological sustainability, traceability and ethical animal welfare standards. Responsible Wool Standard is another designation designed to improve transparency around animal welfare and land management, though it does not guarantee variability in enforcement or sourcing—and inspections are announced in advance. In 2024, an undercover investigation by PETA Asia into eleven ZQ-certified farms in New Zealand discovered that ethical standards were not being followed and routine violence was taking place. Even certified supply chains can include mixed or blended fibers, so while oversight is helpful, it’s not absolute. Ethically sourced Merino wool can also be found in the United States.

When in doubt, look for organic certifications. They remain one of the most reliable ways to ensure wool has been produced with fewer toxic chemicals and contaminants. The leading global certification is Global Organic Textile Standard, which evaluates organic farming practices, ethical labor standards and restrictions on substances such as heavy metals, synthetic dyes and formaldehyde. Another widely recognized certification is OEKO-TEX Standard 100, which screens finished textiles for phthalates, azo dyes, formaldehyde and other potentially hazardous chemicals. To carry either label, products must pass testing at multiple stages of production—sometimes down to the dyes, threads, prints and zippers themselves. Both certifications rely on independent laboratory testing and annual reviews, often using safety thresholds that exceed local regulatory standards. For lower-impact options, seek out artisan wool colored with plant- and mineral-based dyes rather than harsh chemical treatments.

When Wool Gets It Right

Even with the shadows of modern consumerism and synthetic blending threatening the character of the fiber, raw wool’s profile is largely unsurpassed. Antimicrobial, UV-protective, renewable, biodegradable, fire-safe, pest-resistant, suitable for all seasons, anti-allergenic and able to withstand up to 20,000 bends without breaking, it can last generations. That wool sweater you pass down to your daughter can be enjoyed by her own children. It is one of the most repurposed and recycled textiles on the planet. And when sustainably and organically farmed, and processed without toxic dyes or chemical treatments, it remains one of the best choices for bedding, mattresses, comforters, clothing, and even insulation.

These intrinsic properties have made wool a material of ongoing interest in medical and clinical textiles. It is breathable, moisture-regulating, and capable of maintaining a stable microclimate against the skin—qualities that are especially important in wound care and long-term skin contact. Wool-based dressings and engineered fibers are being explored in tissue-support environments, where biocompatible materials help promote optimal healing conditions. Australian medical sheepskins are a popular choice in hospitals and nursing homes, where their cushioning and moisture-wicking properties help reduce pressure points and prevent bedsores. Finely processed Merino wool is also incorporated into medical garments and hospital textiles designed for prolonged wear, offering both odor control and breathability.

Beyond clinical use, ultra-fine Merino wool is widely used in clothing intended for sensitive skin. Its ability to regulate temperature and wick moisture can make it more comfortable than many conventional fabrics, particularly in infant clothing and bedding. In some cases, wool is blended with silk to enhance softness while maintaining its thermoregulatory benefits, creating a natural textile that is both functional and gentle against the body. These applications reveal an important distinction: wool is not inherently good or bad, but highly dependent on how it’s processed, sourced and used. The same fiber that can exist in a highly industrial, chemically intensive supply chain can also exist in systems that prioritize minimal processing, animal welfare and ecological stewardship.

Choosing a fiber often means balancing competing priorities, from durability and performance to environmental impact and animal welfare. Understanding how something is made, and the true cost behind its production, can help you make more informed decisions rather than simply accepting marketing claims. Your choices matter, even if they seem small. Be intentional: support small, local farms, regenerative grazing practices, transparent supply chains and organic or minimally processed fibers whenever possible. Wool is just one option. Other natural fibers, such as organic cotton, hemp and linen, are also worth considering. These materials are durable, breathable and can reduce your reliance on synthetic fabrics that may contain chemical additives or shed microplastics during use.

Rather than filling your closet with disposable seasonal pieces, consider investing in a smaller collection of thoughtfully made garments designed to last. In a culture built around convenience and excess, this transition takes time, but well-crafted unprocessed fibers often become more meaningful with age. They are the kinds of wardrobe staples that can be repaired, reused and eventually passed down for generations.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: We spend most of our lives indoors, yet rarely question what our homes may be releasing into the air we breathe. From off-gassing furniture and flooring to synthetic fragrances and hidden environmental hazards, modern living spaces can harbor pollutants that accumulate over time. Understanding where they come from—and how to reduce them—may be one of the most important steps you can take to create a healthier home.

When you walk into a home, your senses go to work instantly. Your eyes scan the space—the light, the layout, the details—but just as quickly, something else registers: the smell. Sometimes it’s comforting—a slow-simmering meal on the stove or something warm baking in the oven—the kind of scent that feels instantly like home. Other times, it’s less pleasant but easily understood—a litter box that needs attention, yesterday’s trash, the stale remnants of a closed-up space. Unappealing, yes. At least the source is obvious.

In older homes, the air can carry something heavier. A damp, musty odor may suggest an underlying moisture problem, one that warrants attention. Yet some of the most significant environmental hazards, including hidden mold, lead paint, asbestos, and radon—often remain completely undetectable to the nose. Their danger exists beyond what you can perceive, revealed only through observation, recognition, and ultimately testing. Step into a new or newly renovated home, though, and something shifts. There’s a scent that’s become familiar. Clean. Crisp. New. Safe. It’s that unmistakable “new home smell.” Yet what you’re breathing is not freshness. It’s a chemical mixture entering your body with every breath.

What’s Off-Gassing in Your Home?

A house is not an inert structure—it is dynamic, responding to temperature, humidity, and the rhythm of daily life. Walls take in moisture and release it, a process called moisture buffering. Fabrics hold onto what moves through your space—dust, microbes, microscopic particles you never see. Air moves constantly through vents, seams, jambs, ducts, and windows, carrying with it everything the home harbors and circulates. As society moves toward more synthetic materials, what your home exchanges is not just air—it is pollution.

In modern houses, nearly every surface, finish, and convenience is made possible by materials engineered for durability and efficiency. From the moment they are installed, they begin to discharge chemicals into the surrounding air. This process is known as off-gassing, and it doesn’t just happen once. It continues sometimes for years. Scientists refer to many of the chemicals released through off-gassing as volatile organic compounds, or VOCs—carbon-based chemicals that evaporate easily at room temperature. Some dissipate quickly. Others persist. A separate group, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), behave differently. They settle into dust, coat surfaces, and re-enter the body through inhalation, skin contact, and ingestion. Exposure is not usually dramatic. It is cumulative. A home can look pristine and still function as a source of ongoing chemical pollution. Once you’ve become accustomed to what’s in the air, you may not even smell it anymore, yet it is there. Not from one obvious source, but from the countless materials, finishes, and conveniences that define modern living.

Flooring covers more surface area than almost anything else in your home, making it one of the largest contributors to what you’re breathing. Luxury vinyl plank (LVP), a flooring option prized for its affordability and ease of installation, is built from polyvinyl chloride—a petroleum-derived plastic that relies on plasticizers to remain flexible. Historically, these included phthalates such as DEHP and DBP, which are associated with endocrine disruption, reproductive harm, and developmental effects. Even newer formulations marketed as safer may rely on replacement chemicals with far less long-term data. If you choose LVP, look for products carrying a FloorScore certification (tests for VOC emissions and indoor air quality), GREENGUARD Gold (low chemical emissions), and/or a Phthalate-Free label. Beneath the surface, adhesives—if used—can disperse solvents like toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene, contributing additional VOCs to indoor air.

Wall-to-wall carpeting is not a single material—it’s a system. Synthetic fibers, stain-resistant coatings, antimicrobial treatments, polyurethane padding, and installation adhesives all contribute to emissions. Additives like formaldehyde, styrene, benzene derivatives, and PFAS are commonly involved. The American Lung Association warns that children and babies—who spend the most time lying, crawling, and playing on the floor—are particularly vulnerable to respiratory problems from these chemicals.

Paint is one of the most cost-effective and dramatic ways to transform a house, but the odor lingers long after the color dries. During curing, paints emit fumes such as formaldehyde, acetone, glycol ethers, and ammonia. Even low-VOC options can contain preservatives and biocides that affect air quality. The scent may fade within days, but measurable emissions can persist for up to six months.

Furniture brings comfort, but it often arrives layered with modern industrial materials. Upholstered pieces typically contain polyurethane foam, flame retardants, adhesives, and engineered wood frames bound with formaldehyde-based resins. The fabric itself is frequently treated with chemical finishes—stain-resistant coatings, flame retardants, wrinkle-resistant treatments, and man-made dyes—that can remain in the finished product. Over time, these materials degrade, releasing both gases and microscopic particles that settle into dust, where they can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin.

Modern cabinetry and built-ins are often made from pressed wood products like chipboard, MDF, and particleboard, held together with resins that leach formaldehyde over time. Heat and humidity can accelerate the process, extending exposure well beyond initial installation. Mattresses—often evaluated only for comfort and durability—are one of the most consistent sources of contact with these compounds simply because of proximity and time. Many contain foam, adhesives, synthetic fabrics, and flame-retardant barriers that off-gas gradually. Body heat accelerates this, concentrating those emissions directly in your breathing space during sleep—when the body is meant to restore itself.

Appliances also contribute. New dishwashers, ovens, and electronics contain plastics, sealants, wire coatings, and heat-resistant materials that undergo thermal degradation when first used. The burnt smell during the “break-in” period is often described as normal by manufacturers. On its website, Maytag states:

“Hot tar/petroleum odors: This is a normal smell for new dishwashers. Some models have sound-deadening material that smells like hot tar/petroleum. This material looks like a black rubber coating that is on the exterior of the dishwasher tub. This material also helps to retain heat inside the dishwasher and is found on most stainless steel tub dishwashers. This is normal and should dissipate in 4-6 weeks.”

Their “normal” doesn’t mean it’s necessarily harmless. This tar-like smell is most likely coming from bitumen—also known as asphalt—a petroleum product known to cause “serious injury and permanent damage” when its fumes are inhaled. Compounding the concern, not all dishwashers use bitumen and manufacturers are not always transparent about what is used. The site NonToxU found through research that commonly used materials in dishwasher insulating blankets can include PTFE laminates (Teflon), mastics, coatings, and paints—all with varying degrees of toxicity. Even everyday household items pose a risk. The plastics in electronics and storage containers release styrene, naphthalene, and other volatile chemicals—especially when heated during use, charging, or even sitting in a warm room.

What You Bring In Matters Too

By now, you may feel overwhelmed—much of what was mentioned may be outside your control. That perfect apartment in your desired location, within budget, newly updated with paint and carpet, may leave you living with choices that were made long before you arrived. Yet that’s only one source of the exposure inside your home. The other comes from the products you use and the items you choose to surround yourself with daily.

Cleaning products, laundry detergents, dryer sheets, air fresheners—these aren’t passive materials. They’re designed to be used often and activated with heat—sprayed into the air, warmed in machines, spread across surfaces. They linger long after the counters are dry, the laundry is folded, and the cleaning is complete. Inhaled or absorbed through the skin, they continue to affect the body well after the immediate task is finished.

This pattern has been normalized over decades, reinforced by messaging that framed chemical disinfectants as essential for protection, while placing far less attention on the long-term effects of repeated chemical exposure. A culture of cleanliness was built around the fear of microbes on surfaces, without the same scrutiny given to what toxicants were being released into the air and absorbed by the body in the process. That shift didn’t happen in isolation. Environmental advocate Janey Bibolet Ward wrote in her A Voice for Choice Advocacy article, “To Disinfect or Not? History, Implications, and Nontoxic Options”:

“One of the key factors that contributed to the rise of chemical disinfectants was the growing fear about infectious diseases, and the need for effective methods to control their spread. During the early 20th century, there were several major disease outbreaks, including the 1918 flu pandemic, and the polio epidemic of the 1950s, that highlighted the urgency to disinfect surfaces and control the spread of germs…In the 1940s and 1950s, the use of harsh cleaning chemicals became widespread in households. Television advertising helped to popularize the use of products containing bleach, of which dioxins—a serious, environmental pollutant—were a by-product. Commercials blasted images of sparkling clean homes, and emphasized the importance of disinfecting surfaces to prevent the outbreak of disease.”

In addition to the fear of infection, dirty or musty smells are often masked with air fresheners rather than identified and addressed at their source. Throughout history, incense, essential oils and botanicals have been used to banish unwanted odors, but by the 1940s companies like Air Wick began marketing synthetic alternatives to American consumers. Borrowing from technology used by the military to spray insecticides, aerosol room sprays were quickly adopted as an easy way to keep homes smelling clean. And that’s where some of the confusion begins. Over time, synthetic fragrances have been marketed as signals of cleanliness, freshness, and hygiene. As a result, people have come to associate these scents with a clean environment, even though fragrance itself says little about the quality of the air. Not all sources of fragrance come from sprays and air fresheners. Many scented candles contain synthetic fragrances and petroleum-based waxes that release pollutants as they burn. Even products labeled “natural” may contain ingredients that contribute to indoor air contamination.

Sanctuary, Compromised

Once inhaled, these substances become part of your body’s workload. Whether their origin is your remodeled kitchen, the new upholstered sofa, or the laundry room, the vapors travel deep into your lungs, reaching the alveoli where gas exchange occurs. These membranes are designed for efficiency—thin enough to allow oxygen into the bloodstream. That same efficiency allows chemicals to pass through as well.

From there, they circulate. They move through your bloodstream to the liver, where detoxification begins, and into fatty tissues where much is stored. Some cross into the brain. Others move through endocrine tissues, influencing signaling pathways even at low levels. Immediate effects can include irritation of the eyes, nose and throat, headaches and lightheadedness. Long-term exposure can lead to asthma, allergies, respiratory difficulties and even cancer.

While your body is equipped to process toxins—the liver, kidneys, lungs, and lymphatic system all work continuously to neutralize and eliminate what enters—modern exposure is not occasional. It is constant, cumulative, and often composed of substances the body was never designed to encounter in such quantities. Many people carry metabolic or genetic vulnerabilities that impair their ability to detoxify efficiently, resulting in illness and injury. Patricia S. Lemer’s book “Total Load Theory: Transforming Lives in Autism, ADHD, LD, SPD, and Mental Health” proposes how this works:

“Toxins disrupt every system in the body, causing them to become inflamed, distressed and dysfunctional. They can also alter and suppress immune function. Total Load Theory posits that genetically vulnerable immune systems eventually become exhausted from continuous efforts to ward off repeated assaults from the environment.”

Joseph Pizzorno, ND, founder and former president of Bastyr University, which was the first accredited college in the United States for the study of naturopathic medicine, adds:

“Due to the high level of contamination of the environment with toxic elements and molecules, toxic load should be assessed in every patient, especially those suffering chronic disease. While measuring specific toxins in blood or urine can be clinically useful, the reality is that we cannot actually measure most of the toxins to which we are exposed. We also have the challenges of the huge variation in susceptibility to damage and ability to detoxify.”

Some of these chemicals, including formaldehyde and benzene, are well studied and carry established health risks at sufficient levels of exposure, including links to cancer. But risk is not only about high doses. It is also about duration—what happens when contact with these compounds is repeated, day after day, year after year. Modern building practices can intensify this. Homes today are built tighter for energy efficiency. Air exchange is minimized to reduce heating and cooling costs. While this improves energy performance, it also limits the natural movement of air. What is released indoors tends to stay indoors. Concentrations rise, not because more toxins are emitted, but because fewer are removed.

Some of the most significant indoor hazards predate modern construction altogether. Lead is most commonly associated with homes built before 1978, when lead-based paints were still widely used. As paint ages, peels, or is disturbed during renovation, it can create contaminated dust that is easily inhaled or ingested. Young children are particularly vulnerable because lead can interfere with neurological development, learning, and behavior. Peeling paint in an older home may be a clue, but testing is the only way to know for certain.

Asbestos, once valued for its durability and fire resistance, was commonly used in insulation, flooring, roofing materials, textured ceilings, and other building products. When these materials remain intact, risk is generally lower. Problems arise when they are damaged, deteriorate with age, or are disturbed during remodeling—releasing microscopic fibers into the air. The best approach with asbestos-containing materials is to leave them undisturbed. Because asbestos cannot be identified by smell and is often difficult to recognize visually, laboratory testing is typically required.

Radon presents a different challenge altogether. This naturally occurring radioactive gas forms in soil and rock and can enter homes through foundation cracks and other openings. It has no color, odor, or taste, yet long-term exposure has been linked to an increased risk of lung cancer. The only reliable way to determine whether radon is present is through testing. Whether the concern is mold, lead, asbestos, radon, or the growing list of synthetic chemicals found in modern building materials and furnishings, the lesson is the same: what impacts the health of a home is not always obvious. Sometimes the most important clues come not from your senses, but from knowing what to look for and when to test.

Fortunately, identifying many of these hazards is often straightforward. You can purchase do-it-yourself test kits, while more comprehensive evaluations can be performed by certified environmental inspectors. If a home was built before the late 1970s, is undergoing renovation, has experienced water intrusion, or if you are experiencing unexplained health symptoms, testing may provide valuable insight. Rather than relying solely on what can be seen or smelled, testing offers an objective way to uncover hidden contaminants and determine whether remediation or further investigation is warranted.

Clearing the Air: What Actually Helps

Ventilation matters first. Opening doors and windows, even briefly, creates exchange. It allows indoor air to disperse and fresh air to enter, reducing the concentration of what has built up. In tightly sealed homes, this single habit can reset the environment in a way no product can fully replicate. Filtration becomes more effective when you understand what you’re trying to remove. HEPA filtration captures particles—dust, pollen, mold spores, and the fine debris that carries SVOCs. However, many of the most concerning indoor pollutants exist as gases rather than particles, allowing them to pass straight through HEPA filters. That’s where activated carbon filters become valuable. Unlike HEPA filters, they are designed to capture gases, helping remove volatile chemicals such as formaldehyde and solvents from indoor air. Air purifiers that combine HEPA and activated carbon filtration can address both particles and gaseous pollutants, providing more comprehensive protection.

Balance is important as well. When humidity climbs too high, mold and microbial growth take hold; when it drops too low, particles remain suspended longer and the respiratory tract becomes more susceptible. Keeping levels in a moderate range helps stabilize both. Depending on the climate, that may mean using a dehumidifier, improving ventilation, repairing water leaks, or occasionally adding moisture back into overly dry indoor air. Cleaning also plays a role. Disturbing dust without capturing it simply redistributes what’s already there, while a sealed HEPA vacuum ensures those particles are removed rather than returned to the air.

Building a Healthier Home

Improving the quality of your living space does not require a complete overhaul. It begins with awareness—understanding how everyday materials, products, and design choices influence the quality of the indoor environment. When opportunities arise to make different choices, even small ones can have a meaningful impact over time. Wood instead of composite board. Low-toxicity paints instead of chemical coatings. Lime plaster or clay finishes that allow a home to breathe. Wool, linen, cotton—materials that don’t rely on heavy chemical treatment to function. Stone and ceramic—surfaces closer to their natural state.

Solid wood furniture—as opposed to engineered wood, particleboard, MDF, or plywood—requires fewer synthetic binders and often ages beautifully rather than deteriorating. Hardwoods such as oak, maple, walnut, and cherry can last for generations, developing character instead of simply wearing out. Investing in fewer, higher-quality pieces often reduces waste while limiting reliance on the synthetic binders and finishes commonly found in composite materials.

The same principle applies to wall finishes. Zero-VOC paints have become increasingly available and can reduce one significant source of chemical exposure during and after renovation. If you’re seeking even more natural options, mineral-based paints, limewash, clay and silicate paints offer beautiful finishes while relying on natural ingredients that have been used for centuries. Beyond aesthetics, these materials often help regulate moisture and humidity more effectively, reducing the likelihood of mold growth and creating a more balanced indoor climate.

Textiles deserve the same level of consideration. You may pay attention to whether a fabric is cotton or polyester but overlook how it was produced. Natural fibers such as organic cotton, linen, hemp, and wool are often excellent choices, but the story doesn’t end with the fiber itself. Look for fabrics colored with low-impact dyes, plant-based dyes, or dyes certified to meet strict environmental and human safety standards. Certifications such as GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) not only address the fiber’s organic status but also place restrictions on many of the chemicals used during processing and dyeing.

Bedding merits particular attention because it is one of the materials your body remains in contact with for the longest period each day. A mattress is not simply a piece of furniture—it is an eight-hour-a-night exposure source. Organic mattresses made from latex, organic wool, and organic cotton are worth considering. Wool serves as a natural flame barrier, often eliminating the need for chemical flame-retardant treatments, while latex offers durability and support without relying on petroleum-based foams.

The layers surrounding the mattress matter as well. Sheets, mattress protectors, comforters, and pillows are in direct contact with your skin and respiratory system every night. Choosing organic cotton, linen, hemp, or wool bedding can reduce exposure to residual pesticides and chemical finishes. These natural fibers breathe, allowing proper airflow and helping to regulate body temperature. And avoiding heavily fragranced detergents and fabric softeners further contributes to a cleaner sleeping environment.

A home can still be modern, refined, and beautiful without relying heavily on manufactured materials. Traditional finishes and furnishings are often more durable and designed for longevity—a genuine win. Perfection isn’t the goal. Awareness is. Once you understand what influences indoor air quality, you can make informed choices about ventilation, filtration, household products, and the everyday habits that shape your living space. Clean air. Natural light. Finishes that age well instead of breaking down. Spaces that feel good to be in and support your well-being over time. These are the foundations of a healthier home. Because the most important part of a home isn’t what you notice when you walk in—it’s what your body experiences after you stay.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: The foods most aggressively marketed to infants and toddlers are frequently the ones most likely to undermine their health—loading developing bodies with excess sugar, industrial additives and contaminants during the years when organs, gut bacteria and neural circuits are still taking shape. Exposure begins in the womb and compounds through toddlerhood, gradually disrupting appetite, metabolism and brain function in ways that can follow a child for life. The good news is that early biology is also highly responsive to nourishment—and what serves a child best has been around far longer than any product on a shelf.

You want what every parent desires for their baby: the healthiest possible start—one that supports strong growth and long-term development. Yet in the United States, where infant mortality rates remain higher than in many other high-income countries, that intention is often undermined from the very beginning, sometimes through something as seemingly trustworthy as packaged baby food. Those puffy, star-shaped cereal bites that melt on your child’s tongue appear innocent, even “safe,” with labels that promise purity. But many of these easy-to-eat snacks deliver a mix of low-quality fats, added sugars, synthetic additives, and contaminants—including heavy metals—associated with lasting health risks.

For today’s infants and toddlers, one of the most significant concerns is the quality of their food. Ultra-processed foods (UPFs)—including most infant formulas, purees, granola bars, processed meats and many cereals—are produced through intensive industrial manufacturing using poor quality, non-organic ingredients. These “foods” often contain artificial colors to make them visually appealing, added sugars and corn syrup solids for sweetness, hydrogenated vegetable oils (like soybean or canola) for texture, soy lecithin as an emulsifier, and preservatives such as tertiary butylhydroquinone to extend shelf life. Beyond these additives, the crops themselves—corn, soybeans, sugar and grains—are heavily treated with pesticides, including glyphosate, which research has linked to cancer, hormone disruption, and neurological effects.

By contrast, minimally processed, organic options are simple and close to nature. An organic whole-grain cereal, for example, may contain just three ingredients: organic barley flour, organic whole-grain oats and organic cane sugar—free from synthetic pesticides, genetically modified ingredients or industrial oils. Minimally processed foods remain close to their natural state and are altered only in simple ways to make them safer or easier to prepare, eat or store. These gentler processes—such as removing inedible parts, fermentation, vacuum-packaging, pasteurization, freezing or grinding—help preserve the food’s nutritional value. Many vegetables, fruits, meats, plain yogurts, nuts and whole grains fall into this category and can play an important role in a healthy diet for your baby or young child.

The UPF Trap: How Processed Foods Enter Your Baby’s Diet

Even with this knowledge, as a parent or caregiver you can fall into the “UPF trap.” Trusted legacy brands like Gerber start with simple baby foods, but gradually nudge families toward crunchier, sweeter and more colorful product lines—cleverly marketed as tools to support developmental milestones like fine motor skills. The result? Children learn to expect—and parents gradually accept—that constant snacking is normal and even necessary.

The increasing reliance on UPFs is amplified by a culture that equates weight gain with health in early life. The aggressive marketing of melty, portable snacks feeds on the anxiety many parents feel about their child’s development. From growth-tracking apps to social media feeds—”Jonas is rolling over a month ahead of schedule!”—new parents are constantly pressured to ensure their babies are gaining “enough.” While underweight infants face their own risks, there is an opposite—and often overlooked—concern: excessive and rapid weight gain in infancy is a strong predictor of obesity, metabolic dysfunction and chronic disease later in life.

Metabolic health is crucial to infant development—it powers brain growth and sets the trajectory for future health. While genetics play a role, early metabolic programming is strongly influenced by maternal health and nutrition. These processes govern how the body converts food into energy and regulates blood sugar, fats and hormones. Even in otherwise healthy infants, sustained over-nutrition—taking in more energy than their bodies are designed to handle—can impair insulin sensitivity. As toddlers consume more calories—especially from nutrient-poor processed foods—their natural hunger and fullness cues may begin to erode. These patterns can persist beyond childhood. Higher UPF consumption has been linked to unhealthy shifts in blood sugar and cholesterol, laying the groundwork for fatty liver disease, insulin resistance, and cardiovascular disease later in life.

Ultra-processed foods are deliberately engineered to accelerate this cycle. Smooth textures from emulsifiers, savory flavors that include monosodium glutamate, artificial sweetness from aspartame or sucralose, and stabilizers that enhance “mouthfeel” all work together to dull feelings of fullness. For a toddler, this means it’s easy to eat more than their body actually needs—calories flood in, but real nutrition is missing. Dietary patterns established by the age of two can shape lifelong metabolic risk, and a rising BMI before age five is one of the strongest predictors of adult obesity. For this reason, the World Health Organization (WHO) emphasizes establishing healthy lifestyle habits early: limiting high-calorie processed foods, avoiding sugary drinks and making whole fruits and vegetables a daily norm. Historically, infant nutrition centered on breast milk and simple, unprocessed whole foods. But worldwide, infant and toddler diets have shifted sharply toward UPFs. The WHO warns:

“The shift towards feeding infants and toddlers ultra-processed foods brings health risks such as increases in abdominal obesity and worse future health outcomes, and may impact future food preferences.”

Convenience isn’t the only factor shaping what children eat—the environment plays a huge role, too. Screens, rushed schedules, school snack bars and constant exposure to advertising all influence young appetites. When snacking is paired with screen time, children are more likely to eat past the point of fullness, while aggressive marketing amplifies cravings and normalizes poor food choices. Studies show that children consume more energy-dense foods during or shortly after seeing an advertisement. This cycle conditions a lasting preference for salty and sweet foods that can follow a child well into adulthood.

The food industry knows this—and profits from it. In the U.S. alone, companies spend $14 billion every year on food ads targeting children—compared to the roughly $1 billion the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spends on all national health promotions combined. A Journal of the American Medical Association study found that despite a 77.6 percent decline in food advertising aimed at children aged two to five, they still view roughly 1,000 advertisements for unhealthy foods and beverages each year. Globally, fast food giants, whose products are almost entirely UPFs, spend staggering sums on digital advertising—£87.5 million in Great Britain, and $5 billion in the U.S.—cementing their influence on children’s diets.

Sweet but Not Innocent: Sugar, Additives, and the Risks of Infant Formula

Formula-fed infants face their own set of challenges. These products undergo extensive manufacturing with ingredients such as corn syrup solids and vegetable oils. Some babies consume the equivalent of 60 grams of added sugar per day—roughly the sugar in two cans of soda. In the U.S., about three-quarters of infants receive formula in the first six months, and nearly 40 percent rely on it as their sole source of nutrition. Studies, including one involving preschoolers in Spain, found that those with the highest intake of UPFs also had higher fat mass index, waist circumference and BMI. And the sugar content has increased significantly over the years—research shows that infant and toddler snacks in 2014 had a higher median sugar content than those from 1996.

Today’s infant formula contains much more sugar than cow’s milk. Unlike lactose, added sugars trigger stronger glycemic spikes and heightened neurochemical reward responses, which can impair early glucose regulation. Their intense sweetness also produces more pleasure, leads to reduced satiety, and encourages overfeeding. Several dynamics exacerbate this effect: bottles require minimal effort to drink, they’re consumed rapidly (about eight minutes versus 20 minutes for breastfeeding), and parents are often inclined to encourage infants to “finish the bottle” even after the infant shows signs of fullness. These patterns matter. Data shows that prolonged formula feeding (beyond the first year) is associated with higher UPF consumption later in childhood compared to children who were breastfed, suggesting that early exposure influences long-term eating patterns.

Beyond sugar, infant formula represents a broader source of ultra-processed exposure. Its manufacturing introduces additives, industrial fats, stabilizers, emulsifiers and chemical contaminants—ingredients designed to enhance texture, taste and shelf life rather than nutritional quality. In addition, many formulas contain substances such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and heavy metals, including lead and arsenic, which have been linked to inflammation, immune dysfunction, liver injury, metabolic disease, and disruptions of the gut microbiome. PFAS, often called “forever chemicals,” are of particular concern because they resist breakdown and accumulate in both the body and the environment, and have been detected in infant feeding products.

A March 2025 Consumer Reports investigation confirmed widespread PFAS presence in major infant formulas. Although PFAS are also present in breast milk, studies suggest concentrations may be higher in formula, while the benefits of breastfeeding continue to outweigh the associated risks. Using filtered or tested water free of PFAS to prepare formulas can help reduce exposure for families who rely on it. Notably, of the 41 products evaluated, roughly half were free of at least one major contaminant such as PFAS, heavy metals, or plasticizers—suggesting that lower-contaminant options exist, although identifying them typically requires consulting independent testing reports rather than relying on product labels alone. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has also expanded testing and pledged to strengthen oversight of the industry.

The intensive processing used to manufacture infant formula—including chemical extraction and high-temperature treatment—can further degrade protein structure and reduce nutrient bioavailability. Although pasteurization is necessary to eliminate harmful bacteria such as Salmonella and Cronobacter, it also removes beneficial microbes. By contrast, human breast milk contains hundreds of species of live bacteria, with Bifidobacterium, Streptococcus, and Lactobacillus often present in the millions—providing a microbial foundation for the developing infant gut.

A large study of over 700 infants in the Amazon found that breastfed infants maintained higher levels of beneficial Bifidobacterium—a bacterium that can boost the immune system and defend against antibiotic-resistant strains—even when consuming some UPFs. Meanwhile, infants who had been weaned had more harmful strains such as Finegoldia and Sellimonas, which have been linked to depressive symptoms, obesity, and early puberty. These microbiome differences, combined with nutrient-poor diets, may explain why formula-fed infants face higher risks of infections, allergies, asthma, diarrhea, and slightly lower performance on measures of cognitive development.

In October 2025, the nonprofit Clean Label Project reported that most formulas contained industrial plasticizers such as di-n-butyl phthalate and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, both of which are endocrine-disrupting compounds of particular concern for pregnant women and infants. These chemicals have been linked to reduced male fertility, increased risk of obesity and allergic disease, and neurodevelopmental and behavioral effects. Phthalates can enter formulas by leaching from plastic packaging, manufacturing equipment, and feeding bottles when heated, adding another layer of chemical exposure during a period of rapid biological development.

More broadly, UPFs are fundamentally different: they’re higher in sugar, sodium, additives and trans fats, and lower in fiber, protein, and micronutrients—vitamins, minerals and enzymes. Distinguishing a UPF from a minimally processed one is surprisingly simple when you know what to look for. UPFs almost always contain ingredients that you wouldn’t find in your kitchen (and sometimes can’t even pronounce)—maltodextrin and other varieties of sugars, modified oils, artificial or natural flavors, emulsifiers, preservatives, “protein isolates,” corn syrup solids, stabilizers and gums.

If there are more than ten ingredients, that’s a major red flag, as are refined starches or sweeteners added to enhance flavor or texture. On the other hand, baby foods that are minimally processed typically contain one to three ingredients such as fruits, legumes, meats or vegetables, and do not contain shelf-life extending ingredients. A practical rule of thumb: if you couldn’t make it by hand with basic kitchen tools, or if it has enhanced sweetness or an unusually smooth “mouthfeel,” it’s almost certainly ultra-processed.

By toddlerhood, the consequences of UPF-heavy diets become even more evident. Research from University College London found that toddlers derive almost half their daily calories from UPFs; by age seven, that number approaches 60 percent. Lead author Dr. Rana Conway notes:

“Toddlers who consumed the most UPFs were 9.4 times more likely to be in the highest UPF-consuming group at age seven compared to toddlers who consumed the lowest proportion of UPFs. The research team said this may be partly attributable to the “hyperpalatable” nature of these UPFs, as they tend to be foods higher in fat, sugar and/or salt.”

Early favorites included flavored yogurts and whole-grain breakfast cereals, while seven-year-olds tend to gravitate toward white bread, puddings and sweet cereals. Dr. Conway emphasizes that UPFs are not entirely harmful, but regular consumption can reduce a child’s exposure to the natural tastes and textures of whole foods. When hyper-sweet and hyper-salty foods become normalized, toddlers may resist whole foods, creating challenging mealtimes.

UPFs and the Developing Brain: Risks That Begin Before Birth

The impact of UPFs goes beyond metabolic health—they can also affect cognitive development, mental health and neurological function. Studies show that early UPF exposure is linked to later inattention and hyperactivity, likely due to changes in dopamine signaling and reduced cortical function. Certain additives, such as titanium dioxide, may cross a compromised blood-brain barrier and accumulate in neural tissue, interfering with learning and memory. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals like bisphenols, often found in the packaging of popular peanut butter brands, can also impair fetal brain development in regions governing emotion and memory.

For many babies, UPF exposure occurs before they even leave the womb. Trans fats and chemical additives can cross the placenta—increasing oxidative stress and inflammation in critical regions of the developing brain. The prenatal period—especially the third trimester—is a critical window where neural circuits governing cognition, language and behavior undergo rapid growth. Inflammatory and epigenetic changes triggered by trans fats and bisphenols can interfere with these processes, altering membrane composition in neurons and impairing development in regions that govern memory, stress regulation and emotional responses—including the hippocampus, cortex and amygdala.

The impact of a mother’s diet extends beyond individual nutrients or exposures. One large prospective study found that children whose mothers consumed the most UPFs in utero had a 26 percent higher risk of being overweight or obese during childhood and adolescence. Mothers who rely heavily on UPFs often face nutrient gaps in zinc, iodine, choline, iron and protein—deficiencies that elevate the risk of congenital heart disease, preterm birth, gestational diabetes and preeclampsia. These nutrients are also essential for building a robust fetal brain and supporting placental health. As a mother, your dietary behavior helps establish the early microbiome your baby inherits, influencing immune function, metabolic programming, and neurodevelopment in the first years of life.

Globally, the trends are stark: for the first time in history, more children worldwide are obese than underweight. Wealthier nations—including the United States, Chile and the UAE—see some of the highest rates, while regions like the Pacific Islands face the steepest increases in child obesity. Middle-income countries such as South Africa face “double burdens,” where children experience both malnutrition and obesity simultaneously. Nutrient deficiency and excess calories can coexist—children may be overfed yet undernourished. Mexico has taken strong action by banning UPFs in schools; in contrast, countries like Nepal continue to serve sweetened drinks and packaged snacks to very young students. Without intervention, the World Obesity Foundation estimates global obesity costs will exceed $4 trillion annually by 2035.

At the center of this crisis are a handful of powerful corporations controlling global production of UPFs—from soy and wheat to palm oil and maize. Nestlé, the largest producer of UPFs for infants and children, defended these products in February 2025 as necessary and “very important for mankind.” The company argued they help reduce food waste and improve accessibility in areas where supply chains and refrigeration are limited. Yet later that year, Nestlé was accused of prioritizing profits over child health by adding significant amounts of sugar to products sold in low-income countries, while offering sugar-free versions in higher-income markets. Investigations by Public Eye, a Swiss non-governmental organization advocating for global justice and environmental responsibility, found that over 90 percent of Nestlé cereals marketed to babies in parts of Africa contained added sugar—despite international guidelines advising against it.

UPFs have become central to public debate in the U.S. as a driver of the nation’s chronic disease epidemic. In December 2025, San Francisco filed a landmark lawsuit against ten major food companies—including Nestlé USA and General Mills—alleging that they intentionally engineered foods to be addictive. States are beginning to act as well; California is leading with its Real Foods, Healthy Kids Act, which is phasing UPFs out of school meals.

What Parents and Caregivers Can Do

The evidence is clear: these food-like-products can disrupt appetite signaling, the gut microbiome and early development. Fortunately, the same biology that makes infants vulnerable also makes them highly responsive to protective inputs. Breastfeeding, for example, delivers what no engineered food can replicate—and consistently lowers the risk of obesity and metabolic disease. Likewise, a maternal diet rich in nutrients such as folate, iron, vitamin D, calcium, choline, omega-3s and zinc supports fetal development, stabilizes glucose regulation, reduces inflammation and fosters healthier microbial colonization from the very start.

What you choose as a parent or caregiver doesn’t have to be perfect—it just has to lean in the right direction. A nutrient-dense diet, breastfeeding and whole, organic foods during pregnancy and after birth help strengthen natural biology without overwhelming it. Fiber supports a resilient microbiome, omega-3s build the architecture of the brain, folate fuels neural tube formation—these simple and powerful tools can help counteract the metabolic and neurological stress driven by UPFs.

Ultimately, the most effective intervention isn’t a fortified snack or a cleverly marketed supplement—it’s the consistent presence of whole, nourishing foods and the mindful limitation of ultra-processed products during the years when biology is most malleable. One meal at a time, you help guide your child’s growth, learning and long-term health.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Ultra-processed foods are no longer a niche category—they are the foundation of the American diet. Formulated from refined components and engineered for palatability, these products are designed to encourage repeat consumption. Emerging research links high intake to metabolic, neurological and developmental concerns, while regulatory efforts to address additives and packaging chemicals continue to evolve. Looking beyond labels to how these foods are produced and promoted reveals a system that extends far beyond individual choice.

Today’s grocery store center aisles would be unrecognizable to your great-grandparents. Most options come in bright cardboard boxes that promise protein-packed meals but often contain long lists of ingredients that are difficult to pronounce, like carboxymethylcellulose and disodium guanylate. These “food products” are now ubiquitous across the food environment, heavily marketed and enormously profitable. They also fit a more precise category: ultra-processed foods (UPFs).

UPFs are not simply “bad versions” of familiar meals. They are mixtures of cheap or refined starches, added sugars, seed oils (industrial vegetable oils extracted from crops such as canola, corn, cottonseed, grapeseed, soybean, sunflower, rice bran and peanut) and protein isolates combined with emulsifiers, thickeners and flavorings to mimic the experience of real food. They are portable and marketed as nourishing, yet these products are also part of a global industry built around shelf stability, low production costs and repeat purchasing. Convenience is part of the story, alongside strong economic incentives.

Today, UPFs supply the majority of calories in the American diet. A growing body of research links high consumption to health conditions that modern medicine struggles to manage. Studies associate greater intake of UPFs with higher rates of autoimmune diseases, chronic inflammation, mental health disorders and neurodegenerative diseases. Taking control of your health begins with understanding how UPFs came to dominate the grocery cart, your cravings and long-term well-being.

From Whole to Ultra-processed: How Foods are Classified

There are three broad types of foods you encounter on a daily basis, and understanding the differences between them can make it easier to see how the modern diet has changed. They vary not only in what they contain but also in how much they have been altered from their original form. Nutrition researchers group them by their level of processing.

Whole foods
Foods that are close to their primary state: an apple, a head of lettuce, a whole chicken, nuts. They may be washed, trimmed, chilled or otherwise prepared without being fundamentally changed. Their natural structure, including fiber and intact cell walls, is largely preserved. This form helps slow digestion, moderate blood sugar and deliver nutrients in balance with calories.

Minimally processed foods
These are whole foods altered for preservation (dried beans to extend shelf life), distribution or basic convenience (precut vegetables). Some foods in this category are also fortified or enriched with vitamins and minerals, such as milk with added vitamin D or grains enriched with B vitamins and iron. Other examples include frozen fruit, plain yogurt, butter, canned tomatoes, roasted nuts and simple sourdough bread made from flour, water, salt and yeast. Techniques like fermenting, peeling, boiling, drying, freezing and canning extend freshness and support food handling and storage without fundamentally changing their nature.

Ultra-processed foods
UPFs are not just “more processed.” They are built from fractions of real foods, like corn syrup instead of corn, isolated soy protein instead of soybeans, and maltodextrin—often derived from corn or other starches, which may be genetically modified. Because these ingredients are typically sourced from large-scale commodity crops, they may also carry residues from widely used herbicides such as glyphosate. They are reassembled with additives to create products optimized for taste, texture, and shelf life. Soda, energy drinks, packaged chips, frozen entrées with a long list of ingredients, most fast-food items, boxed breakfast cereals with added colors, and many “plant-based” or “diet” products fall into this category.

Brazil’s NOVA system has become the global standard for defining UPFs and has shaped much of the current research linking them to chronic disease. Other classification frameworks exist—including models developed by Mexico’s National Institute of Public Health and the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Europe—but NOVA is the most influential in discussions about diet quality and public health.

Until recently, these definitions mostly appeared in academic research. Now the concept is beginning to show up in public policy as well. California recently passed legislation addressing UPFs in school meals, one of the first times the term has been formally defined in U.S. law. While the terminology differs across systems, they share a central theme: the modern food supply increasingly consists of products that are far removed from their original form.

UPFs emerged from a series of historical shifts, particularly in the mid-20th century. During World War II, women entered factories in large numbers to replace men sent overseas. Long hours away from home made cooking nightly dinners difficult. Food companies responded with canned meals, instant mixes and frozen dinners that promised to feed families quickly and cheaply. These products were marketed as modern, efficient and patriotic, reinforcing the idea that a “good mother” could do it all.

By the late 1940s and into the 1950s, these “quick” meals shifted from occasional helpers to everyday staples. As supermarkets grew and suburban life expanded, food manufacturers needed products that could last longer without spoiling, travel easily and maintain a consistent taste. Shelf-stable foods met that demand. At the same time, postwar agricultural subsidies increased the production of corn, wheat and soy. These crops became the base ingredients for sweeteners, refined flours and industrial oils that are now common in many ultra-processed foods. Over time, these products became hard to escape. Heavily advertised, they became part of the schedule of normal life: school lunches, office snacks, vending machines, hospital cafeterias and sporting events. What was once a wartime workaround became the default.

From a regulatory perspective, individual additives are usually assessed in isolation and deemed safe at specific doses. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that food additives must be authorized before they can be used in products on the market. In theory, that sounds protective. In practice, Americans consume mixtures of additives, emulsifiers, and even contaminants from packaging, layered on top of excess sweeteners, refined starches and highly processed industrial fats. The result is a way of eating that looks very different from the whole and minimally processed diets that sustained human health for most of history.

The FDA’s GRAS designation (”generally recognized as safe”) adds another layer of complexity by allowing substances considered safe at typical exposure levels to be added to food without formal FDA approval. Between 2000 and 2021, 756 of 766 new food chemicals added to the food supply—98.7 percent—relied on the GRAS process rather than seeking formal FDA review. This has raised scrutiny from scientists and policymakers, and federal officials have begun assessing whether the current self-affirmation process should be strengthened or reformed.

Why UPFs Hook You: Beyond “Willpower”

These foods aren’t just handy. Manufacturers spend significant time and resources engineering them to be hard to resist, often by targeting what food scientists call the “bliss point”—an ideal blend of sugar, fat and salt that makes the taste intensely satisfying. Many are puffed, aerated or structurally manipulated so they break down quickly in your mouth. Instead of requiring much chewing, they dissolve rapidly and create a light, crisp or creamy texture that feels pleasurable from the first bite. That combination stimulates dopamine, the brain’s reward chemical, making them especially difficult to put down.

In many cases, UPFs are essentially predigested before you even eat them. Refined flours are ground into very fine particles, fats are blended and stabilized, and proteins are altered during manufacturing. Because much of the work has already been done, your body absorbs the calories almost immediately. That can lead to sharper spikes in blood sugar and insulin compared with the same number of calories from whole foods, leaving you hungry again sooner and increasing the likelihood of overeating. Researchers in The Milbank Quarterly have drawn parallels between the tobacco industry and UPF manufacturers, stating:

“A growing body of evidence links UPFs to the global rise in diet-related diseases, and many individuals report difficulty moderating their intake, often describing behaviors consistent with addiction.”

In a recent episode of 60 Minutes, former FDA Commissioner David Kessler said ultra-processed foods pose a public health threat “as large, if not larger” than tobacco. Repeated exposure can eventually alter how the brain responds to flavor. Subtle tastes in unrefined foods may feel less satisfying, while intensely sweet, salty or artificially flavored products become more desirable. Ingredients such as high-fructose sweeteners—including agave, which is high in fructose despite its natural reputation—along with “natural flavors” and heavily engineered seasoning blends designed to intensify sensory appeal train the palate to expect these extreme tastes as normal. This is particularly concerning for children, who are still developing their food preferences and are especially susceptible to targeted marketing.

Marketing reinforces the cycle by pairing these foods with reward, nostalgia and social connection: chips and soda at game night, cake and ice cream at celebrations, and fast food as an everyday treat. At the policy level, companies spend far more promoting ultra-processed foods than public health agencies spend encouraging whole food consumption. This imbalance is especially pronounced in low-income communities and among younger audiences. Together, these forces create an environment in which food choices are more constrained than they appear. You are not simply deciding between an apple and a pack of gummies. The cheapest and most heavily promoted options are often designed to keep you coming back, while emotional associations with food can blur the line between habit and true hunger.

From Gut to Brain: The Wider Health Toll of UPFs

Diets high in UPFs are linked not only to weight gain, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, but also to broader health issues. Many UPFs are rich in refined carbohydrates and low in fiber, which can disrupt the gut microbiome, weaken the intestinal barrier and promote chronic inflammation. This can aggravate autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis and psoriasis, particularly in those with genetic or environmental susceptibility.

A large international study published in The British Medical Journal followed more than 116,000 adults across 21 countries and found that people who consumed five or more servings of UPFs per day had about an 82 percent greater risk of developing IBD compared with those who ate less than one serving per day. Even moderate consumption of one to four servings per day was associated with a 67 percent higher risk.

Certain additives used in UPFs may influence metabolism. For example, L-cysteine has been studied for its role in how sulfur-containing amino acids affect weight regulation, while some emulsifiers—such as carboxymethylcellulose and polysorbate 80 have been linked in research to changes in gut microbiota and metabolic function. These effects are complex and depend on overall diet and context, but added L-cysteine in processed foods may behave differently from the naturally occurring amino acids found in foods such as eggs, meat, or legumes. As Dr. Robert Malone notes, “Most commercial bread available in North America is an ultra-processed food,” and many varieties contain added L-cysteine as a dough conditioner and preservative.

Mental health is now a growing focus in research on ultra-processed foods. Diets high in UPFs are linked to increased rates of depression and anxiety. After eating a large amount of cookies or a big plate of pasta, blood sugar can rise rapidly before crashing, leaving you feeling tired, irritable, unfocused or craving more carbohydrates. These responses may reflect multiple overlapping biological processes, including low-grade inflammation, disruption of the gut-brain axis and repeated blood sugar fluctuations that place ongoing strain on the body’s stress response. Emerging research also suggests that highly processed diets may affect neurotransmitter balance and signaling, as well as the production of compounds by gut microbes that communicate with the brain, influencing mood, cognition and stress resilience over time.

A growing body of research suggests the effects of ultra-processed foods may begin even before birth. Higher intake during pregnancy has been associated with increased risk of preterm birth and hypertensive disorders such as preeclampsia. In one study, women who experienced adverse outcomes, including small-for-gestational-age infants or neonatal death, consumed more calories from UPFs daily than women without these complications. These early exposures may set health trajectories from the start and are often followed by continued high intake in childhood. This is especially concerning given that children today get more than 60 percent of their calories from UPFs.

There is also growing concern about packaging—many UPFs are wrapped in plastics that contain chemicals like bisphenols and phthalates, which can migrate into food, especially when heated or stored for long periods. These substances are known endocrine disruptors that may interfere with fertility, thyroid function and normal development over time. Because cardiovascular, metabolic and brain health are tightly connected, diets dominated by ultra-processed foods increase the long-term risk of dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases.

Western medicine, Big Food, and the “pill for every ill” mindset

Modern medicine is highly effective at handling acute emergencies. Urgent care centers and hospital emergency departments save lives through surgery, treat serious infections, and stabilize patients after trauma. But in many clinical settings, there is a disconnect between recommendations for improving health and the environments in which care is delivered. Hospital meals are a prime example. Serving refined flour products, sugary gelatin, sweetened cereals, processed meats, and artificially-sweetened beverages to patients recovering from illness or procedures does not align with the goal of restoring health—it reflects a system that treats disease without fully addressing its drivers.

Meanwhile, the healthcare system spends billions treating problems linked to ultra-processed diets—autoimmune disease, depression, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Medications can be lifesaving, but they rarely address the underlying inflammation and metabolic dysfunction perpetuating these conditions. At a policy level, food and drug companies are regulated differently, but their incentives often overlap. Food companies profit from repeat purchases, while drug companies profit from chronic disease. Neither system is designed to reduce reliance on UPFs. The result is a culture where heavily processed eating, chronic illness and lifelong medication are normalized, often framed as matters of personal choice.

You likely aren’t eating chips, soda or packaged frozen dinners to sabotage your health. Busy schedules, financial pressures, caregiving responsibilities and work demands can make cooking from scratch feel overwhelming—and for many families, that’s not a failure of willpower or priorities. It’s the reality of a food system that has made ultra-processed options the path of least resistance. When a bag of chips costs less than a bunch of broccoli, and a drive-through is open at 10pm when the kitchen is closed, the deck is stacked. UPFs do meet a real need by offering practical solutions:

• Affordable: Lower cost per calorie, helping stretch a tight budget

• Predictable: Useful for children with selective eating habits or sensory sensitivities

• Convenient: Minimal prep time and equipment required

• Social: Common at gatherings, where opting out can feel isolating

These factors, alongside engineered flavors, make “just choosing better” far more complex than it sounds.

Changing Course in a System That Isn’t Built for It

Reducing UPF dominance requires action on multiple levels: policy, healthcare, community and home. These changes take effort, but small, consistent steps can lead to meaningful improvements in physical and mental health. At the policy level, the most impactful changes would include labeling foods by processing level, removing subsidies that make refined ingredients cheaper than whole foods, restricting marketing of UPFs to children, and setting nutritional standards for schools, hospitals and government facilities. Policymakers have already proposed labeling systems modeled after the USDA Organic seal to help consumers identify UPFs more easily.

In healthcare, meaningful progress would require integrating dietary assessment into routine care, training clinicians to evaluate food quality rather than just calories or macronutrients, and building care models that address both the physical and behavioral dimensions of UPF reliance. Expanding insurance coverage for food-based interventions in chronic disease management would also help close the gap between what the research supports and what patients can access.

Within communities, expanding access to farmers’ markets, mobile markets that bring fresh foods into underserved areas, and community-supported agriculture programs can help level a playing field that currently favors convenience over quality. Investment in community kitchens, cooking programs and workplace policies that allow time for real meals would further reduce the structural pressure to rely on processed options.

At home, change doesn’t have to happen all at once. Start with one meal at a time. Use minimally processed shortcuts such as frozen vegetables, canned beans or rotisserie chicken. When using packaged items, check ingredient lists and choose options with simpler, recognizable components. Save UPFs for occasional use rather than daily reliance. Cook in batches and freeze extras for future meals. And involve children in meal preparation early—kids who help cook are more likely to eat what’s made and carry those habits into adulthood. For younger children especially, repeated exposure to whole foods—even when initially rejected—helps shape taste preferences before ultra-processed flavors have a chance to crowd them out.

UPFs are the outcome of history, economic incentives and technological advances. They solved certain problems but created new ones—now visible across cardiovascular care, oncology wards, psychiatric practices and memory-care settings. You may not have to eliminate them entirely, but greater awareness, paired with deliberate day-to-day food decisions and changes in how food is produced, marketed and made available, can help shift the trajectory. The real question is not whether you should swear off chips or frozen pizza forever—it is whether products engineered for shelf life and hyperpalatability should remain the default in your daily diet.

Your great-grandparents did not have to question whether what they were eating qualified as food in the first place. As it becomes clearer how these products are designed, marketed and normalized, they are harder to view as harmless. The way forward may be simpler than it appears: choose more foods that come from soil, trees or animals, and fewer that come from factories and formulations. Real food should not be an alternative—it should be the foundation.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and ALS are widely assumed to be genetically driven—but genes account for only a minority of cases. Environmental and lifestyle factors play a primary role, operating through overlapping mechanisms: oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction and misfolded protein accumulation. The gut microbiome is a surprisingly central player, with disturbances sometimes appearing years before neurological symptoms emerge. Toxic exposures including pesticides, heavy metals, aluminum and microplastics are increasingly implicated—and the dominant amyloid hypothesis in Alzheimer's research has itself come under scrutiny. Many of these risk factors are modifiable, and earlier intervention may matter more than previously understood.

“You have to die of something!” This off-the-cuff statement is often heard in response to concerns expressed about lifestyle choices. At first glance, it is hard to argue with. But while death is inevitable, not all ways of reaching it are equal. There are certain off-ramps to life’s freeway that most would avoid taking, if given the choice. Not least among those are disorders that affect mobility or the mind, like Alzheimer’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). All three of these conditions fall under the heading of neurodegenerative disease. Yet they each have a distinctive symptom profile.

The principal impact of Alzheimer’s is the erosion of memory and cognition. Parkinson’s can impair cognition, as well, although it primarily inhibits movement, and ALS (also known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease) progressively paralyzes the voluntary muscles. The experience of developing them has been powerfully portrayed on screen. Alzheimer’s was depicted both by Julianne Moore in Still Alice and Judi Dench in Iris, Parkinson’s by Michael J. Fox in STILL: A Michael J. Fox Movie, and ALS by Frances McDormand in North Country, to name a few.

Perhaps the most terrifying in terms of its rapid and relentless progression, ALS is also, mercifully, the rarest, with approximately 9.1 per 100,000 Americans currently affected. One high-profile example was physicist Stephen Hawking, who lived with the disease for more than 50 years. His case, however, is outstandingly atypical, as the average life expectancy after symptom onset is no more than two to five years. Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, on the other hand, though less immediately lethal, are far more prevalent. Alzheimer’s affects a staggering 1 in 9 Americans over 65, and around 1 in 300 is living with Parkinson’s. Moreover, even if the latter two may allow for longer life, the loss of memory, cognition, and physical independence raises difficult questions about the extent to which a prolonged decline is more desirable than a rapid one.

More importantly, all three conditions beg a bigger question: what is at their root, and can you reduce your risk of developing them? Much has been said about the role of genetics in their genesis, but genes account for only a minority of cases. And even where genetic factors are present, it would be more accurate to describe them as increasing your probability of receiving a diagnosis than as determining the matter with fatalistic certainty. Rare exceptions do exist. Certain inherited mutations associated with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease, for instance, as portrayed in the film Still Alice, can make the development of symptoms highly likely. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, researchers increasingly attribute causation to an interplay between genetic susceptibility and the cumulative impact of biological and environmental stressors.

Establishing a definitive causal connection between environmental factors and the origin of disease is notoriously difficult. After all, it would be neither ethical nor feasible to expose humans to potentially harmful substances in order to observe the long-term outcomes. As a result, scientists must rely on indirect approaches: studying how toxins behave in laboratory models, tracing disease patterns across populations, and examining how specific exposures interact with known biological pathways. Even then, the sheer number of variables—genetics, age, timing of exposure, lifestyle, and chance—makes conclusive proof elusive. Nonetheless, a substantial body of epidemiological and experimental research is beginning to converge upon a striking pattern. Toxic environmental exposures such as pesticides, airborne particulate pollution, industrial solvents, and heavy metals have repeatedly been associated with processes involved in neurodegeneration.

Among the heavy metals of growing interest is aluminum. Researcher Chris Exley, who spent decades studying aluminum biochemistry at Keele University, has documented elevated aluminum concentrations in the brain tissue of Alzheimer’s patients—in some cases at levels he describes as unequivocally high. He and others have proposed that aluminum may promote oxidative stress and protein aggregation, two of the key processes implicated in neurodegeneration. While mainstream science has not reached consensus on aluminum as a causal factor, the accumulating evidence has prompted calls for further investigation. And despite their differing clinical presentations, these same processes have been observed in all three of the aforementioned diseases.

Underlying Mechanisms

One of the biological processes most consistently implicated across these diseases is oxidative stress, a state in which reactive molecules called free radicals accumulate faster than the body’s antioxidant systems can neutralize them. To understand where these molecules come from, it helps to look inside the mitochondria. Here, electrons are passed along a kind of assembly line known as the electron transport chain, in a carefully controlled sequence that enables the cell to produce energy. Factors that drive disruption include diets high in refined carbohydrates, low levels of physical activity, chronic stress, inflammation, and various toxic environmental exposures. Together, these influences interfere with how cells regulate fuel use and contribute to mitochondrial dysfunction.

One key contributor is insulin resistance. Under normal conditions, insulin signals cells to absorb glucose from the bloodstream and use it for energy. But when blood sugar levels remain consistently elevated, cells become less responsive to the cue. Glucose then builds up in the bloodstream as cells struggle to make efficient use of it. This puts a strain on cellular energy systems, compromises mitochondrial function, and increases the likelihood of oxidative stress.

Another major driver of cellular damage is chronic inflammation. Normally, it serves as a protective immune response to injury, toxins, or infection, helping coordinate the body’s defense and repair processes. However, when it becomes persistent—whether due to ongoing stress, environmental exposures, or metabolic imbalance—the signaling molecules that typically support repair start to interfere with cellular regulation. They can blunt the cells’ response to insulin, hinder mitochondrial function, and contribute to oxidative stress and cell damage.

As these changes persist, they begin to affect another critical aspect of cellular health: protein structure maintenance. Proteins must be precisely folded to function properly, and cells rely on quality-control systems to repair or remove misfolded ones. But when oxidative stress and chronic cellular strain overwhelm these systems, protein aggregates accumulate. Over time, their accumulation interferes with cellular activity, ultimately leading to neuron damage and loss.

Environmental toxins are believed to contribute to neurodegeneration precisely because they promote these overlapping processes: oxidative stress, inflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and impaired protein maintenance. Which disease develops in a given individual likely depends on which regions of the brain are most at risk. In ALS, genetic variants such as C9orf72 or SOD1 make motor neurons more susceptible to damage, so when stressors accumulate, these are the ones most prone to fail first.

In Alzheimer’s, variants like APOE ε4 can make hippocampal neurons more vulnerable, particularly to protein aggregation (amyloid, tau) and impaired energy metabolism—so when combined with chronic inflammation or metabolic stress, these are the ones most likely to degenerate. In Parkinson’s, the vulnerability resides in the dopaminergic neurons, due to variants like LRRK2 or SNCA. That said, with no known genetic risk, you can still develop one of the conditions if enough cumulative stressors affect vulnerable neurons in a particular area of your brain, while someone with a high-risk gene might never develop disease if biological and environmental stressors are kept to a minimum.

Emerging evidence suggests these stressors—metabolic strain, chronic inflammation, and environmental toxins—interact closely with the gut. The community of microbes that inhabits the digestive tract, known as the microbiome, plays a crucial role in regulating inflammation, supporting the immune system, and maintaining the integrity of the body’s protective barriers. The gut, in fact, functions as a central control hub, influencing the processes that set the stage for brain health or disease. Its lining is designed to allow nutrients to enter the bloodstream while keeping harmful substances out. The beneficial microbes that predominate in a diverse and healthy microbiome help maintain that lining in two important ways.

They support the production of protective mucus and ferment both dietary fiber and resistant starches to produce short-chain fatty acids like butyrate. These not only nourish the gut lining but also help support the brain’s protective barrier. When microbial diversity and beneficial bacteria are lost, the gut lining can weaken, allowing inflammatory molecules—including bacterial fragments called lipopolysaccharides—to enter the bloodstream. The systemic inflammation that follows then compromises the integrity of the blood-brain barrier, increasing oxidative stress in the brain.

Indeed, disturbances in gut function can be like the proverbial canary in the coalmine, appearing as a precursor to neurological symptoms long before their onset. They precede the motor symptoms of Parkinson’s, for example, by many years, and there is evidence to suggest they may be integral to the development of the disease itself. In animal studies, abnormal alpha-synuclein protein introduced into the gut was later detected in the brain, apparently having traveled there along the vagus nerve. In one such study, when the vagus nerve was severed, the spread did not occur.

These findings have contributed to a broader shift in how some researchers think about neurodegenerative disease. Rather than viewing protein deposits such as beta-amyloid, tau, or alpha-synuclein solely as toxic end products, some now suspect they may initially arise as protective responses to infection or as part of the body’s attempt to contain damage. To what degree these accumulations are more a symptom of pathology than a cause of it remains an active area of investigation.

The dominant theory underlying much of Alzheimer’s research—the amyloid hypothesis—has itself come under significant scrutiny. For decades, beta-amyloid plaques were viewed as the primary driver of the disease, directing the lion’s share of research funding and pharmaceutical development toward their removal. Yet drug after drug targeting amyloid has failed to meaningfully alter disease progression. In 2022, a Science investigation raised serious concerns about potential data manipulation in a landmark 2006 paper that had underpinned the hypothesis for nearly two decades. While amyloid almost certainly plays a role in the disease process, the field is now acknowledging that it may be one piece of a far more complex picture—and that researchers who emphasized metabolic dysfunction, neuroinflammation, and environmental factors were perhaps too quickly sidelined.

What You Can Do to Support Your Brain and Gut Health

So, what does all this mean for you? Your gut and your brain are in constant conversation, and you have meaningful influence over both. Start with what you put into your body: invest in a quality water filter and eat a rainbow of organic, fiber-rich foods—fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds. These feed the beneficial microbes in your gut and help them produce short-chain fatty acids like butyrate. Incorporate fermented products such as yogurt, kefir, sauerkraut, and kimchi—or raw milk dairy, if accessible and appropriate for you—to introduce additional helpful microbes. Foods rich in antioxidants and anti-inflammatory compounds can likewise protect neurons. For example, polyphenols in sources such as berries, raw honey, and extra-virgin olive oil help combat oxidative stress, while the curcumin in turmeric promotes the growth of new neurons by boosting Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF).

Resistant starches in cooked and cooled potatoes, beans, and other legumes act as beneficial prebiotics, feeding your gut without spiking blood sugar. Build up fiber gradually, though, and pay attention to how your gut responds. If you’re dealing with conditions like small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO), certain high-fiber or fermented foods can initially worsen symptoms, and a more targeted approach may be required.

Other valuable additions to your dietary arsenal are sources of omega-3 fatty acids like flaxseed, chia, walnuts, and algae, all of which reduce inflammation and protect neurons from oxidative damage. Equally important for intestinal barrier and microbiome health are essential nutrients such as vitamin D (from sunlight, fatty fish, and eggs), zinc (found in shellfish, grass-fed and finished beef, nuts, and seeds), and vitamin A. Supplements like L-glutamine may also help maintain your gut lining, while recent research has explored the potential neuroprotective effects of the trace mineral lithium. Movement is another indispensable ally. Regular physical activity fuels your mitochondria and stimulates BDNF. Even a short 10-minute walk a few times a week can make an appreciable difference.

Sleep, too, is vital. During rest, your brain’s glymphatic system clears out the byproducts of daily activity, including damaged proteins. By protecting your sleep schedule and prioritizing restorative rest, you can strengthen both brain and gut health with minimal effort. Finally, pay attention to stress. Chronic stress directly affects blood sugar regulation, inflammation, and mitochondrial function. Approaches that help regulate the stress response—whether through lifestyle practices or, in some cases, targeted supplementation—can have far-reaching effects on brain health.

If you are experiencing health challenges despite implementing all of the above, it may be worth investigating less obvious sources of chronic biological stress. Not all harmful exposures are easy to identify. Hidden mold, lingering pathogens such as persistent viral or bacterial infections (potentially including dental sources), and electromagnetic fields can place constant strain on the systems that regulate inflammation, metabolism, and cellular repair. Microplastics are an emerging concern as well—when possible, store food and beverages in glass rather than plastic, and limit exposure to chemicals in household and personal care products, including artificial fragrances.

Aluminum exposure is also worth minimizing where practical. Common sources include aluminum cookware and foil used with acidic foods, many conventional antiperspirants, and certain antacids. Opting for stainless steel or cast iron cookware, choosing aluminum-free personal care products, and reading labels on over-the-counter medications are simple steps that may reduce cumulative contact over time. When these sources go unnoticed, they can persist for years, steadily contributing to biological changes that damage brain cells.

Grounds for Hope

On an encouraging note, your brain is shaped by how you use it and appears to be able to compensate to some extent for biological damage. A neuroimaging initiative revealed that about 30% of elderly adults had beta-amyloid plaques and tau tangles in their brains without showing any symptoms of dementia. This is explained by the concept of “cognitive reserve,” whereby the more you challenge your brain over a lifetime—through learning, problem-solving, social interaction, or acquiring new skills—the more resilient it becomes. In other words, two people with similar levels of physical brain pathology might experience very different levels of impairment. Keeping your brain active is not only enriching; it may help delay or reduce the impact of age-related cognitive decline.

Even a diagnosis does not have to mean that it’s game over. Mainstream medicine will certainly tell you that neurodegenerative disease is irreversible. But is this position justified in every case? Or could it owe something to the failure of conventional treatments to effectively target the multifactorial underlying causes? There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that, in some cases, symptoms may be amenable to reversal, particularly when addressed sufficiently early. A case in point is Dr. Judy Byrne Benjamin, founder of the Alzheimer’s Survivors Foundation, who walked coast to coast across the U.S. 14 years after being told by a doctor that there was nothing that could be done for her. Featured in an article by Apollo Health, Benjamin, who had lost a mother and four uncles to the disease, attributes her recovery to a protocol developed by neurologist Dr. Dale Bredesen and says she is one of a growing number.

The study, “Reversal of Cognitive Decline: 100 Patients,” gives credence to this idea, as a substantial portion of participants either significantly improved or stabilized in response to the same protocol. This method focuses on addressing multiple potential contributors to cognitive decline simultaneously, including metabolic dysfunction, inflammation, sleep quality, nutrition, stress, toxin exposure, and gut health. And Bredesen’s is not the only non-drug-based protocol of this kind to have produced results. In 2024, a documentary called “The Last Alzheimer’s Patient” profiled several people who experienced substantial gains by participating in a clinical trial exploring the impact of intensive lifestyle interventions on early dementia. Even in ALS, rare instances of symptom reversal have been documented. Dr. Richard Bedlack, a neurologist at Duke, has investigated 89 possible cases, of which he has confirmed 65, including that of Mike McDuff, who recovered his ability to speak and swallow within six months of taking a soy-derived peptide called lunasin.

Another natural intervention that has shown promise in all three diseases—at least in terms of slowing progression—is N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC). This compound is a precursor to glutathione, one of the body’s primary antioxidants, and an augmented form has recently been developed that is considerably more absorbable. Not all damage is reversible, of course, and since dopaminergic neurons have a much more limited capacity for regeneration, Parkinson’s symptom reversal stories tend to be less dramatic. Improvement is still possible, however, and collectively, these developments suggest that the trajectory of disease may be more modifiable than once believed. Realizing that potential, however, requires proactive engagement—and the earlier you address underlying imbalances, the greater your opportunity to influence long-term outcomes.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: For decades, eggs were blamed for rising cholesterol and heart disease, pushed aside in favor of processed substitutes and low-fat promises. But modern research tells a far more complicated story. Once feared as nutritional liabilities, eggs are being reexamined as one of nature’s most complete biological packages—rich in protein, choline, healthy fats, vitamins, minerals, and the nutrients needed to build, repair, and restore. From mitochondrial energy production to brain health and recovery, the egg has become a powerful example of how nutritional science, public perception, and the body’s own biological intelligence are not always in alignment.

Long before fields were furrowed, orchards planted, or livestock filled fenced pastures, you—or those whose blood and biology live on in you—searched the wild for sustenance, gathering berries, digging roots, cracking nuts, and hunting prey that demanded energy, skill, and risk. Among nature’s richest discoveries was something far easier to claim and even more complete: a hidden clutch of eggs—concentrated containers of nourishment filled with nearly every building block needed to sustain life.

When European settlers arrived in America, they carried more than tools, seed stock and a dream of freedom and prosperity—they brought with them familiar animals including the humble chicken. This was a practical and wise choice born from necessity. Cattle demanded pasture, feed, and years before reliably supporting a household. Pigs, goats, and sheep took months to mature enough to provide substantial meat. Larger livestock represented future security, but hunger lived in the present tense—and chickens were the answer.

In roughly 18 weeks hens could begin laying eggs—daily nourishment wrapped in a perfect package, asking little in return beyond scraps, forage, and shelter. Soon one hen would become many, and many would become a flock. Breakfast at sunrise prepared households for the day ahead, while protein at supper satisfied hungry bellies after long hours of work, with fresh baking helping fill the meals in between. For families settling into life in an unfamiliar land, the egg wasn’t taken for granted—it was survival—and perhaps one of the reasons America, not just early Americans, survived and thrived. From frontier cabins to farmhouse kitchens, eggs became woven into the American story. They represented abundance, resilience, health, and longevity. But nearly 200 years later, that trust began to fracture as the scientific community increasingly warned that eggs were dangerous to human health.

When the Egg Fell From Grace

The fracture began in 1968, when the American Heart Association warned that cholesterol was a major driver of heart disease and strongly advised limiting eggs to three per week. This message—and the fear behind it—began to spread: dietary cholesterol raises blood cholesterol, elevated blood cholesterol raises heart disease risk, and therefore eggs are dangerous. It was simple, easy-to-follow logic, yet it was incomplete and fundamentally misguided. Much of the evidence behind these claims came from flawed animal studies, broad correlations that failed to separate eggs from smoking, processed food, and sedentary living, or clinical trials using unrealistic intakes. Missing from the headlines—and from scientific consensus—was a critical truth: your body is capable of regulating cholesterol with remarkable precision. When intake falls, production can rise. Cholesterol is not an intruder to be kept at bay—it is something produced innately and essential for nearly every process in your body.

But fear travels faster than discernment, so egg whites were praised, yolks were discarded, and omelets turned pale. Grocery shelves became crowded with substitutes stripped of the very nutrients nature had designed into the yolk. That perfect yolk was replaced with low-quality, genetically engineered ingredients. Yet eggs were only one casualty in a much larger shift—real, whole foods across the American table were increasingly traded for manufactured imitations: eggs for Egg Beaters, butter for “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter,” and sugar for Sweet & Low. As nature’s nourishment was steadily exchanged by inferior imposters, Americans grew sicker, while scientists held their position.

It wasn’t until the 1990s that large studies—including major research from Harvard University—found no meaningful link between moderate egg intake and cardiovascular disease in healthy people. In 2015, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee concluded that cholesterol was “not considered a nutrient of concern for overconsumption,” marking a major shift in decades of dietary guidance. Recent guidelines have taken a more cautious tone while continuing to move away from strict cholesterol limits. Still, old beliefs die hard. Even with decades of data tempering cholesterol fears, skepticism remains—which is why some researchers have taken matters into their own hands.

Recently, Nick Norwitz, a Harvard medical student with a Ph.D. in metabolic health, decided to conduct his own experiment: eat 720 eggs in one month and document what happens. The 133,200 mg of dietary cholesterol he consumed during that period did not raise his serum cholesterol or low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels. LDL molecules help transport cholesterol through the body and have long been associated with poor health outcomes when chronically elevated. Norwitz later explained that when dietary cholesterol rises, the body can reduce its own cholesterol production through signaling between the gut and liver, helping maintain balance and internal stability.

While one experiment does not settle the question, it adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that dietary cholesterol does not behave in the body the way it was once feared to. What is becoming clearer is that cholesterol metabolism is not a simple process of intake and accumulation—it is a dynamic, responsive system that senses what is consumed and adjusts internal production to maintain balance. This is thought to be accomplished through intricate feedback loops that science is still working to fully map. Rather than acting as a passive recipient, the body is a participant—regulating, adapting, and preserving internal stability.

Beyond the specifics, there is a more profound lesson here. The mechanisms may be newly described, but the intelligence behind them is not new at all. The body has always known how to maintain balance. Science is not discovering something entirely novel—it is catching up and putting words to a system that has been working with precision all along. To understand the parts, you must first trust the design of the whole.

A Complete Package by Design

Crack an egg and consider what rests in your hand. This is not merely food—it is potential. A concentrated source of sustenance with the raw materials needed to transform a single fertilized cell into a fully formed creature. Within that shell is the design for every bodily system and reserve of stored energy. Nothing extra. Nothing missing. Nature did not create the egg merely to be high in protein. It created it to build a body. Only when fertilized and incubated can that process unfold. Without those final two steps, the egg never becomes a living creature, though it still retains the potential to sustain you.

A single egg contains complete protein with all essential amino acids, nourishing fats, cholesterol, choline, vitamins A, D, E, B12, riboflavin, folate, selenium, iodine, phosphorus, iron, lutein, and zeaxanthin. Nearly every one of these compounds supports your tissues—from vision and immunity to hormones, metabolism, and cellular repair. Among them, choline stands out as one of the egg’s most important and abundant nutrients. Eggs are among the richest sources available, furnishing what is needed to make acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter central to memory, learning, focus, and muscular control. Choline also supports liver health, methylation, and the phospholipid membranes that form every cell in your body. For a developing baby, it helps shape the brain and spinal cord. For you, it sustains cognition and resilience. While chicken eggs get all the attention and shelf space at the store, they are only one example.

Quail eggs pack remarkable density, often offering more iron, B12, and phosphorus gram for gram. Duck eggs provide higher levels of omega-3s, more choline, and greater concentrations of fat-soluble vitamins. Ostrich eggs—equal to nearly two dozen chicken eggs—contain enough developmental fuel to launch one of the strongest hatchlings in the bird world. While they contain less vitamin E than a chicken egg, they contain more magnesium and iron. As you can see, not all eggs are created equal, but species is only part of the story.

The life of the bird shapes the content inside the shell. Store-bought and pasture-raised eggs may look identical before being cracked into a pan, yet the way hens are raised influences nearly everything found within them. The light yellow yolks of conventional eggs often come from caged hens kept indoors with limited movement, fed grain-based diets designed for efficiency rather than nutrition. These feeds may also contain pesticide-treated grains, synthetic additives, industrial byproducts, and other ingredients designed to maximize production rather than support long-term animal or human health. Cage-free hens are spared the cage, though many still live crowded indoors with little meaningful access to sunlight or open land. Free-range sounds ideal, but regulations only require some outdoor access—often a small door leading to a modest outdoor area that many birds rarely use.

Pasture-raised stands apart because hens are given abundant open space—typically more than 100 square feet per bird—to roam, scratch, peck, hunt insects, eat grasses, and live much closer to their natural design. That difference in movement, sunlight exposure, and a diverse omnivorous diet can produce eggs richer in nutrients like omega-3 fats, vitamin D, and carotenoids, often reflected in darker yolks and fuller flavor. This should not be confused with how some farmers artificially darken yolks with high-carotenoid feed like peppers or marigolds. Conversely, yolks may appear pale when hens consume diets lower in carotenoid-rich feed such as corn. In the case of yolks, appearances can be deceiving.

Fat quality is important to consider too. Conventional hens fed heavy diets of corn and soy tend to lay eggs with disproportionately high levels of omega-6 fats—particularly linoleic acid—creating inflammatory omega-6-to-omega-3 ratios that can approach 10:1 or higher. Removing soy from feed can significantly improve that balance, but labels like organic, pasture-raised, or soy-free do not automatically guarantee a healthy fat profile. Some farms replace soy with sunflower meal or oils, which remain high in omega-6, while others heavily fortify feed with flax to boost omega-3 numbers—improving ratios on paper, yet creating delicate fats that are prone to oxidation.

Labels like organic, non-GMO, soy-free, corn-free, vegetarian-fed, or omega-3-enriched each describe one piece of the picture—what the hens are fed, what they avoid, or nutrients added through feed—but none automatically speak to how the hens actually live. When both nutrition and animal welfare are addressed, pasture-raised—especially when paired with strong humane certification—represents the closest thing on the grocery shelf to the kind of egg nature intended. What these hens build in their bodies ultimately becomes fuel for yours—especially within the tiny energy systems that power every cell.

The Golden Engine

Inside every cell in your body are mitochondria—tiny structures that transform food into ATP, the currency that powers thought, movement, repair, detoxification, and endurance. When mitochondria function well, you feel alive. When they struggle, fatigue, inflammation, sluggish recovery, and mental fog often follow. This is where yolks shine. Rich in choline, B vitamins, and bioavailable cholesterol, they supply nutrients directly tied to mitochondrial membrane strength, cellular signaling, and efficient energy production. Together, these compounds help defend mitochondria from oxidative injury while supplying many of the cofactors needed for metabolism to run cleanly and consistently. What makes the yolk even more remarkable is that it arrives with its own built-in protective chemistry.

Egg yolks naturally contain antioxidants such as vitamin E, selenium, carotenoids, and phospholipids that help shield their delicate fats from oxidation. Research on omega-3-enriched eggs found that while cooking preserves total fat content, higher-heat methods—particularly frying—significantly increase lipid damage and cholesterol oxidation products, whereas boiling better preserves the egg’s fragile fats. When hens’ diets were fortified with antioxidants like vitamin E and organic selenium, oxidative stress during cooking was markedly reduced—cutting markers of fat damage by as much as 40 percent and cholesterol degradation by 12 percent. In other words, the egg is not merely rich in energy-supporting fats—it carries protective elements designed to defend those fats from breakdown. That same antioxidant profile may help protect the delicate lipid membranes that power your cells. This is why some ancestral and holistic circles call raw yolks “captured sunlight.”

The phrase, although poetic, is grounded in chemistry. Sunlight becomes plant life. Plants become seeds, greens, insects, and forage. Hens convert those sun-fed nutrients—carotenoids, tocopherols (vitamin E), selenium, healthy fats, and antioxidant pigments—into a golden reservoir of stored vitality. Within that yolk rests concentrated biological energy and a nutrient matrix built to nourish life at its most foundational level. In a sense, you are eating the sun’s energy.

Some choose raw yolks for this reason—to preserve nutrients that heat can diminish. These yolks can be blended with a quality oil, such as cold-pressed olive oil, or avocados, to make homemade mayonnaise or Caesar dressing. Others prefer gently cooked eggs, particularly soft-boiled, poached, or steamed, which strike a balance between safety, digestibility, and nutrient preservation. Either way, the lesson is the same: how you consume your eggs matters, especially if they are raw. Because raw eggs can carry Salmonella, a common food-borne bacterium that can cause gastrointestinal distress, they are best avoided by young children, older adults, pregnant women, and those with compromised health.

Raw egg whites contain avidin, which can interfere with biotin absorption. For those choosing to use raw eggs, pasteurized or carefully sourced pasture-raised eggs may offer peace of mind regarding bacterial contamination. While pasteurization is not known to significantly affect lipid quality or overall nutrition, some enzymes present in eggs may denature, which can affect the way the proteins behave during cooking.

The egg and your brain

Your brain is among the most energy-demanding structures in your body. It depends on protein, phospholipids, cholesterol, B vitamins, selenium, antioxidants, and fats to build neurons, maintain signaling, and power cognition.

Eggs, once again, supply nearly all of these nutrients. Sometimes dubbed “nature’s cognitive multivitamin,” a new study found that regular egg consumption was associated with a lower risk of Alzheimer’s disease, while postmortem examinations of individuals who frequently ate eggs revealed lower levels of toxic Alzheimer’s-related proteins in the brain. They provide complete protein for neurotransmitter creation, choline for acetylcholine and membrane health, mitochondrial cofactors for ATP production, healthy fats for neural structure, and tryptophan—a precursor that contributes to niacin (vitamin B3/nicotinamide), helping feed NAD+, one of the body’s most important molecules for energy and cellular repair. In simple terms, eggs deliver much of what your brain is built from—and much of what keeps it running. And it’s that same nutrient density that also becomes especially important when the body enters profound repair mode.

Because of their nutrient density, eggs are invaluable for physical recovery. Severe burn patients, for example, enter a hypermetabolic state in which the body urgently needs the raw materials required to rebuild skin, connective tissue, blood vessels, and damaged cells. In some recovery protocols, patients may receive up to 35 eggs daily to help support that intense repair process.

When Eggs Aren’t For Everyone

Of course, no food is universally tolerated. While eggs are among the most nutrient-dense foods available, they are also one of the more common food allergens, particularly in infants and young children. Many children outgrow an egg allergy, but some continue to react into adulthood, and others may develop sensitivities later in life. The proteins found in eggs—especially those concentrated in the whites—can trigger immune reactions ranging from mild digestive upset, skin rashes, or congestion to more serious symptoms such as difficulty breathing. You may experience a food sensitivity rather than a true allergy, with symptoms that are less immediate but still significant.

Interestingly, how an egg is prepared can make a difference. You may tolerate thoroughly cooked eggs in baked goods or other dishes more easily than raw or lightly cooked eggs because cooking alters the structure of egg proteins. This is not a golden rule, however, and if you have a known egg allergy, you should follow the guidance of your healthcare provider. If eggs seem to cause symptoms, an elimination diet followed by a careful reintroduction can sometimes help identify a problem. More formal evaluation may include skin-prick testing, blood tests that measure egg-specific antibodies, or supervised food challenges conducted by an allergist.

Another consideration is the hen’s diet. If you are allergic or highly sensitive to foods such as corn or soy, you may tolerate eggs poorly when hens are raised on feed containing these ingredients. While a true egg allergy involves the egg proteins themselves, some practitioners and consumers have observed that feed composition may influence how certain sensitive individuals respond. Research in this area remains limited, and the mechanism is not fully understood, but you may find that you tolerate eggs from hens fed soy-free and corn-free diets more comfortably.

If you absolutely cannot consume eggs, nutrient replacement becomes important. Pasture-raised poultry, wild seafood, 100% grass-fed meats, organic dairy products, and legumes can help supply protein and many of the vitamins and minerals eggs provide. Choline—one of eggs’ standout nutrients—can also be found in foods such as liver, beef, salmon, and cruciferous vegetables, though often in lower amounts. While few foods match the nutritional package of a whole egg, a thoughtfully varied diet can provide many of the same building blocks.

Bringing The Egg Home Again

In 1918, during World War I, the United States Department of Agriculture encouraged families to keep two hens per family member so they would always have fresh eggs. Their advertising slogan read: “In Time of Peace a Profitable Recreation. In Time of War a Patriotic Duty.” Today, that advice still rings true. Over the last decade, the cost of eggs has risen dramatically, with a dozen pasture-raised eggs costing anywhere from $9 to more than $15 depending on the region. While not everyone has the space, time, or ability to raise a small flock, for some people, producing their own eggs may eventually become both practical and economical.

It’s true that standard stationary coops require regular manure removal—which is excellent for the garden—to keep conditions sanitary. A small mobile coop and movable electric fencing, on the other hand, can minimize cleaning while bringing fertilization directly to the land. Chickens are also excellent recyclers and can be fed many healthy food scraps and vegetable trimmings to supplement their diet and help reduce feed costs. If you have limited space—or simply want a quieter, smaller bird—quail, a compact ground-dwelling bird that lays small nutrient-dense eggs, can also be a practical option requiring far less room than chickens.

Whatever option you choose, having access to healthy eggs can be a steady source of quality food for you and your family. But abundance naturally raises another question: how many eggs truly support optimal health? For many healthy people, one to three eggs daily fits beautifully into a nutrient-dense diet. Active individuals, growing children, older adults, and those recovering from illness may benefit from more. Your metabolic health, overall diet, and personal biology matter far more than rigid universal rules. If you have significant metabolic dysfunction, diabetes, or a rare cholesterol-processing disorder, your response to dietary cholesterol may be different and should be evaluated individually.

For millennia, eggs have nourished the hungry, strengthened the growing, sustained the weary, and supplied nearly everything needed to build, repair, and renew life itself. It should be no surprise that they may also help restore the human body. Small in size. Astonishing in potential. “The incredible, edible egg.”

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Emerging research suggests that early human access to nutrient-dense shellfish may have played a meaningful role in cognitive development—and oysters remain one of the most concentrated sources of brain-supporting nutrition available today. Packed with vitamin B12, zinc, copper, DHA and taurine, they deliver nutrients that support brain function, mood, immunity, hormonal health and gut integrity. Researchers continue to explore their potential role in supporting BDNF—a key factor in neuroplasticity and resilience—alongside applications in bone health, thyroid function and gut repair.

Excavations of a cave along the southern coast of Africa reveal something astonishing—early humans were eating shellfish as far back as 164,000 years ago. At the time, this kind of underwater foraging was less about culinary curiosity and more about survival. But what may have begun as necessity appears to have delivered an unexpected evolutionary advantage. Researchers now propose that access to nutrient-dense marine foods helped fuel the rapid expansion of the human brain. It’s not that oysters alone are responsible for the ingenuity that defines the species, but they may have provided key building blocks at a critical moment in its unfolding. And in that sense, these unassuming creatures—clustered on rocks, filtering seawater—may have played a far more significant role in history than they tend to receive credit for. And that’s just the beginning.

The Case for Nutrient Density

Oysters, along with other bivalve mollusks like clams and mussels, continue to stand out as some of the most wholesome foods available. What makes them particularly interesting is their concentration of nutrients that are otherwise difficult to obtain in consequential amounts—the very ones early humans may have struggled to source inland. Often referred to as “nature’s multivitamin,” they are packed with iron, zinc, copper, long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (like docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA), high-quality protein, and amino acids such as taurine and vitamin B12—nutrients that sustain everything from immune defense to energy production.

DHA in particular is a structural component of the brain, especially within the cerebral cortex, the region responsible for memory, language and complex thought. Unlike many common foods, oysters deliver concentrated nutrition without empty calories or additives. The human brain is an incredibly energy-intensive organ. It requires a steady supply of very specific nutrients to grow and function properly. Consistent access to foods rich in these nutrients and bioavailable minerals may have supported early human cognitive advancements—tool use, communication and eventually the development of culture itself.

Animal foods tend to provide nutrients in forms the body can readily absorb and utilize, whereas many plant foods—such as spinach or raw nuts—contain compounds like oxalates and phytates that can bind to minerals and reduce their absorption, unless properly prepared through methods like soaking, sprouting or fermenting. Some scientists, such as Curtis Marean, who studied cave-dwelling societies in South Africa for over twenty years, hypothesize that oysters helped Homo sapiens dominate the planet over all other species of genus Homo—like Neanderthals and Erectus—by expediting their transition from early human to a modern one. Marean says:

“Shellfish may have been a critical food source for the survival of early human populations. For millions of years, humans survived on inland plants and animals. Shellfish was one of the last additions to the human diet before the introduction of domesticated plants and animals at the end of the ice age, also called the Pleistocene. It is possible that this population could be the progenitor population for all modern humans.”

While no single food can fully explain mankind’s transformation, oysters offer a provocative piece of the puzzle. What’s remarkable is how little you actually need: just two to four oysters can provide a full day’s worth of several essential nutrients. At present, most diets are built on abundance—people are overfed but undernourished. Despite consuming enough calories, many still fall short on key micronutrients. In this landscape of nutritional dilution, oysters are notable for their density. Thankfully, modern options like pure oyster powder and freeze-dried oyster extract preserve delicate amino acids and other bioactive components, so you can enjoy their benefits regularly without having to visit your local oyster bar or fish market.

The biological demands of human cognition have changed very little over time. The same vitamins and minerals that once propelled the growth of the human brain are still required to maintain its function. While some research suggests that IQ scores have flattened in recent years—as a result of shifts in environment, technology and culture—this raises broader questions: have humans fully tapped their cognitive potential? And could nutrient-dense foods like oysters play a meaningful role in supporting mental performance today?

What’s Inside the Shell

Much of oysters’ reputation comes down to vitamin B12. They are among the richest sources available, with a single serving of three to six medium oysters providing up to 1,000 percent of your daily requirement. B12 plays a central role in nerve health, red blood cell formation and overall brain function. If your levels drop, the effects are not subtle—fatigue sets in, memory falters and even basic mental tasks can feel overwhelming. Because B12 is involved in the production of red blood cells, it also influences how efficiently oxygen is delivered throughout your body. The brain, being highly metabolically active—it accounts for only two percent of overall body weight but consumes twenty percent of total resting oxygen—is particularly sensitive to even small disruptions in oxygen supply.

This is just one part of the equation. Oysters provide omega-3 fatty acids that help build flexible, resilient brain cell membranes while reducing inflammation. Zinc plays a role in neurotransmitter signaling and has been linked to memory and learning. Selenium acts as a protective agent against oxidative stress, while iron and copper support oxygen transport and energy production at the cellular level. When you take a step back, the picture that emerges is remarkable: this is a food designed, almost perfectly, to support the human brain.

Copper deserves attention, and oysters are among the richest dietary sources of this trace mineral. According to Morley Robbins, creator of “The Root Cause Protocol,” copper not only boosts antioxidant defense, but it also works alongside iron and magnesium to help regulate how oxygen is utilized within the mitochondria—the microscopic structures responsible for generating cellular energy. Robbins argues that it is copper, not iron, that is the body’s innate healer, and that what might look like an iron deficiency may actually reflect poor copper availability and impaired iron recycling. Current agricultural practices that deplete nutrients from the soil—such as the use of glyphosate, synthetic additives and highly processed foods—contribute to declining copper levels in the modern diet. In this context, oysters stand out: two cooked oysters provide up to 140 percent of the daily recommended intake.

Oysters’ nutritional benefits also extend to emotional well-being. Deficiencies in key nutrients such as B12, zinc and omega-3s have been associated with changes in disposition, energy and inner resilience. Once you begin to correct these shortages, you may notice your mood stabilizing, your body feeling more energized and your focus sharpening. This intersection between diet and mental health has gained increasing attention in the field of nutritional psychiatry.

Psychiatrist and founder of the Brain Food Clinic in New York, Dr. Drew Ramsey explores how dietary inputs influence brain function and mental health. He highlights nutrient-dense options—including oysters, which he refers to as “perfect brain food”—as powerful contributors to overall well-being. In an effort to better understand which nutrients matter most for fending off cognitive decline, Ramsey analyzes top scientific research and ranks foods based on the minerals and vitamins most strongly connected with preventing and treating depression. The result is his “antidepressant food scale,” on which oysters and mussels rise to the top among animal sources for their potential to support new cell growth in the hippocampus. —the region of the brain central to learning and memory.

“Nutritious diets actually keep brain-ageing at bay, meaning you live a more vibrant life,” Ramsey says. “This is crucial in midlife. If you look at the data, it’s not adolescents who have the worst mental health, it’s people in midlife, particularly white middle-aged men, in terms of depression and suicide.”

Dr. Ramsey emphasizes whole foods such as oysters over multivitamins, and believes that antidepressants fail to address the fundamental problem by focusing on serotonin rather than brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). “Numerous studies show that patients with major depression and anxiety disorder have lower BDNF levels than those without such diagnoses.” Oysters and their extracts may play a role in boosting BDNF and supporting the brain’s ability to strengthen or weaken connections over time.

From Fertility to Immunity

There’s a familiar, and slightly controversial, claim attached to oysters: their role as an aphrodisiac. For centuries, they have been associated with desire, and while the folklore runs deep, biology offers at least part of the explanation. Zinc plays a central role in regulating dopamine, a neurotransmitter tied to pleasure, motivation and libido. Oysters happen to be the richest dietary source of zinc, with even a small serving exceeding daily requirements several times over. In men, zinc is essential for testosterone production and sperm health, and inadequate amounts have been linked to reduced fertility. In women, it supports hormone balance and reproductive function. Just six oysters can deliver more than 180 percent of your daily zinc and over 400 percent of your B12 —nutrients that contribute to hormone regulation, ovulation and sperm production. When the body has what it needs, these systems can function more efficiently.

Zinc’s reach extends well beyond reproduction. It plays a critical role in over 300 enzymatic reactions in the human body, influencing immune function, DNA synthesis and wound healing, as well as the development and activation of T cells—essential for identifying and eliminating viral and bacterial pathogens as well as tumor cells. Because the body does not store zinc, consistent intake is necessary. Adding to this, compounds like phytic acid—found in grains and legumes—can reduce its absorption, making mild deficiency more common than expected.

Once considered rare, zinc deficiency is now surprisingly widespread in both developed and developing countries. It’s especially common among older adults—affecting up to 45 percent of those over 60—as well as women of reproductive age, due to menstruation and typically lower dietary intake. Signs of deficiency can be subtle at first: some hair loss, a diminished sense of taste, dry or irritated skin and getting sick more often than usual. The recommended daily allowance is 11 mg for men and 9 mg for women—an amount you can meet with just two oysters, which provide about 11 mg of zinc.

Zinc also helps maintain the integrity of the gut lining by supporting tight junction proteins, reducing intestinal permeability and inflammation, and preventing undigested food or harmful pathogens from entering the bloodstream. As a structural component, zinc reduces inflammation and oxidative stress while promoting beneficial bacterial diversity. In the event that your mucosal lining is damaged—whether by stress, illness or even a night of less-than-ideal food choices—zinc helps drive the repair process by promoting the regeneration of epithelial cells that form the protective barrier. Compounds naturally found in oysters, including omega-3s and bioactive polysaccharides—complex carbohydrates that regulate immune response and boost antioxidant activity—may further support gut health and microbial balance.

The thyroid offers yet another example of oysters’ reach. This butterfly-shaped endocrine gland depends on iodine and zinc for hormone production, while selenium helps convert thyroxine (T4)—the primary hormone produced and released by the thyroid gland, and a key regulator of metabolism, growth, temperature and energy expenditure—into its biologically active form, triiodothyronine (T3). When deficiencies in these nutrients occur, thyroid function can become impaired, leading to fatigue, weight changes and metabolic slowdown. Oysters address all three needs in one compact package.

Bone health may be the least expected entry on oysters’ nutritional résumé—yet the evidence is compelling. They provide a high concentration of calcium, phosphorus, vitamin D and protein—key building blocks of bone formation and maintenance. Working together, these components stimulate osteoblasts, the cells responsible for building new bone and strengthening existing tissue, while also contributing to collagen production, which gives bone and cartilage their resilience. Research published in Nutrients suggests that fermented oyster extract may help prevent bone loss following an ovariectomy—the surgical removal of the ovaries.

“Among marine organisms, oysters contain diverse bioactive compounds with antioxidant activity. A recent study on bone growth revealed that both oyster extract and taurine, a main component of oysters, can improve various bone parameters including bone volume/tissue volume, trabecular thickness, and trabecular number and can increase growth plate thickness in a mouse model.”

One compound of particular interest is taurine, an amino acid found in especially high concentrations in oysters—every 100 grams of raw oyster meat contains approximately 396 to 700 mg. Taurine acts as an antioxidant, supports cardiovascular function and aids digestion through bile salt formation. A study in Food Science & Nutrition, “Oyster broth concentrate and its major component taurine alleviate acute alcohol‐induced liver damage,” suggests it may also protect against liver injury, including fatty liver and fibrosis.

Of course, preparation matters. Consuming oysters raw ensures their full nutrient profile, but that benefit comes with a risk. The old rule of only eating oysters in months containing the letter “R”—which excluded the warmer summer months of May, June, July and August—no longer applies in the United States, thanks to aquaculture and strict safety monitoring. But oysters are natural filter feeders and can accumulate Vibrio vulnificus, a potentially harmful bacterium that thrives in warm coastal waters. Infection can cause serious and even fatal illness, with symptoms including vomiting, diarrhea and fever. For this reason, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends cooking shucked oysters using one of the following methods:

• Frying in oil at 375 degrees for at least three minutes

• Boiling for three minutes or longer

• Baking at 450 degrees for ten minutes

• Steaming—add to an already-steaming pot and cook for another four to nine minutes

• Broiling three inches from heat for three minutes

Some fragile nutrients—including certain B vitamins, omega-3 fatty acids and bioactive compounds—can be diminished by heat. Of the methods above, steaming tends to preserve more of these compounds since the oysters are not submerged directly in boiling water.

Oysters have always carried a certain mystique, bordering on dare and delicacy—and the question of how to prepare them is nearly as old as the practice itself. Jonathan Swift, who famously admired the “bold man” who first tried one, offered his own method in Gulliver’s Travels in 1726: “Take oysters, wash their shells clean, then put the oysters into an earthen pot, then put the pot into a kettle of water, and let them boil. Your oysters are boiled in their own liquor and not mixed with water.” For most purposes today, simple is still best. Consider a squeeze of fresh lemon or a dab of hot sauce rather than breading or deep-frying. When buying oysters, look for tightly closed shells and discard any that don’t open during cooking. Avoid overcrowding them in the pot, which can lead to uneven cooking. As with most seafood, freshness matters—the closer you can get to the source, the better.

Water quality matters not only for freshness and flavor but also for toxin exposure. Because oysters filter large volumes of seawater, they can accumulate environmental pollutants—including trace amounts of arsenic, mercury, lead and cadmium—when grown in contaminated waters. Concentrations vary depending on proximity to industrial runoff or shipping activity. Source oysters from well-monitored estuaries and coastal waters far from heavily industrialized or urbanized areas to minimize exposure. In the United States, both commercially farmed and commercially harvested wild oysters are routinely regulated and tested for water quality. The greater risk comes from recreationally harvested wild oysters, which are not subject to the same oversight and may come from waters that haven’t been tested for contaminants. Compared to large predatory fish such as tuna and swordfish, oysters contain substantially lower levels of mercury. They are also rich in selenium, which may help counter some of the oxidative stress associated with heavy metal exposure.

Better for You, Better for the Ocean

As it turns out, oysters are also one of the most environmentally regenerative foods on the planet. As natural sieves of the sea, they continuously cycle the water around them, removing excess organic matter such as algae and particulate matter, improving water quality and clarity in the process. A single oyster can filter up to 50 gallons of water per day.

Over time, their shells accumulate and form reefs that create habitats for a wide range of marine life, from tiny crustaceans to large fish species. These reefs support biodiversity and stabilize ecosystems. Remarkably, oysters require no freshwater, feed inputs or arable land to grow. There are very few protein sources that can claim to actively improve their environment simply by existing in it. And yet, despite their resilience, oyster populations have declined significantly due to pollution and overharvesting. Restoration efforts are underway—because as it turns out, oysters represent something much larger than was once recognized.

In a world rich in options, it’s easy to overlook these humble creatures. But as you move toward greater wellness—paying attention to how you feel, how you function and how your choices affect the systems around you—there’s something compelling about returning to the sources of nourishment that supported human evolution in the first place.

Your early ancestors stumbled upon something powerful without fully realizing it. There was no nutrition science to guide them, no language for vitamins or fatty acids—just the basic pull of survival. And once their bodies had a taste, they didn’t forget it. Only a fraction of the ocean has been explored, and yet these small shellfish continue to shape humankind in ways both visible and unseen.

Consider reaching for an oyster—not just as a meal, but as a small act of alignment with your biology and the planet. And if you can, take it one step further: return the shells to a local restoration program, where they can become the foundation for new reefs and continue the cycle they’ve sustained for centuries.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming part of daily life—including emotional support and mental health guidance. But as AI tools grow more human-like, concerns are mounting over emotional dependency, misinformation, privacy and the risks of treating machines like therapists. As organizations race to adopt the technology, questions remain about how to use it safely, responsibly and without replacing real human connection.

Artificial intelligence (AI) exploded onto the global stage in 2022 with the arrival of a chat app called ChatGPT. Since then, organizations and world leaders have touted AI as a technology poised to reshape daily life, business and communication. According to the U.S. government, it’s “ushering in a new Golden Age of innovation, human flourishing, and technological achievement for the American people.” The bold claims are understandable. AI offers clear practical advantages. It can create content—drafting an email, building a resume or producing a video. It boosts productivity by helping you complete tasks like financial budgeting, planning an event and researching information online. It can act as a personal assistant by suggesting a workout routine, planning travel itineraries and helping you stay on top of daily priorities. It can even assist in building a digital app or website of your own.

The technology is easy to use. Several companies offer an AI app to download, or you can access it on their website. From there, you type a question or request into a box—called a prompt. The software responds in seconds. It can mimic human speech, making the interaction feel surprisingly human. It replies in plain language rather than technical jargon, allowing for natural back-and-forth conversations.

Using AI can feel less like a traditional search engine and more like interacting with a collaborator. It can summarize complex information in seconds, help brainstorm ideas, explain difficult concepts in accessible terms and accelerate tasks that once required hours of research or technical expertise. For small businesses, students, creatives and people juggling demanding schedules, the shift can feel genuinely transformative—expanding what a single person is capable of accomplishing in a day.

To some, the technology represents more than the arrival of a powerful new app or software platform. It signals a fundamental shift in how humans access information, solve problems and approach creative work. Tasks that once required specialized expertise, extensive research or entire teams can now begin with a simple prompt. Writers use AI to brainstorm and edit. Programmers use it to troubleshoot code. Students use it to simplify difficult concepts. For many people, AI feels like a genuine expansion of their capabilities—one reason adoption has accelerated so rapidly across nearly every sector of society.

The technology is also evolving rapidly beyond simple chat interfaces. A new wave of AI “agents” is being designed to carry out tasks autonomously—managing schedules, conducting research, organizing workflows, making purchases and interacting with other software on a user’s behalf. As these systems become more personalized and integrated into daily life, the line between digital assistant, tool and companion may become even more blurred. AI’s growing utility has fueled enormous enthusiasm, but discussion of the downsides has lagged behind as governments and businesses race to adopt it. One problem is that AI can provide inaccurate information, requiring you to verify it against credible sources. Several law firms, for instance, got in hot water for using AI to create court briefs that cited legal cases that didn’t exist.

More concerning is that people are now turning to AI for medical and mental health advice—relying on it like a doctor, therapist or confidant. AI’s conversational nature makes it appear suited for this role. No major medical organization endorses AI as a replacement for professional care, yet many Americans are increasingly using it that way. According to a 2026 survey, “KFF Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust: Use of AI For Health Information and Advice,” about a third of adults adopted the tech for health-related matters, with 16 percent seeking emotional support through AI tools. Some analysts now describe ChatGPT as functioning like one of the largest informal mental health support systems in the U.S. Before diving further into the pitfalls of using AI for mental health, it’s helpful to first understand some background about the technology.

What Exactly Is AI?

Artificial intelligence is a branch of computer science focused on creating systems that can perform tasks associated with human thinking. It uses clusters of interconnected computers housed in massive facilities—some requiring enormous amounts of land, energy and water—to perform tasks requiring learning, reasoning, problem-solving and decision-making. The companies building the technology start by gathering data from various sources: collecting publicly available information on the internet, buying it from organizations and harvesting it from the usage of their apps. This data trains algorithms to identify patterns, and the software then applies statistical models to choose the most relevant response to your request. For example, you might ask an AI app, “Summarize the causes of the American Revolution in three sentences.” Rather than retrieving a single source, the system generates a response by identifying patterns and relationships across enormous amounts of training data.

Some semblance of artificial intelligence has existed for decades. Tech giant IBM made headlines in 1997 when its Deep Blue AI beat the world’s reigning chess champion—the first time a computer demonstrated that machines could out-think humans in a complex strategic setting. ChatGPT’s arrival represented another milestone by bringing generative AI, or genAI, into the mainstream. This form of AI is distinguished by its ability to generate original responses or content, which allows it to “chat” with you. It’s how ChatGPT got its name: Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer. A transformer is the software engine that analyzes the relationship between words in a sequence. Before genAI, most AI systems could analyze data and efficiently carry out predetermined tasks, but they were generally far more limited in generating open-ended responses or creating original content. GenAI can do this, and it’s also able to learn from existing data—enabling it to create new content based on your prompt, carry on a conversation, and construct original images, videos and music in seconds.

Using these apps is intuitive for both adults and children, since it requires no technical knowledge—only entering a text or voice prompt. GenAI’s sophisticated conversational ability can make interactions feel remarkably human. For instance, the prompt “I’m feeling overwhelmed with work; suggest ways to organize my tasks” can produce a response such as “I’m so sorry you’re feeling that way. It sounds incredibly stressful to have so much on your plate at once. We can break your to-do list down into smaller, more manageable steps together.” Its ease of use and human-like responses helped propel ChatGPT into one of the most visited websites in the world within two months of its rollout. GenAI’s accessible, powerful capabilities led to a slew of products such as Midjourney, Claude and Character.ai.

Why AI Can Be Dangerous

One reason AI can feel so compelling is how naturally it communicates. While those interactions can feel comforting, reflective or emotionally meaningful, problems can arise when the line between tool and trusted relationship begins to blur—especially when AI begins replacing real-world support, guidance or professional care. The widespread isolation, uncertainty and disruption that accompanied the COVID-19 response were associated with a 25% global spike in depression and anxiety disorders according to the World Health Organization. Demand for behavioral health services grew, but the U.S. faced a shortage of qualified mental health professionals—driven by burnout, retirements and insurance systems that often reimburse poorly or fail to cover treatment altogether. That scarcity, combined with ChatGPT’s timely arrival, drove people to turn to AI for help. Companies capitalized on this, releasing a flood of digital mental health apps such as Character.ai’s Therapist and Psychologist bots, Wysa, Woebot Health, Therabot, Earkick and Limbic Access.

There are clear reasons people are drawn to AI for therapy-like support. It’s always available, even in the middle of the night. No appointment is necessary. There’s no time pressure—you can talk as long as you want. Because it’s a machine, there’s no feeling of being judged, and the price tag is low or free depending on the service. Part of what can make AI interactions feel so personal is that the software adapts to your prompts, conversational style and recurring interests over time. As interactions accumulate, responses may begin to feel increasingly familiar, tailored and emotionally attuned. While this can create a sense of being understood, the system is still recognizing patterns in data—not forming human awareness, memory or emotional connection in the way people do.

At the same time, the system’s lack of human judgment, accountability and emotional understanding can create risks for people who are emotionally distressed, isolated or seeking reassurance during difficult periods in their lives. AI is programmed to prioritize helpfulness—to the point of being overly agreeable. This makes business sense: the more people enjoy using an app, the greater the opportunity to gain and retain customers. Computer scientists at Stanford University published a study in March 2026, “Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence,” confirming genAI’s bias toward pleasing its users, finding it agrees with users nearly 50 percent more often than humans do—even when users express self-destructive or ethically troubling ideas.

Dr. Jodi Halpern, a psychiatrist and bioethics scholar at UC Berkeley, described the false sense of intimacy the software can elicit: “You can develop powerful attachments—and the bots don’t have the ethical training or oversight to handle that. They’re products, not professionals.” Halpern noted genAI apps are designed to maximize engagement, not provide mental health support, yet they continue reaching vulnerable users with limited regulation or oversight. She stated:

“We’ve already seen tragic outcomes, including people expressing suicidal intent to bots who didn’t flag it — and children dying by suicide. These companies aren’t bound by HIPAA. There’s no therapist on the other end of the line.”

In a lawsuit against Character.ai, parents assert their teenage son attacked them after interacting with the app. In a separate lawsuit filed in 2025 against OpenAI—the creator of ChatGPT—parents allege that a teenager using the app for homework received guidance related to suicide before later taking their own life. OpenAI retired the software version involved in early 2026. That same year, the company released an age-prediction capability where ChatGPT estimates the age of its user and, if it determines the person is under 18, limits exposure to content involving self-harm, body shaming and unhealthy dieting. Even so, AI systems still cannot reliably recognize or appropriately respond to signs that a person may be at risk of harming themselves or others. The state of Florida is investigating whether OpenAI bears criminal responsibility for a 2025 school shooting after the gunman used ChatGPT to plan the attack.

Another inherent issue with AI is that it reflects the biases present in the data used to train it. A 2025 study from Stanford University’s Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence institute, “Exploring the Dangers of AI in Mental Health Care,” revealed AI displayed greater stigma toward individuals with alcohol dependence and schizophrenia compared to those with depression—labeling a person with schizophrenia as likely to be violent, and indicating unwillingness to work closely with someone diagnosed with alcohol dependence. AI can also fabricate responses that have no basis in fact—a phenomenon called “hallucination.” The software does this because it prioritizes predicting the best reply over verifying accuracy. If it lacks data on a topic you ask about, it will make up an answer rather than admit the gap. Companies also face pressure to keep interactions smooth and responsive, since users frustrated by too many dead ends may switch to competing platforms.

Artificial intelligence apps presented as substitutes for clinical guidance can pose significant risks, according to Stephen Schueller, a licensed psychologist and professor of clinical psychology at UC Irvine who specializes in digital mental health technologies. He noted that people in crisis may not seek needed medical attention—a particular concern for groups unable to accurately assess risk, such as children, teens and individuals struggling with serious mental health conditions. Schueller stated:

“If you’re in a dark place, hope is a very powerful tool. But some of these products can give vulnerable people false hope… Innovation in this space is sorely needed, but we have to do innovation responsibly by protecting people, especially those who are going through mental health challenges.”

Not all clinicians view AI as inherently harmful. Cedars-Sinai researchers created an app called the eXtended-Reality Artificially Intelligent Ally (XAIA), designed to treat patients with mild-to-moderate anxiety or depression. Clinical psychologist Robert Chernoff, who helped assess the program’s safety, stated: “(XAIA) handled a range of situations very well and did not show evidence of safety concerns during our testing.” Dr. Brennan Spiegel, Cedars-Sinai’s director of Health Services Research, added:

“By harnessing the potential of technology in an evidence-based and safe manner, we can build a more accessible mental healthcare system.”

Using AI Responsibly

The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence has outpaced the laws governing its use. Formal guardrails are largely left to the businesses making the apps. The U.S. government is taking a hands-off approach—in December 2025, President Trump signed an executive order penalizing states that attempt to rein in AI with new laws, threatening to withhold federal funding and block enforcement. This means the burden falls on you to use AI systems responsibly. The first step is to approach AI as a tool rather than a companion. Make sure you and your loved ones understand its risks: interactions are recorded and shared with the company behind the app, advice can be inaccurate, and emotional dependency can develop without you realizing it. Recognizing that AI isn’t a replacement for a human therapist is harder than it sounds—especially for children and teens, who may not always distinguish between artificial interaction and genuine emotional support. The American Psychological Association (APA) explains:

AI bots “can foster unhealthy dependencies by blurring the lines between a relationship with a digital tool and a human relationship. This phenomenon is in part driven by anthropomorphism—a natural human tendency to attribute human qualities like empathy, consciousness, and intent to nonhuman agents… This illusion of a human connection can make users more likely to disclose sensitive information. For example, despite a general preference for human connection, 33% of teens reported they would rather discuss something serious or important with an AI companion than a person.”

It’s also worth noticing when AI interactions begin crowding out real-world connections. Spending excessive time with these apps, preferring them over interactions with people, or hiding their use from others may indicate an unhealthy level of dependence. The APA recommends against using AI bots for psychological treatment, noting that “even regarding fit-for-purpose AI tools, there is a lack of high-quality, large-scale clinical trials to establish the effectiveness, safety, and appropriate use of these technologies in mental health care.”

When turning to AI for medical information, recognize that while it may offer useful insights or possible explanations, it is not a replacement for professional medical evaluation or care. Always cross-check its responses against credible sources—it can fabricate answers, so treat its output as a starting point rather than fact. Its responses can spark new ideas or point you toward reference material you might not have found on your own. The quality of what you get also depends on how you ask. The more specific your prompt, the more useful the response is likely to be. You may need to refine your wording several times to get accurate or relevant results. Strong prompts might look like: “I’m feeling stressed out. Give me three techniques I can use in the next 10 minutes to reset”; “Explain this medical study in simpler terms and summarize the key findings”; or “Help me organize a realistic weekly schedule that balances work, exercise and sleep.”

Keeping Perspective

While purpose-built AI therapy tools are still in development, progress is being made. Alongside XAIA, researchers from Dartmouth College constructed a therapeutic AI and ran the first randomized controlled trial demonstrating its effectiveness at treating patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder or clinically high risk for eating disorders. The researchers cautioned they are still far from bringing this technology to market, citing the need for further studies.

For now, safely using AI comes down to understanding both its strengths and its limits. Its ability to communicate in emotionally resonant ways can make interactions feel deeply personal, but it remains a machine trained to generate responses—not a substitute for wisdom, accountability or professional care. As AI becomes more integrated into daily life, staying connected to your own judgment, lived experience and discernment may become more essential than ever. While AI can offer useful perspectives, ideas and information, not every question needs to be answered by a chatbot. In the age of AI, the ability to think critically rather than reflexively outsource decisions may become increasingly important. AI can be useful for organizing ideas, answering questions and supporting productivity, but real human connection still matters.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Medical history is filled with ideas once dismissed as implausible, dangerous or unscientific—until science evolved enough to understand what was there all along. From handwashing and organ transplantation to the evolving story of DMSO, the history of medicine reveals how progress is often limited by what can be measured—and what happens when discovery outpaces explanation.

You step into a hospital in the mid-1800s, and what strikes you first is not the urgency—it’s the certainty. Physicians move with confidence, guided by training, tradition, and the authority of established knowledge. Their black coats—rarely washed and bearing the daily evidence of blood and other bodily fluids—serve as symbols of experience. They move from dissecting cadavers to delivering babies, from treating wounds to performing surgeries, without pause, without question, and without the slightest awareness that something unseen and dangerous may be traveling with them.

At the time, disease is explained through “miasma“ (”bad air”) or fate. The idea that something invisible could be responsible is more than unproven—it is inconceivable. And more importantly, it is unmeasurable. The striking reality is not what they missed, but how certain they were that nothing was missing. Medicine did not lack intelligence or intention; it lacked the ability to detect what had not yet been made visible. Ideas that could not be measured were often dismissed or ridiculed—not always because they failed, but because they could not yet be proven.

Before Science Could See

In medicine—largely before the 20th century—what cannot be quantified often struggles to be recognized at all. Into this world steps Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician working at Vienna General Hospital in the mid-1800s, who begins to notice a pattern others overlook. In one maternity ward, women are dying at alarming rates after childbirth. In another, under nearly identical conditions, far fewer women die. The difference is not the patients. It is the practitioners. Semmelweis observes that doctors in the high-mortality ward often come directly from performing autopsies. Without realizing it, they are carrying something from the dead to the living. He cannot see it. He cannot isolate it. The technology does not yet exist to confirm what he suspects. But he identifies the pattern and can see the outcome.

In a stroke of clarity, he institutes a simple intervention: physicians must wash their hands with a chlorinated lime solution before examining patients. The results are immediate and undeniable. Mortality rates plummet—from 18.27 percent in April 1847 before handwashing to 0.19 percent by year’s end. Women who would have died begin to survive. And yet the intervention is rejected. To accept Semmelweis’s findings would require physicians to confront something far more uncomfortable than an undetected pathogen: that they themselves are contributing to the deaths of their patients. Without a mechanism to explain why it works, the evidence—lives saved—is not enough. His colleagues disregard his conclusions, his methods are criticized, and his reputation deteriorates. He dies before his discovery is recognized. Not because he was wrong—but because the tools to prove him right had not yet arrived.

Years later, the missing piece begins to take shape through the work of French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur. Pasteur demonstrates that microorganisms exist, that they are present in the environment, and that they can cause disease. What had once been invisible becomes observable; what had been seen as illogical becomes explainable. With that shift, the same idea that cost Semmelweis everything becomes undeniable.

Building on these discoveries, Joseph Lister, an English surgeon and medical scientist, brings this new understanding into the surgical theater in the mid-1860s. At the time, surgery is not feared for the procedure itself, but for what follows. Infection is expected. Wounds become inflamed, fevers rise, and many patients do not survive. Lister recognizes that if unseen organisms are responsible, then reducing their presence could change outcomes. He starts sterilizing instruments, cleaning wounds, and using carbolic acid in operating environments. His methods are met with resistance—seen as excessive, unnecessary, even impractical. But the results speak for themselves.

Infection rates fall. Survival improves. What once seemed excessive becomes essential. Over time, antiseptic technique transforms from a controversial theory into a foundational standard of care. The shift extends far beyond surgical practice—it redefined the limits of what medicine can safely pursue. When infection is no longer an inevitability, the operating room transforms from a place of risk management into a space of possibility. Procedures that once guaranteed fatal outcomes could now be reconsidered, refined, and eventually reimagined. With infection brought under control, another frontier comes into focus—one that would challenge not only surgical skill, but the very definition of life and death itself: organ transplantation.

Rejected by the Body, Then by Medicine

Once considered implausible, organ transplants faced early failure not because the idea lacked merit, but because the immune system was not yet understood. The body rejects what it does not recognize, and without the ability to manage that response, success is out of reach. Only when advances in immunology and the development of immunosuppressive therapies arrived did transplantation become viable.

For much of human history, the idea of replacing parts of the body existed more in myth than medicine. Ancient Greek, Roman, and Chinese stories told of gods and healers performing miraculous transplants, hinting at a concept that science had yet to grasp. Yet by around 800 BC, Indian physicians were already practicing early forms of skin grafting—moving tissue from one part of the body to another to repair wounds and burns. Centuries later, Italian surgeon Gasparo Tagliacozzi advanced these techniques, reconstructing noses and ears using a patient’s own skin. He also detected a critical limitation: tissue from another person often failed—an early glimpse into the immune response that would later define transplant success or failure.

By the early 20th century, physicians pushed further, attempting organ transplants despite limited understanding. Early efforts—such as transplanting animal organs into humans, known as xenotransplantation—ended in rapid failure, reinforcing skepticism. As transplant pioneer Norman Shumway once remarked, “Xenotransplantation is the future—and always will be,” a statement often repeated in the field to reflect both its promise and its persistent challenges.

Breakthroughs came incrementally. In 1905, Eduard Zirm restored sight with the first successful corneal transplant, and in 1954, surgeons achieved the first successful kidney transplant between identical twins, bypassing immune rejection entirely. The work of pioneers like Alexis Carrel and Peter Medawar laid the scientific foundation for modern transplantation. These Nobel Prize-winning physicians developed techniques for connecting organs through vascular suturing and identified the immunological basis for organ rejection, respectively.

Medawar’s work led to the development of anti-rejection drugs that made organ replacement broadly viable. From the first heart transplant by Christiaan Barnard in 1967 to complex procedures like full face transplants in the 21st century, what once seemed impossible became routine—not through belief alone, but through a deeper understanding of how the human body operates. The path from Semmelweis to transplantation follows a relatively clean arc—rejected, then proven, then accepted. But not every story resolves that neatly. Some discoveries are validated in parts, limited in others, and remain contested to this day.

Regulated, Restricted, Reconsidered

Some discoveries arrive with promise, become entangled in uncertainty, and are set aside—not disproven, but left unresolved because they defied easy explanation. Dimethyl sulfoxide—DMSO—is one such example. First identified in the late 19th century as a byproduct of the process used to turn wood pulp into paper, DMSO would later be synthesized by Russian chemist Alexander Zaytsev—a method still used today. In laboratories and industry, it proved invaluable: a highly stable, relatively nontoxic solvent capable of dissolving a wide range of substances, from gases and salts to synthetic fibers and natural compounds. Its chemical properties make it indispensable for research, even serving as a preferred medium in techniques like nuclear magnetic resonance. But it was not until the 1960s that its most unusual characteristic drew serious attention—its ability to pass through human skin and enter the bloodstream with minimal immediate harm to tissues.

That discovery shifted its trajectory. Researchers began exploring DMSO as a vehicle for delivering medications directly into tissue, bypassing traditional oral or injectable routes. Early findings suggested anti-inflammatory and analgesic potential, and it was tested for conditions ranging from tissue injury to chronic pain. Yet the same permeability that makes it promising also made it unpredictable. If it could carry therapeutic compounds, it could just as easily transport toxins or contaminants. Concerns deepened when animal studies revealed changes in the refractive index of eye lenses, prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to halt clinical trials in 1965. By 1966, the New York Times was reporting:

“Although it was only authorized for external use, some doctors appeared to be trying to administer it by mouth and even by injection. Furthermore, many persons were using it without adequate medical supervision. Experiments showed that some animals given heavy doses of the chemical developed abnormal changes in the refrac- tive index of their eyes. It was following these reports of adverse eye changes that the Food and Drug Administration halted its use. The action was protested by a substantial number of scientists who considered DMSO potentially valuable and worthy of further research. The new guidelines for its use in clinical studies will provide the maximum protection possible for the patients who will receive it, the drug agency announced today.”

Guidelines introduced in 1966 limited DMSO’s use to topical applications and only for conditions that had no other available treatments. By the time restrictions were lifted in 1980, enthusiasm had cooled, and the substance had been pushed to the margins—further complicated by unsubstantiated claims that it could cure diseases like cancer. And yet research continued in more limited and specialized applications. In 1978, the FDA approved DMSO for a narrow but specific use: the treatment of interstitial cystitis, a chronic bladder pain condition. Beyond that, it became essential in another domain entirely—cryopreservation. In this role, DMSO protects cells during freezing and thawing, preventing damage that would otherwise destroy them. Stem cells, reproductive cells, and biological samples rely on it as a preservative rather than a treatment—a safeguard for tissue intended for future use.

Research has continued to explore its effects in other areas. Studies have explored its potential role in scleroderma—a rare condition in which the body produces excess collagen, leading to pain, disability and breathing difficulties. Its collagen-softening, analgesic and free-radical scavenging properties have kept it a subject of ongoing investigation for inflammatory conditions, including arthritis, despite the skepticism that has followed it. Beyond these uses, smaller studies have also explored potential roles in central nervous system injury and stroke recovery—areas where findings remain preliminary and far from settled.

The Edge of Understanding

These are not simply stories of being right or wrong. They are accounts of evidence arriving late—of reality existing before the tools to assess it. Again and again, what delays acceptance is not the absence of effect, but the absence of a way to quantify it. Medicine, for all its precision, has always been limited by what it can detect. Until something can be situated within established frameworks, it exists in a kind of scientific limbo—seen, sometimes effective, yet not fully accepted. In that space, even groundbreaking ideas can be abandoned.

Researchers like Royal Raymond Rife (1888–1971) explored whether biological systems might respond to frequency and vibration. A scientist and inventor, Rife developed specialized microscopes and became convinced that microorganisms, like all matter, possessed specific resonant frequencies. He theorized that targeted electromagnetic frequencies could disrupt harmful organisms without damaging surrounding tissue. His work drew both interest and skepticism, but his question was not isolated—it reflected a broader effort to understand whether life could be influenced through energy as well as chemistry. Rife’s specific claims were never independently validated, and his later years were marked by professional collapse and legal trouble. But the question he was asking—whether biological systems respond to frequency—did not disappear with him. It migrated into other hands and other disciplines, where it continues to be explored.

Others approached this idea from different angles. Nikola Tesla explored resonance and energy transmission through fields, while Georges Lakhovsky suggested cells function like tiny circuits responding to external signals. Even within conventional science, researchers in the mid-20th century uncovered the body’s electrical nature—its signals, rhythms, and communication systems. Together, these ideas pointed to a shared insight: biology is not only chemical, but also electrical, and potentially responsive to frequency.

Modern quantum physics has prompted broader conversations about how matter, energy and observation interact. What appears solid is not fixed—at the smallest level, matter behaves differently depending on how it is observed, energy organizes into patterns, and interactions don’t follow straight, predictable paths. Reality is more dynamic and deeply connected than it appears. Your body is not a static object—it is a network of ongoing processes. Every cell is active. Every signal is being transmitted. Electrical impulses travel through nerves, chemical signals pass between cells, and rhythms coordinate everything from heartbeat to breath. Early thinkers raised the question of whether this communication also included frequency—whether the body responds not only to substances, but to signals.

This is not purely philosophical territory. Research in psychoneuroimmunology—the study of how the mind, nervous system and immune function interact—has documented measurable biological changes linked to stress, belief and perception. Placebo responses, once dismissed as noise in clinical trials, are now understood to involve real physiological mechanisms. This does not suggest that thought alone controls biology, but it clarifies something essential: your body is continuously responding to input—not just nutrients or medication, but environment, stress, perception and lived experience.

This is why outcomes vary. Two people can receive the same treatment, the same dose, the same protocol, and experience entirely different results, because the body receiving it is not neutral. It is shaped by history, current state, and individual physiology. What enters the system matters, but so does the system it enters. This is where mindset becomes relevant—not as wishful thinking, but as biological posture.

History offers repeated reminders that prevailing medical knowledge is not fixed. What seems impossible or implausible in one era may become widely accepted in another, just as those before you could not have imagined microbes, electricity, mitochondria—the structures inside your cells now understood as central drivers of cellular energy and health—or genetics. That uncertainty calls for something rare and powerful: an open mind—not empty enough to believe everything, but spacious enough to examine anything worth considering.

To hold such a mind requires humility—the willingness to say, there may be more here than I currently understand. It requires discernment. It asks you to remain teachable, to question your assumptions, to notice when certainty hardens into dogma. In contemplative traditions, this is called Beginner’s Mind—meeting the world without the burden of knowing, approaching each idea, sensation, or discovery with fresh attention rather than inherited conclusion. It can be cultivated through stillness, reflection, deep listening, meaningful dialogue, meditation, time in nature, and the deliberate practice of curiosity.

And because discovery so often begins with observation long before understanding, openness becomes the bridge that allows possibility to remain in view while explanation catches up. Signals emerge that suggest something real is occurring—yet without a clear mechanism, those observations remain vulnerable to rejection. It is not always the absence of effect that creates doubt, but the absence of a way to explain it.

Germs existed before microscopes revealed them. Electrical activity moved through the body before it was mapped. When a patient heals, something real has occurred, whether or not the mechanism is fully understood. Symptoms resolve. Function returns. This does not replace the need for rigorous science—it demands it. But it also reveals a truth: Understanding does not always lead to discovery. Sometimes, discovery—initially dismissed or ridiculed—forces understanding to catch up.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Circumcision remains a routine part of newborn care in many U.S. hospitals, despite declining rates and ongoing debate over its medical necessity. Its rise as a standard practice was shaped by history, cultural norms and evolving medical claims about prevention. Current research points to potential benefits in certain contexts while also raising questions about complications, bodily autonomy and informed consent. As more parents revisit long-standing assumptions, the issue increasingly reflects a broader tension between tradition, prevention and personal choice.

Circumcision is one of the most commonly performed surgeries in the United States, yet it remains one of the least discussed. For generations, American parents have been convinced it’s a standard part of newborn care, sometimes nothing more than another checkmark on a hospital form. But beneath that decision is a long and complicated history shaped by religion, morality, early fears about disease, changing medical research, financial incentives and powerful cultural habits. Circumcision in the United States carries historical, sociological, economic and ethical implications that extend far beyond the procedure itself. To understand where things stand today, it helps to trace how it became embedded in modern healthcare.

From Sacred Ritual to Institutional Norm

Circumcision dates back to early civilizations. Archaeological evidence from Egypt, including tomb carvings and mummified remains, suggests it was practiced as early as 2300 BC, most likely as a transition into adulthood. In Judaism, circumcision is explicitly established in the Torah, in the book of Genesis, as a covenant between God and Abraham, formalized through the brit milah performed on the eighth day of life. In Islam, circumcision became widely adopted as a religious and cultural practice—not explicitly mandated in the Qur’an, but drawn from the Hadith, which records the sayings and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. In these contexts, circumcision carried religious, cultural and communal significance. Outside those communities, it remained relatively uncommon until it was later medicalized in the West.

Its shift from religious tradition to medical intervention did not begin with infectious disease research. It began in the Victorian era, when medicine was often used to enforce moral and social norms. In the late nineteenth century, physicians promoted circumcision as a deterrent to masturbation, based on the belief that removing the foreskin would reduce sensitivity and make self-stimulation less appealing. At the time, they believed masturbation caused insanity, epilepsy, and moral decay. Among them was Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, who advocated circumcision without anesthesia, arguing that the pain itself would discourage sexual self-stimulation in boys. Today, those views are widely recognized as unscientific, yet they helped legitimize the procedure within mainstream medicine.

As hospital births became more common in the early twentieth century, circumcision migrated from religious ritual to a common, institutional practice. Historian David L. Gollaher, in his book, “Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery,” documents how physicians began framing circumcision as hygienic and preventative. At the time, the foreskin was increasingly viewed as a site where bacteria and secretions could accumulate, reinforcing concerns about infection and cleanliness during the rise of germ theory in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

During this period, ideas about cleanliness became closely tied to morality, discipline and social standing. Personal hygiene was seen as a reflection of character, and these beliefs coincided with broader public health efforts to prevent infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, cholera and sexually transmitted infections at a time when antibiotics did not yet exist. In that environment, surgical removal of the foreskin was framed as a prophylactic measure—a way to eliminate a perceived source of infection before problems emerged.

By the mid-twentieth century, circumcision had become normalized in the United States. Although it was never mandated, entering a hospital to give birth often came with the expectation that circumcision was part of newborn care. Rates climbed dramatically after World War II and by the 1960s and ‘70s, estimates suggest that between 80 and 90 percent of American newborn boys were circumcised. Yet this increase was not driven by randomized controlled trials demonstrating overwhelming medical necessity. It was reinforced by professional consensus among doctors, hospitals and insurers that framed the procedure as preventative medicine. As childbirth and postpartum services shifted from the home to hospitals, circumcision became easier to institutionalize. What had once been far less common outside religious communities increasingly became part of hospital protocols, often presented to parents as a standard option.

Today, the United States remains an outlier among developed nations, where routine newborn circumcision is far less common outside of religious communities. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), newborn circumcision rates in the U.S. currently range between 55 and 65 percent, marking a decline from the mid-twentieth century, when estimates were as high as 80 to 90 percent. This is partly due to medical organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) emphasizing the importance of parental decision-making in the process.

Though patterns vary significantly by region, parts of the Midwest and South have historically exceeded 70 percent, while rates in the West and Northeast have declined to below 40 percent in some areas. These differences are shaped by a combination of policy, culture, and demographics. Circumcision rates also tend to be lower in many Hispanic and immigrant communities than among non-Hispanic white populations. A recent Johns Hopkins study analyzing national hospital data from 2012 to 2022 found that neonatal circumcision rates fell most among families in the highest-income ZIP codes and among those with private insurance. In these groups, rates dropped from 59.4 percent to 51.1 percent and from 64.2 percent to 56.3 percent over the decade.

In the United States, newborn circumcision typically costs between $300 and $500 for privately insured patients. While the amount per case is modest, the volume isn’t, resulting in a procedure that has become a common, reimbursable component of newborn care in hospitals. In many other developed countries, by contrast, medical organizations have not adopted widespread newborn circumcision as a standard public health measure.

What the Procedure Involves—and What the Evidence Says

Circumcision is presented as a quick surgery, typically performed within the first week of life. In a hospital or medical setting (or sometimes at home), the baby is secured in a device that limits movement of the arms and legs. A local anesthetic is administered—the AAP recommends its use specifically because the procedure is painful. While pain management is now considered standard practice, research shows that anesthesia reduces pain rather than eliminating it entirely, and infants may still exhibit measurable stress responses during the procedure depending on the method used.

The foreskin, also called the prepuce, is then separated from the glans and removed using a clamp device. It is not excess skin. This specialized tissue protects the glans and contains nerve endings. Once removed, it cannot be restored.

Techniques may differ in religious or cultural settings. In the Jewish tradition, the procedure is performed by a trained practitioner called a mohel. In Muslim communities, practice varies by country and family resources—it may be performed in a clinic or through community-based practitioners, depending on local customs. The surgery itself typically lasts less than ten minutes, and complete healing usually takes several weeks.

Even though the surgery is brief, research shows that babies respond to it. Studies published in journals such as Pediatrics and JAMA have documented measurable physiological stress responses during circumcision, including increased heart rate, elevated stress hormones and, in some cases, fluctuations in oxygen levels, vomiting and skin color changes. Organizations such as the AAP have weighed these short-term stress responses against potential long-term health benefits. The AAP convened a Task Force on Circumcision in 2007 and again in 2012. In its 2012 policy statement, they concluded:

“...evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, and the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for those families who choose it.”

At the same time, the organization stopped short of recommending routine circumcision for all newborns, emphasizing that “Parents should determine what is in the best interest of their child.” The CDC has similarly emphasized potential health benefits while stopping short of recommending universal newborn circumcision. However, both organizations acknowledge that their conclusions depend on how risks and benefits are defined, framed and interpreted.

One frequently cited benefit of circumcision is a reduced risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) during infancy. Some studies show lower UTI rates among circumcised boys, but the absolute risk remains low in both groups. Critics note that infant UTIs are relatively uncommon, typically treatable with antibiotics and may not justify routine surgery on healthy newborns. Researchers have also pointed out that a large number of circumcisions may be needed to prevent a single UTI hospitalization, adding important context that is often missing from broader prevention claims.

Large randomized controlled trials conducted in sub-Saharan Africa demonstrated that adult male circumcision reduces male-to-female HIV transmission by approximately 50 to 60 percent in high-prevalence settings. As a result, the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS endorse voluntary adult circumcision as part of comprehensive HIV prevention strategies in certain African countries. However, these findings have important limitations in the U.S. context. HIV prevalence is lower in the United States than in many of the African regions studied, condom use and safe sexual practices remain primary tools for prevention, and the trials were conducted in consenting adult men—not newborns.

Some studies have also explored whether circumcision may modestly reduce the risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HPV and herpes, though findings vary and these potential benefits are typically discussed in the context of sexually active adults—not babies. Penile cancer is also cited as a reason to circumcise newborns. Yet penile cancer is extremely rare in developed countries, with an incidence of roughly 1 case per 100,000 men annually in the United States.

Risks and Medical Considerations

Complications from circumcision are often described as unusual, and severe long-term issues as rare, but it is still surgery on a healthy baby, and problems do happen. Large U.S. studies suggest that about 0.5 percent of newborns experience some kind of complication, with estimates ranging from roughly 0.01 percent to 2 percent, depending on how researchers define “complication.” One analysis found early problems in about 1.5 percent of newborns and closer to 3 percent in boys circumcised after infancy, indicating that risk increases when the procedure is performed later in life. While most circumcisions are performed at birth, the procedure is also done later due to cultural or religious reasons, parental decisions as a child ages, adult choice, or medical conditions such as phimosis.

A systematic review of over six thousand articles on circumcision in 2021 resulted in the researchers’ conclusion:

“Complications from neonatal male circumcisions are common and healthcare providers need to be better informed of the potential complications of the surgery so that they can more effectively counsel their patients about potential risks, likelihood of complications and what can be done to prevent them.”

Another U.S. study found that approximately 0.3 percent of children who had elective circumcision were readmitted to the hospital within a week, and about 0.1 percent needed a second operation. Follow-up surgeries are typically performed to address complications from the initial procedure. While these percentages are small, they represent outcomes directly resulting from an intervention on otherwise healthy tissue:

Physical injury: The most immediate complications include bleeding, infection, improper healing, and in rare cases, death. While often described as minor, bleeding can require intervention, and infections in newborns can escalate quickly. Even when early recovery appears smooth, some issues do not become visible until later in childhood or even puberty. Although rare, catastrophic outcomes are documented in medical literature. Excessive tissue removal, accidental injury to the glans, necrosis from compromised blood supply, and even partial or total amputation have been reported.

Short- and long-term impacts: Follow-up problems can include adhesions, where remaining skin sticks to the glans, skin bridges that require surgical separation and meatal stenosis, a narrowing of the opening at the tip of the penis that can make urination painful and may require corrective surgery. Some studies show that 7 to 20 percent of circumcised males develop some degree of this narrowing. In severe cases, it can cause an upward urine stream, difficulty directing urine and prolonged time needed to empty the bladder.

Phimosis: One of the most commonly cited medical justifications for circumcision is phimosis, and it is frequently misunderstood. Phimosis simply means that the foreskin cannot be retracted over the glans. In infancy and early childhood, this is not a disease. Nearly all male infants are born with a foreskin that is naturally attached to the glans and is nonretractable. This is called physiologic phimosis, and is a normal stage of development. Studies show that only about half of boys can fully retract the foreskin by age 10, and full retractability may not occur until adolescence. Nonretractability in childhood is expected and is not a medical problem. Proper hygiene for uncircumcised boys is generally straightforward. Pediatric guidance advises against forcibly retracting the foreskin in infancy, as it naturally separates over time. Once retractable, routine washing with water is typically sufficient.

True pathologic phimosis is uncommon and typically results from scarring, forced retraction, infection or chronic inflammation. In these cases, pediatric research supports non-surgical treatment. Topical steroid cream, which is widely used, has been shown in clinical studies to be successful in a large majority of cases. Circumcision may be considered only if conservative treatments fail, and even then it is rarely medically urgent.

One aspect that is rarely discussed is how circumcision may affect sensation and sexual experience later in life. The foreskin contains nerve endings and serves a functional role in protection and natural lubrication. Its removal means eliminating tissue that plays a role in sexual response and function. Certain studies show that uncircumcised men describe a heightened level of sensitivity, while some circumcised men report feeling satisfied but still question what was lost.

Culture and Incentives

If circumcision were widely viewed as medically necessary in developed countries, rates would likely be more consistent across comparable healthcare systems. But outside of religious communities, routine newborn circumcision remains far less common across much of Europe and in countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Culture plays a powerful role in sustaining the practice. Parents may be influenced by what feels familiar within their family or community, including whether a father was circumcised or whether their child is expected to resemble other boys around them.

Some research suggests that concerns about being perceived as different from peers may influence caregivers’ choices. Parents may worry that their child will feel different in settings like locker rooms, camps or other peer environments. A Reuters report noted that among boys who experienced teasing about their bodies, many of the comments centered on genital appearance, including whether or not they were circumcised. In communities where circumcision rates remain high, uncircumcised boys may feel self-conscious about standing out, while some circumcised men later report feelings of loss, decreased sensitivity or frustration that the decision was made for them. Social pressure can cut in multiple directions.

According to a study published through DePaul University’s School of Nursing, “The desire for a child’s penis to aesthetically resemble his father’s was the primary motivating factor in parental decision-making.” The fact that the procedure is typically offered while the mother is still in the hospital is another factor. Research on parental decision-making suggests the choice is often shaped by social expectations, cultural norms, geography and the circumstances of birth itself.

Economics is also part of the story. In the U.S., circumcision is reimbursable, with hospitals and physicians receiving payments for performing it. In countries where national health systems do not routinely reimburse non-therapeutic circumcision, rates are significantly lower. Ethically, circumcision raises questions that extend beyond epidemiology. Most pediatric medical interventions are justified by urgent medical need or clear evidence of preventing significant harm. Routine circumcision presents a gray area. The possible benefits are statistical likelihoods that relate mostly to conditions that might arise later in life, not immediate medical needs in infancy.

The ethical conversation becomes more complex when placed alongside global condemnation of female genital cutting. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is widely prohibited and recognized internationally as a human rights violation—condemned because it removes healthy tissue from minors who cannot consent, regardless of cultural justification. Legal bans, global campaigns, and strong language from medical and human rights organizations have framed it as a matter of bodily integrity. According to the WHO, “FGM has no health benefits, and it harms girls and women in many ways.” While these procedures differ significantly in severity, cultural context and long-term health consequences, both raise broader questions about bodily autonomy when irreversible decisions are made for minors who cannot consent. As historian David L. Gollaher observed:

“Indeed, as the history of female circumcision suggests, if male circumcision were confined to developing nations, it would by now have emerged as an international cause célèbre, stirring passionate opposition from feminists, physicians, politicians and the global human rights community.”

Gollaher’s point is jarring. In one context, ritual genital cutting is seen as a grave human rights violation. In another, it is considered routine medical care. That disparity raises a deeper question: how much of your comfort with a practice depends on where it occurs and who performs it? That conflict between a parent’s right to make decisions for their child and a child’s right to bodily integrity is at the heart of this debate.

Rebuilding the Framework Around Choice

Advocacy, at its core, begins with a simple conversation of facts and numbers. Acknowledging that in much of the developed world, public health systems function without routine infant circumcision is a meaningful starting point. But in practice, the conversation is rarely that easy. Consent should be fully informed and unhurried. Parents need clear, evidence-based information presented in language that is easy to read and understand. Decisions should never feel rushed, especially during the vulnerable postpartum window. Instead, educational materials should be introduced during prenatal care, when families have time to consider their options thoughtfully.

Public health messaging can remain accurate without being distorted. Circumcision has been shown to lower the risk of HIV transmission through sex in regions where HIV prevalence is high. Urinary tract infections are slightly less common in circumcised infants, though they are uncommon in either group. Penile cancer is rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised men. All of these facts can be true simultaneously without any of them being overstated. Long-term research on sexual function, pain response and emotional outcomes remains limited and warrants further study. How other countries approach this issue also offers an important comparative perspective that the U.S. medical community would benefit from examining more closely.

Dr. Aaron Tobian, professor of pathology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, has noted that “multiple factors may contribute to the decline in the number of neonates circumcised.” Among them, he pointed to growing skepticism toward medical recommendations, as well as cultural and policy shifts. Hispanic families, who historically report lower circumcision rates, represent one of the fastest-growing populations in the United States. And by 2011, seventeen states had ended Medicaid coverage for routine newborn circumcision, creating financial barriers that likely contributed to the downward trend.

Research from the Pew Research Center shows that a growing number of Americans turn to the internet for health information before making medical decisions. For new parents, this can mean encountering a wider range of perspectives—including differing medical opinions, personal experiences and viewpoints that challenge long-standing practices. Social media has also helped parents ask deeper questions before consenting to surgery on their newborn. As a result, decisions that may once have been made quickly under hospital pressure are now being considered earlier and with greater scrutiny.

Asking pediatricians direct questions about both benefits and risks, reading relevant research and understanding how this procedure is viewed in other countries can provide valuable perspective. Most importantly, circumcision deserves more than a quick signature on a hospital form or a hurried glance at a pamphlet. It deserves time, careful thought and honest information, so that whatever choice is made, it is a considered one.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Matcha differs from other teas in both how it is prepared and how it functions in the body. Rooted in Zen practice and shaped through specific cultivation and processing methods, it concentrates compounds such as L-theanine and catechins that contribute to sustained energy and focused attention. From ritual to physiology, it reveals how a centuries-old tradition translates into measurable effects.

In the familiarity of ritual, the mind is no longer tasked with deciding—only with being. With each step known, there is space to be fully present. Most tea asks very little of you: a bag lowered into hot water, left to steep. Matcha takes a different approach. Its preparation requires attention, and in that process, it invites a kind of balance that is reflected in the effects of the tea itself.

In a formal Japanese ceremony, the experience begins even before the tea room is entered—on the garden path. At a stone basin, you pause to wash your hands and rinse your mouth, acts of purification in both action and speech. Once inside, shoes are removed and you lower your head through a small doorway, leaving behind status, identity and the noise of the outside world. Woven mats meet your feet. The decor is intentionally spare: shoji screens of wood lattice and paper filter the light into a gentle glow. In a single alcove (tokonoma), a scroll hangs—bearing the characters for harmony (wa), respect (kei), or at times a poem honoring the season. Beneath it rests a simple floral arrangement.

Here, there is no rush. The air is warm with the gentle breath of steam rising from an iron kettle. You take your place, seated on a floor cushion (tatami), opposite the hearth. The host enters and kneels. From your seated position, you bow in greeting. One by one, utensils are wiped with a folded silk cloth—an act of care and respect. Hot water is first ladled into the bare tea bowl (chawan). It is warmed, readied, then emptied and gently dried—in preparation for what comes next. Before you, a small mound of vibrant green powder is placed into the earthen bowl. Its surface is uneven and its glaze imperfect. Using the bamboo scoop (chashaku), the host measures each serving carefully. Fresh hot water is added. The bamboo whisk (chasen) begins its work. The agitation is gentle but steady—bristles against ceramic, water and leaf settling into suspension.

Within moments, a froth appears, almost like the sea’s foam. Before that first sip, you are offered a seasonal sweet (wagashi): a delicate bean paste, a molded rice flour confection, or perhaps, a translucent jelly shaped to echo the time of year—cherry blossom in spring or maple leaf in autumn. Its subtle sweetness primes your palate for what’s to follow. The bowl is turned so that its most beautiful side faces you. You are about to partake in a Japanese matcha tea ritual—known as chanoyu, the art of preparing tea that would later give rise to sadō, or “The Way of Tea”—a philosophy lived daily beyond the walls that hold the ceremony.

You bow in greeting. You lift the bowl with both hands. You turn it slightly—so as not to sip from the front. The bowl touches your lips and you drink. Your palate awakens to notes that are bitter, sweet, complex and alive. Wiping the rim, you turn it back and return it with gratitude. This intimate exchange—host to guest, guest to host—is a gesture of humility, respect and shared presence.

This is matcha, prepared today much the same way it was hundreds of years ago in Japan and first experienced nearly a millennium ago by Buddhist monks. You won’t find it prepared this way at a chain coffee/tea shop, and it’s not typically served sweetened or as a latte with dairy foam. What you have just experienced is not merely tea, but the culmination of centuries of preservation, cultivation, refinement and tradition.

The Long Journey of a Leaf

Matcha’s story curiously begins not in Japan—but in China during the Tang Dynasty (618–907 AD), when tea leaves were once steamed and compressed into cakes for transport and trade along what is now called the Ancient Tea Horse Road. By the Song Dynasty (960–1279 AD), the use of the whole tea leaf was already established, and the practice of grinding it into a fine powder to be whisked with hot water became widespread.

This powdered tea would eventually be brought to Japan in 1191 by the Zen monk Eisai, who returned from study in Chinese monasteries carrying both tea seeds and a philosophy: that tea was not merely a drink—but a tonic for health, longevity and spiritual presence. Eisai wrote in Kissa Yōjōki (“Drinking Tea for Health”): “Tea is the ultimate mental and medical remedy and has the ability to make one’s life more full and complete.”

Matcha soon became embedded in Zen practice—not for enjoyment, but for purpose. Drinking a cup before meditation allowed monks to remain awake and alert, yet inwardly centered for extended periods. By the 16th century, tea master Sen no Rikyū would refine this method into the ritualized practice of chanoyu with a focus on the imperfect, impermanent and incomplete, known as wabi-sabi. In time, this tradition would give rise not just to a beverage, but to a life philosophy rooted in the principles practiced through the ceremony. This evolved into the “Way of Tea” that is known today.

From ceremony to cultivation

Beyond the tranquility of the tea room, the future of this ancient practice is patiently unfolding in the Japanese countryside. Uji, a town in Kyoto—widely regarded as the birthplace of matcha—is considered to produce some of the nation’s finest tea. However, other areas, including Shizuoka (the largest tea-producing region in Japan), Kagoshima, Fukuoka and Aichi, are also known for their high-quality production. In Wazuka, another town in the prefecture of Kyoto—one of Japan’s most renowned matcha-producing regions—multigenerational tea farmers continue to cultivate Camellia sinensis, the plant used to produce green tea (including matcha), as well as black, white and oolong varieties, much as their predecessors have for centuries—though not without growing concern.

The average age of Japan’s tea farmers is now near seventy. With fewer young people entering the profession, tea farming—once a pillar of rural sustainability—faces an uncertain future as many farms have been abandoned. In response, some small farms, instead of relying on their traditional local economy of tea schools, temples and merchants, have begun connecting directly with customers through the internet and social media.

What Matcha Is (and Why It’s Different)

As mentioned before, matcha comes from the same plant—Camellia sinensis—as all true teas. Some teas differ because they are grown in different regions or have added flavors, such as Darjeeling and Earl Grey (which are black teas). However, several critical cultivation and processing steps make matcha unique when compared to standard green tea grown in the sun, called sencha. True matcha is derived from shade-grown leaves called tencha. Unlike other teas, these leaves are then stone-ground into a powder. What sets matcha apart is its three distinct production steps:

1. Shading

For approximately 20–30 days before harvest, matcha plants are covered with cloth or reed screens—shielded from direct sunlight in a process that slows photosynthesis and shifts the plant into a stress-adaptation state.

During this time:

• Chlorophyll production increases

• Amino acids—especially L-theanine—accumulate

• Bitter catechins are balanced by the umami of compounds like L-theanine and glutamic acid

As a result, the leaves become a deeper, more vibrant green and undergo biochemical changes that influence both flavor and physiological effects. These changes deepen the leaf’s color, soften its bitterness and contribute to its distinctive balance of flavor and physiological effect.

2. Processing: Steaming and Stone Grinding

Immediately after harvest, the tencha leaves are:

• Steamed to halt oxidation

• Dried

• Stripped of stems and veins

They are then slowly ground into an ultrafine powder using traditional granite stone mills. This process is intentionally slow to prevent heat buildup that could degrade delicate phytonutrients, amino acids, and volatile compounds. The breakdown of carotenoids, for example, can lead to the development of a stale flavor.

3. Consuming the Whole Leaf

Traditional tea is steeped—meaning water extracts some constituents from the leaf, which is then discarded. Matcha is ingested whole. You are not drinking an infusion; you are consuming the leaf itself. This significantly increases the density of biologically active components delivered in a single serving.

Within the leaf you will find:

• Polyphenols, mostly epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG)

• Chlorophyll

• Amino acids like L-theanine

• Vitamins A, C, E, K and B1, B2, B3 and B6

• Trace minerals

• Fat-soluble phytonutrients such as carotenoids that would otherwise remain trapped in steeped leaves

Matcha’s Secret: Energy Without the Edge

All teas contain caffeine, usually 25–47 milligrams per cup. Matcha’s levels, however, typically range from 35 to 70 milligrams, higher than any other tea. Like all sources of caffeine, the energy you feel comes from the stimulant’s ability to block adenosine receptors in the brain, reducing the sensation of fatigue while increasing the activity of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and norepinephrine. This is why it is known to enhance alertness, improve reaction time and support sustained concentration. It’s also why it feels different.

However, caffeine in isolation, without the supportive compounds mentioned above, may also elevate cortisol levels, increase heart rate and trigger feelings of anxiety in more sensitive individuals. These compounds appear to temper caffeine’s effects by influencing neurotransmitter signaling and slowing absorption—resulting in a more gradual and balanced response.

What makes matcha physiologically distinct from other caffeinated beverages is its naturally high concentration of L-theanine—found almost exclusively in tea and especially abundant in shade-grown varieties like matcha. It can cross the blood-brain barrier and has been shown to increase alpha brain wave activity, which is associated with a state of still, focused awareness. It may also support the production of GABA, a calming neurotransmitter, and help modulate dopamine and serotonin levels within the central nervous system.

In combination, caffeine and L-theanine appear to produce what researchers describe as “calm alertness”—enhancing attention and working memory without overstimulation or jitteriness. With nearly identical levels of caffeine per cup as brewed coffee, matcha offers a different experience—one that favors focus over stimulation. It is this unique neurochemical synergy that allows a relatively high-caffeine beverage to promote a state of focused calm—an effect that historically made matcha well-suited for Zen monks seeking sustained, attentive presence during meditation.

A typical serving of matcha (about 1–2 grams) provides modest amounts of key constituents such as EGCG and L-theanine. While a single cup may offer subtle effects, regular intake—often two to three servings per day—more closely aligns with levels used in research. Unlike isolated supplements, these bioactive elements are delivered together in a naturally balanced form, which may influence how they are absorbed and perceived. This differs from isolated forms, which often deliver higher doses without the same buffering context.

Antioxidant, cellular and metabolic protection

Matcha is especially rich in catechins—plant-derived polyphenols known for their antioxidant activity. Among these, the most extensively studied is EGCG, which has been explored for its potential role in neutralizing reactive oxygen species—unstable molecules that can damage cells, often called free radicals—and enhancing the body’s endogenous defenses, including glutathione.

Oxidative stress—an imbalance between free radicals and the body’s ability to counteract their damaging effects—has been associated with a range of chronic health conditions, including insulin resistance, neurodegenerative disorders, cardiovascular dysfunction and accelerated cellular aging. In addition to directly scavenging free radicals, EGCG has been studied for its ability to influence inflammatory signaling pathways, stabilize cellular membranes and modulate gene expression related to immune and inflammatory responses. It can also inhibit histamine release. Emerging research has also explored EGCG’s role in cancer biology, with studies suggesting it may influence how certain cancer cells grow, survive, and respond to stress—adding another layer to its already complex interaction with cellular processes.

Beyond these antioxidant and anti-inflammatory actions, research on green tea catechins suggests they can influence metabolic function. EGCG has been associated with modest increases in fat oxidation (the use of fat as fuel) and improved post-meal glucose response. Its ability to influence enzymes involved in lipid metabolism and increase norepinephrine availability may enhance energy expenditure. Polyphenols in matcha have been shown to help slow carbohydrate digestion, support insulin receptor sensitivity and reduce glycemic variability.

Detoxification and chlorophyll

Because matcha leaves are shaded prior to harvest, they produce unusually high levels of chlorophyll—the green pigment that plays a central role in photosynthesis in plants and has been studied for its potential biological activity in humans. In response to the reduced light, the tea leaves compensate by producing more chlorophyll per leaf cell in an effort to capture as much light as possible.

Chlorophyll, while made in and for plants, has been investigated for its ability to interact with certain compounds in the body. It has been shown to bind cancer-causing by-products of high-heat cooking as well as aflatoxins produced by mold, support phase II liver detoxification and reduce oxidative burden. Chlorella, spirulina, wheatgrass, alfalfa and dark leafy greens also contain high levels of chlorophyll and are known to exert similar effects.

In the modern environment—characterized by increasing exposure to pollutants, industrial chemicals and microplastics—nutrients that support detoxification and oxidative balance are of growing interest. While matcha is not a detoxifying agent in its own right, its polyphenolic compounds can support the body’s natural detoxification processes. The naturally high chlorophyll content may offer subtle support for the body’s existing detoxification systems when included as part of a nutrient-dense diet.

Considerations

As with any biologically active substance, context matters. Despite its extraordinary benefits, matcha is not appropriate for everyone. Caffeine sensitivity may be an issue for you if you metabolize caffeine more slowly, which can prolong its effects and increase the likelihood of jitteriness, anxiety or sleep disruption. Matcha naturally contains vitamin K, which may interact with anticoagulant medications. Polyphenols may also inhibit iron absorption when consumed with meals, so timing intake away from iron-rich foods may be beneficial.

Studies suggest that compounds in tea, including EGCG, may reduce the absorption of folic acid when consumed at the same time. This effect appears to be more pronounced with synthetic folic acid than with naturally occurring folate. While this is not considered a concern for most people, it may be worth noting during pregnancy or if you have certain genetic variations, including MTHFR, COMT, or folate transporter variants. If you take a folate supplement, consider separating it from tea by a few hours. If tea is part of your daily routine and these genetic factors are present, periodic folate level testing may be helpful. Tea plants may accumulate lead or other contaminants from soil or environmental exposure, so choosing organic and third-party tested sources is recommended.

The final sip

Matcha’s truest potency lies not in measurable outcomes, but in the intentional act of its preparation. In the wisdom of Zen Buddhism, “The taste of Zen and the taste of tea are one.” Centuries ago, monks began drinking matcha to steady the mind and meet the infinite through meditation. In a busy world, an inwardly still mind paired with sustained, balanced energy may provide exactly the tools needed to meet the day ahead with a little more clarity. Instead of the wired rush of coffee, perhaps try something a little more contemplative. It is the same restraint—the subtle, shaded discipline needed to produce matcha that shapes the leaf into something extraordinary—that carries through in the experience.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Fascia is a continuous, dynamic network that supports your body’s structure, movement, and internal communication—yet its role has long been overlooked. From elasticity and fluid balance to sensory signaling and adaptation, this tissue responds directly to how you move, rest, and nourish yourself. While research continues to uncover its full significance, caring for it through varied movement, adequate hydration, and regular bodywork such as stretching or massage may help preserve mobility, resilience, and function over time.

From your first morning stretch to curling up at night, you can thank the unsung hero of your body: fascia. This intricate, web-like network of fibers runs throughout your body from head to toe. One continuous piece, it works with (and within) bones and muscles, tendons, ligaments, and organs to quite literally hold you together. You might’ve seen this material in the kitchen—it’s the thin, whitish layer you can peel away from a chicken breast, the marbling in a cut of beef, or, for the vegetarian crowd, something akin to the pith of an orange that holds everything in place. Its importance is only now being recognized, as it turns out that the health of your fascia is crucial to staying mobile, functional, and comfortable throughout your life.

Regardless of candles on a cake, one factor that can make you feel old is a shift in flexibility: waking up feeling “stiff,” discomfort when bending over to pick up the phone you dropped, or tweaking a muscle when reaching up high for something. Your mobility depends on healthy fascia—this is the material that must stretch, recoil, and glide for you to move with ease. The earlier you begin to care for your fascia, the longer you’ll be able to maintain a wide range of motion and function in everyday life.

Strength, Signal, and Structure

Just as a spiderweb appears fragile, its strength rivals that of steel. Your web of fascia is equally remarkable, with a tensile strength of up to 2,000 pounds per square inch—able to withstand that amount of force before breaking. Despite its vital role, for decades, fascia was regularly cut away and tossed out of cadavers in medical school, with scientists treating it more as filler than a structure worthy of study. It wasn’t until 2013 that the first textbook specifically about fascia appeared.^,

Still, this level of appreciation is long overdue, especially for a substance that holds your whole body together and accounts for roughly 40–50 pounds of your total weight. Its structural function is the reason you can be 60% water and not exist as a puddle on the ground. It’s made up of collagen—thick, strong fibers that give your body its shape; elastin—thin, flexible fibers that can stretch up to 150 percent of their length; and “ground substance,” or hyaluronan, which acts as a lubricant between fascial layers, allowing them to glide smoothly.

Fascia runs throughout your body, including beneath and attached to the skin, similar to a wetsuit. Structurally, it functions via the principle of tensegrity—a system in which rigid elements and continuous tension balance each other. In his book “Anatomy Trains,” manual therapist Tom Myers mapped out 12 fascial routes, or “lines”—8 through the lower body and trunk, plus 4 arm lines running from the spine to the fingertips. For example, the spiral line connects the two sides of your body, running from your feet to your skull and crisscrossing near your belly button, providing balance and stability for walking, twisting, and rotational movements. These interconnected pathways help explain why tension in one area can show up as pain in another.

Among fascia’s many important functions is its ability to sense and adapt to what you need, meaning your repetitive positions and movements shape your connective tissue over time. Cells known as fibroblasts help produce tissue in response to these demands. This is why, for example, champion javelin thrower Thomas Röhler was found to have fascia measuring 3 mm deep in his right pectoral muscle—three times thicker than in his left. As fascia expert Dr. Robert Schleip, who conducted the measurements, noted in a research forum, it’s not surprising for a frequently used muscle to grow larger, but such a pronounced difference in the surrounding fascia was unexpected. This suggests that as muscle develops, the surrounding supportive fascia adapts alongside it.

Even the understanding of how fascia grows has changed in recent years. In a 2018 study led by Italian Professor Carla Stecco, her team discovered an entirely new type of cell they dubbed “fasciacytes.” It was previously thought that fibroblasts generated new connective tissue, but Stecco’s research found that fibroblasts are responsible for producing collagen and elastic fibers, while fasciacytes produce hyaluronan. If this component is not functioning properly, it can cause pain and restricted movement. Fasciacytes appear to line the boundaries of different fascial layers—positioning them to detect when more hyaluronan is needed and produce it accordingly. Your fascia is also piezoelectric, meaning the tissue can generate small electrical charges. Collagen—your body’s most abundant protein—plays a central role in this property and is involved in virtually every movement you make.

“Every time we move, stretch, or even shift in our seats, we create mechanical stress that deforms the collagen fibers in our fascia. This deformation generates tiny electrical currents . . . These currents help guide biological processes, especially in bones. For example, when you land from a jump, your bones bend ever so slightly, generating piezoelectric charges in the collagen. These charges signal bone cells to strengthen and grow, reinforcing the areas under stress. This is why weight-bearing exercise is so important for bone health–it literally electrifies your bones!”

Where the Body Feels and Responds

This piezoelectric quality may be part of the mechanism by which acupuncture works. In her team’s research, neuroscientist Dr. Helene Langevin, former director of the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, discovered that about 80 percent of acupuncture points correspond to areas where connective tissue planes converge—often compared to intersecting roads. This could be the physiological “Western” explanation aligning with the Eastern focus on energy and meridians. While the exact mechanism of signaling that occurs via an acupuncture needle is still not fully understood, whatever communication it initiates may have an effect both spatially “(connecting different parts of the body) as well as across physiological systems (connective tissue permeates all organs and surrounds all nerves, blood vessels, and lymphatics).”

When acupuncture needles are removed, your body’s resistance is known as “needle grasp.” While it was long thought that this resistance was due to muscles contracting, Langevin’s research suggests it is more likely caused by fascia wrapping around the needle. Her team found that once inserted, needles that were rotated produced greater resistance upon removal than those left still. Ultrasound imaging shows fine connective tissue fibers wrapped around the needle during rotation. Those same areas also reveal measurable changes in connective tissue architecture—indicating that an acupuncture session can physically alter fascial structure.

As if electrical signaling wasn’t enough, your fascia is also viscoelastic. This means it both springs back like a solid (the “elastic”) and slowly adapts like a fluid when gentle forces are held over time (the “viscous”). The elastic aspect allows you to jump and land, with tissue stretching quickly and returning to its original shape. The viscous aspect comes into play with sustained pressure—such as during a massage or longer stretches like yoga poses. You might notice that a quick stretch feels different from a long one because your connective tissue relies on different properties for each.

Fascia has since surpassed skin as your body’s largest sensory organ, with approximately 250 million nerve endings compared to skin’s 200 million. The release and relief felt after a yoga session or a massage are not always purely physiological. Because fascia is both your largest sensory organ and one continuous network—extending from your toes to your brain and gut (often referred to as your “second brain”) and facilitating communication—some experts believe emotions may be stored within this versatile tissue.

Whatever causes stress—a piece of bad news, a deadline you just remembered—you’ve probably felt it somewhere in your body. It could be a “pit” in your stomach, a knot in your throat, or tension in your shoulders. Of course, this happens with good news, too—like “butterflies” in your stomach when you’re excited or tearing up when moved. Feeling the internal state of your body is known as interoception—a sense that covers everything from thirst and hunger to nerves before a presentation or test. While interoception is an “accepted” sense, there is still disagreement on whether parts of your body are so connected to emotions that those sensations can be alleviated through treatments like myofascial release (MFR).

Similar to massage, MFR focuses on specific areas of restriction within the body. Where a Swedish massage typically uses consistent pressure and flowing movements for relaxation, an MFR therapist concentrates on areas where the fascia shows restriction. The pressure on each point can be deeper and is sustained longer than in a traditional full-body massage, held until the restriction begins to release. The therapist then follows the fascia’s loosening to the next restriction, and so on, as your body “communicates” its needs.

There are anecdotal reports of people experiencing emotional relief during fascial release, but studies have yet to support the idea that these are directly causal. Because of the complexity of emotions and the makeup and pervasiveness of fascia, it can be difficult to pinpoint how they directly influence one another. It’s possible that emotions or traumas can get “stuck” in your bodily tissues, especially since trauma or long-term stress can result in chronic muscular tension as the body attempts to protect itself, known as “armoring.” But it’s also possible that myofascial release feels emotionally meaningful because slow touch strongly affects the body’s interoceptive and nervous system pathways.

Most of the nerve receptors in your fascia are sympathetic nervous system receptors, and many of these nerve endings are vasoconstrictive, controlling blood flow, so it makes sense that “subtle changes in skin temperature often reflect acute and chronic changes in emotions.” While randomized controlled trials haven’t shown that emotions “live” inside your fascia, these tissues are so closely linked to the brain that, as Andrew Taylor Still, the founder of osteopathy, believed, “All fascial tissues should be treated with the same respect as if dealing with ‘the branch offices of the brain.’”

If connective tissue is so important, is more always better? Not necessarily. Tissue that develops in an organized manner in response to exercise reflects a healthy adaptation. When it forms excessively and in a disorganized way—due to scarring or chronic inflammation—it’s known as fibrosis. If this condition progresses, it can lead to organ failure and even death. When it comes to your fascia, it’s not quantity, but quality—making how you care for it essential.

Movement as Maintenance

Keeping your fascia loose and lubricated is important, and that can be achieved in several ways. Getting adequate sleep and hydration is always important, but especially so for connective tissue, which (when young and healthy) is composed of approximately 70% water. The regeneration it undergoes, including the secretion of human growth hormone, only occurs during deep sleep. General hydration guidelines, such as drinking roughly half your body weight in ounces, can be a helpful starting point, but don’t forget your electrolytes, as they help your cells more effectively hold moisture. This is where some water-rich foods can be helpful: watermelon, celery, and cucumber—each contributing hydration along with supportive compounds like natural electrolytes and silica, which support elasticity and structural integrity.

Protein is the most important building block in your connective tissue, and the amino acids it requires cannot be made by the body, so dietary intake is essential. Animal protein provides a complete source, while vegetarians can obtain adequate amounts from legumes and lentils with careful planning. Vitamin C is vital for collagen synthesis and is often more readily obtained from vegetables like spinach, parsley, and peppers, which can contain higher levels than many fruits. Zinc, found in foods like nuts and legumes, is a key mineral for synthesizing collagen and protein. Copper (via fish, cocoa, liver, nuts, and seeds—ideally not all in the same bite) and sulfur (found in cruciferous vegetables, onions, and garlic) are necessary to create the “crosslinks” (fibers) that connect new collagen and elastin fibers to each other when fascia is stimulated.

Nutrition and rest matter, but the way fascia primarily hydrates is through movement. Think of a sponge and how dribbling water on it won’t reach every part, whereas squeezing it allows moisture to spread throughout the material. To this end, Schleip penned a book titled “Fascial Fitness: How to Be Vital, Elastic and Dynamic in Everyday Life and Sport,” in which he lays out a plan that requires only 20 minutes of your week in the form of two 10-minute sessions. He recommends six exercises in a specific sequence, beginning with foot rolling and working your way through your legs, your front and back fascial lines, your waist and sides, followed by the shoulders, and a neck-back combo. The only “equipment” necessary is a tennis ball and a chair.

The exercises are designed to strengthen and nurture what Schleip calls the four functions of fascia: movement, communication, supply, and shape. The function of shape is as it sounds—giving structure to what would otherwise be an unorganized mass of organs, muscles, and bones. Fascia’s relationship to movement is that it maintains tension and elasticity, as well as supporting energy storage and transfer. The function of “supply” is about moving fluid and nutrients throughout your body, and communication refers to the transmission of stimuli and information. The corresponding exercises involve what he refers to as spring, revive, feel, and stretch.

“Spring” encompasses motions like hopping or swinging the upper body, promoting elasticity. Think of childhood activities like skipping and playing hopscotch—these increase elastic recoil capacity, or your tissues’ ability to return to their original shape after being stretched. This is one reason children tend to have much more malleable fascia than adults. Rebounders (small trampolines) have become increasingly popular and can also support cardiovascular exercise, but you don’t need equipment. Schleip’s jumping protocol involves gentle hops with a goal of landing as quietly as possible, only using (walking) poles if necessary for support.

“Revive” is designed to rejuvenate fascia via squeezing, as this is how your body dynamically hydrates—essentially wringing out old fluid and metabolic waste, allowing fresh fluid to fill the space. Dynamic hydration becomes especially important as you age, since studies have shown that by age 60, the water content of your fascia may drop from 70–80 percent to 50 percent. Professional massage can help in this endeavor and offers benefits beyond fascia, but a daily massage would be quite the financial investment. Instead, Schleip’s program begins with self-massage, often using a rubber ball, tennis ball, or foam roller under your feet. You may meet resistance and discomfort with this type of work, at least initially. In this situation, one tip physical therapist Dr. Kelley Starrett offers is to take a slow inhale (around four seconds), allowing the muscle to gently contract, holding for four seconds while applying pressure with the roller or ball, then exhaling (longer than your inhale) and allowing the muscle to relax. This sequence helps signal safety to your nervous system and can reduce resistance after a few repetitions.

“Feel,” in the quartet of workout principles, is characterized by awareness of your movement and coordination. This means being present with your body, staying connected rather than distracted during exercise. “Stretch” is fairly self-explanatory, except that when it comes to fascia, longer stretches are thought to be more beneficial, as it takes time to release and refresh tissue—something for which there is no shortcut. Stretch not only helps invigorate and hydrate your fascia—emerging research suggests it may also influence broader physiological processes, including those related to cancer.

In her lab, Langevin has worked with rodents in a practice she dubs “rat yoga.” In her 2018 study, mice were injected with breast cancer cells and divided into two groups: one non-stretch and one where the mice were put into a yoga-like gentle stretch for about ten minutes a day. After four weeks, the tumors of the mice who stretched were 52 percent smaller than those in the non-stretch group, without drugs or other treatment. Regarding Langevin’s results, it has been suggested that many people develop cancer but don’t die from it: “Whether we die from it depends mostly on how fibrotic is the connective tissue around it.”

In the case of cancer, if connective tissue surrounding the tumor builds up excessively, it can act “almost like scaffolding that helps a tumor take root, connect to blood vessels, and grow.” What many of the biomarkers in the study showed was that “stretching appeared to do something extraordinary: it helped the body ‘turn up’ its cancer-fighting immune response while simultaneously ‘turning down’ the chronic inflammation that helps cancer thrive.” Considering that approximately 45 percent of worldwide deaths in developed countries are attributed to fibrotic diseases, this finding has potential beyond cancer.

Fortunately, rejuvenating your fascia is very doable, with no fancy equipment or gym membership required. Schleip even proposes the idea of adults using playground equipment to awaken movement patterns you may have left behind in childhood but that still play a role in restoring fascia. His book includes a playful photo of Schleip, now in his 70s, on a playground rope climbing structure, hanging by his arms and legs. This, of course, should be approached with caution and common sense—no dangling upside down from a jungle gym on day one.

In some parts of the world, like the “Blue Zones”—areas where people regularly live past 100—physical activity such as lifting loads, bending, squatting, and walking steep slopes is woven into daily life. For example, in Ikaria, Greece, nonagenarians (those over age 90) reported spending less than three hours per day sitting—far less than the roughly 9.5 hours per day reported among older adults in the United States. These environments demand a lifestyle that includes activities like “walking to commute, working labor-intensive occupations, participating in outdoor hobbies, and navigating complex terrain with constant exposure to uneven surfaces.”

It’s not just the movement but how they move—reaching, bending, adjusting to slopes and rocky paths, and engaging leg and foot muscles in varied ways to maintain balance. These demanding motions help maintain fascial hydration and elasticity—a stark contrast to the American perception of aging as inherently fragile. These same types of movements—walking and running, climbing and swinging, throwing, squatting, carrying, digging, and playing—form the foundation of a healthy, resilient musculoskeletal system, no matter where you live.

If you’re looking for more real-time guidance, there are many fascia-focused exercises available online. Some involve dance-type movements, others focus on more standard workouts with minimal equipment, and some are even specific to facial fascia (say that three times fast), where the movements and self-massage are geared toward the muscles in your face and neck.

Since your fascia can both generate and conduct electrical signals, is one continuous piece, and runs throughout every part of your body, it’s worth devoting time to caring for this remarkable system. Attention to it can help ensure your mobility and flexibility—key components of freedom and independence as you age. The research is still catching up—but your body doesn’t need to wait for it.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: The GRAS (“Generally Recognized as Safe”) designation was designed to streamline food safety, but over time it has evolved into a complex and often opaque process through which many ingredients enter the food supply without formal FDA review. While some substances are later restricted or removed as new evidence emerges, others are reviewed, withdrawn, or reconsidered outside public view. As the system continues to shift under increasing scrutiny, understanding how these determinations are made offers a clearer lens into what safety in modern food truly means—and where its limits lie.

For most of human history, food was not a question of chemistry—it was a matter of survival. Where would the next meal come from? Would the harvest hold? Would the hunt succeed? What was meant to be eaten was recognizable—perishable and imperfect. It came from the soil, from animals, and with the rhythms of seasons that could not be controlled. The risks were immediate and visible—scarcity, spoilage, famine. But rarely was it considered whether the food itself, once obtained, was inherently unsafe to eat. Today, that question of survival has changed dramatically.

The modern consumer no longer asks just where their food comes from—but whether what is being presented is, in fact, safe. Not spoiled. Not contaminated in the traditional sense. But something more abstract: chemically altered, industrially processed, and engineered in ways that are no longer visible to the naked eye. This becomes clear the moment you visit a grocery store, where nearly 70% of food on store shelves is considered ultra-processed.

These products are made with ingredients that are difficult to recognize and far removed from anything found in a kitchen or growing naturally. Food is no longer just food—it’s a formulation. It’s a chemistry experiment designed to manipulate your taste buds and encourage overconsumption. In a profit-driven food system, your health is not the first priority—the bottom line is.

Yet, most people move through the grocery store with their list in hand and an unspoken agreement in place. There is an assumption that someone, somewhere—a chemist in a lab coat, a panel of toxicologists, a federal oversight committee—has already asked the hard questions on your behalf. That the emulsifier keeping the almond milk smooth, the preservative extending the shelf life of the gluten-free crackers, or the flavor enhancer rounding out the plant-based protein bar has been reviewed for safety long before you ever take a bite.

This assumption becomes the scaffolding of modern life. After all, in a world where a parent is juggling work, school drop-offs, personal commitments, and weeknight dinners—or a caregiver is preparing meals for a dependent family member—few people have the time (or training) to individually evaluate the toxicological profile of every additive in every jar, bag, carton, or box. You rely on a system that is designed (at least in theory) to keep you safe. A regulatory framework intended to ensure that what enters the food supply has been reviewed, assessed, and deemed safe for consumption under its intended conditions of use. But that determination is not a guarantee—it is an assertion.

Enter GRAS: Generally Recognized as Safe

In 1958, the GRAS designation was established under the Food Additives Amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The intention was practical: to exempt substances with a long history of common use in food—like salt, vinegar, or baking soda—from the lengthy (often 2–5 year) pre-market approval process required for new chemical additives. In other words, if something had already been widely consumed and understood to be safe, it did not need to be re-proven.

A substance could be classified as GRAS (pronounced grass), as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) puts it, “...either through scientific procedures or, for a substance used in food before 1958, through experience based on common use in food…” George P. Larrick, then FDA Commissioner, explained:

“We believe only those chemicals should be automatically exempted from the new law which are recognized among competent experts as safe for their intended use. This would make it unnecessary, for example, to do studies on table salt, but would not approve the continued use, without proof of safety, of the synthetic emulsifiers now widely used in some fabricated foods.”

Substances that were already long consumed and familiar before 1958 were “grandfathered in” and automatically qualified as GRAS. No new testing or formal FDA review was required. For all other substances—new, engineered, or not yet well understood—a different set of regulatory processes applied. Companies must establish that these ingredients can be used safely, and the system allows several distinct approaches:

1. Self-affirmed GRAS (with FDA notification): A company assembles a body of evidence (published studies, toxicology data, and sometimes research on structurally or functionally similar compounds) and concludes that the substance is safe. The company may then voluntarily notify the FDA. In response, the agency typically issues a “no questions” letter, indicating it does not object to the conclusion and the product can be brought to market without formal approval.

2. Self-affirmed GRAS (without FDA notification): A company can also bring a substance to market based solely on expert consensus, without ever informing the FDA.

3. Formal food additive approval: Ingredients without historical use or clear expert consensus must undergo a full Food Additive Petition process. This requires extensive safety data, toxicology studies, metabolic analyses, intended use levels, and projected dietary exposure. The FDA conducts a mandatory, exhaustive review and only grants legal authorization once it concludes there is reasonable certainty the product causes no harm. This process is government-driven, legally binding, and far more rigorous than any GRAS pathway.

In reality, many substances enter the food supply not through mandatory government review, but via a system in which safety is largely determined outside the agency—by qualified experts, often hired and compensated by the company, provided their conclusions are supported by publicly available scientific evidence. Over time, the GRAS framework has evolved. What began as a narrow exemption for familiar, time-tested ingredients gradually expanded, and the line between historically recognized substances and newly engineered compounds grew increasingly difficult to distinguish. In a world built on trust in unseen systems, GRAS is one that operates in the shadows—shaping what ends up on your shelves, in your kitchen, and ultimately, in your body.

The Ingredients That Were “Safe”…Until They Weren’t

For decades, partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs)—the primary dietary source of artificial trans fats—were considered GRAS. They appeared in everything from margarine to peanut butter to bread products, in part because early GRAS lists created in 1958 relied on the scientific knowledge available at the time. It wasn’t until years later—after mounting research linked trans fats to artery-clogging plaque (atherosclerosis) and increased risk of cardiovascular disease—that the FDA made a pivotal decision in 2015: PHOs were no longer GRAS. In their final determination notice, the agency summarized their findings:

“...the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) has made a final determination that there is no longer a consensus among qualified experts that partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), which are the primary dietary source of industrially-produced trans fatty acids (IP-TFA) are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for any use in human food. This action responds, in part, to citizen petitions we received, and we base our determination on available scientific evidence and the findings of expert scientific panels establishing the health risks associated with the consumption of trans fat.”

By 2018, manufacturers were prohibited from adding them to foods, with final compliance deadlines extending through 2021 to allow products already in distribution to clear the market. A substance that once moved through the food supply without notice under a safety designation had now been formally removed from it—with the FDA estimating that its elimination could prevent thousands of heart attacks and deaths each year.

Then there’s the story of brominated vegetable oil (BVO). Used since the 1930s to stabilize citrus-flavored soft drinks and prevent separation, BVO was initially designated as GRAS in 1958—only to have that status withdrawn in 1970 after safety concerns began to surface. Even so, it remained permitted at limited concentrations in beverages for decades under an “interim” regulatory status. In 2012, 15-year-old Sarah Kavanagh turned to the internet after noticing BVO on the label of a Gatorade. What she found was startling: it was patented for use as a flame retardant. She then launched a petition asking Gatorade’s parent company, PepsiCo, to remove the ingredient. After more than 200,000 signatures, they agreed.

It wasn’t until July 2024—following collaborative studies with the National Institutes of Health suggesting potential adverse effects, including neurological symptoms—that the FDA formally revoked authorization for its use in food. Manufacturers had until August 2025 to reformulate affected products. These two examples share a common thread: meaningful change came from outside the system, not from within it. While the removal of PHOs and BVO eventually made headlines, not every ingredient follows the same visible path. Some are gradually reformulated, withdrawn, or reconsidered behind the scenes—within the GRAS process itself—long before they ever attract public attention.

The Ones You Never See

What reaches the shelf is only part of the story. Beyond the ingredients that are approved, there is another category that rarely enters the conversation—those that come close but never reach the market. In recent years:

• DHA-rich algal oil (GRN 1128) was withdrawn due to concerns over chemical impurities linked to manufacturing processes.

• A rice bran wax ingredient (GRN 962) was pulled after estimated dietary exposure in children exceeded safety thresholds.

• The synthetic folate compound, Monosodium L-5-methyltetrahydrofolate (GRN 1023), was abandoned when safety data for infants proved insufficient.

In these cases, the issue wasn’t necessarily that harm had already occurred—but that the evidence needed to confidently assert safety simply wasn’t there. While these ingredients never reached the market, their withdrawal is revealing. Before an ingredient enters the food supply, companies compile detailed safety dossiers—bringing together toxicology data, projected intake levels, metabolic studies, and manufacturing details, including potential impurities or byproducts. These materials are reviewed by qualified experts to determine whether there is a reasonable certainty of no harm under the intended conditions of use. It is at this stage that problems often emerge.

Sometimes the concern lies in the manufacturing process itself—where trace impurities, solvent residues, or unintended chemical byproducts alter the safety profile of the final ingredient. In other cases, projected exposure levels—particularly in vulnerable populations like children—exceed established safety thresholds. And at times, the limitation is more fundamental: the available data is incomplete, leaving too much uncertainty to support a conclusion of safety.

When these issues arise, a submission may be revised or halted entirely, sometimes before formal FDA review is completed. The result is a category of substances that were developed, evaluated, and nearly introduced—but ultimately halted before reaching consumers. From one perspective, this reflects a system functioning as intended—identifying potential risks before exposure occurs. From another, it reveals something less visible: that safety determinations are contingent on available data, expert interpretation, and voluntary disclosure. Importantly, a withdrawal is not always an endpoint. In many cases, it marks a pause.

Manufacturers can return with additional studies, refined data, or new expert analysis to address the gaps that prevented a GRAS conclusion the first time. The same ingredient—reformulated, recharacterized, or supported by new evidence—can re-enter the process and be reconsidered. The GRAS system, in other words, relies on judgment as much as interpretation. The absence of exposure is not always evidence that a risk never existed. Sometimes, it is a sign that the question of safety is still being answered—out of view and over time.

The System Is Still Changing

The scale of this landscape is difficult to fully grasp. It is estimated that more than 10,000 chemicals and additives are permitted in the U.S. food supply, often used in small amounts, yet many have not been re-evaluated by the FDA in decades. The actual number is unknown. While the majority are considered safe, some substances still allowed in the United States have been restricted or banned in other countries—such as the UK and Canada—after research linked them to cancer, developmental concerns, or behavioral effects.

Another concern is that the system treats each ingredient as a separate entity, ignoring the reality that the Standard American Diet exposes you to a constant overlap of multiple additives at once. When ingredients are researched and approved in a vacuum, there is no clear understanding of how they interact with other substances, and new additives continue to be introduced.

At the same time, GRAS is not a fixed list but an evolving pipeline. Since 1998, more than 1,200 substances have been submitted through GRAS notices, resulting in “no questions” responses, ongoing reviews, or voluntary withdrawals. Even though the total number of ingredients in the food supply remains uncertain, recent leadership changes and increased public scrutiny have contributed to growing regulatory momentum.

In April 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the FDA announced plans to phase out petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the national food supply—revoking authorization for Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B. The agencies are also working with industry to eliminate several remaining FD&C dyes by the following year. Under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the FDA is exploring the elimination of the self-affirmed GRAS avenue as part of a broader push for “radical transparency” so Americans know exactly what is in their food. In a statement, Kennedy said:

“Eliminating this loophole will provide transparency to consumers, help get our nation’s food supply back on track by ensuring that ingredients being introduced into foods are safe, and ultimately Make America Healthy Again.”

This is the same “loophole” that has allowed companies to self-affirm the safety of new ingredients—without FDA review, public disclosure, or independent verification—before introducing them into the food supply, often with unknown safety implications. Closing this provision would require companies to publicly notify the FDA and submit supporting safety data before ingredients enter the market. HHS has already submitted plans to tighten oversight of the GRAS program to the White House, where they are now pending review.

In July 2025, Senator Edward J. Markey and Senator Cory Booker proposed the “Ensuring Safe and Toxic-Free Foods Act,” which would require manufacturers to submit safety data to HHS, make that data publicly available for a 90-day FDA review, bar carcinogenic or reproductively toxic substances, exclude experts with conflicts of interest from the GRAS process, and establish a system to reassess previously approved GRAS substances.

Real Food, Real Safety

Rather than getting lost in the complexity of GRAS notifications, self-affirmed determinations, and ingredient withdrawals, there is a simpler way to navigate the modern food environment. Instead of scrutinizing labels on the 70% of ultra-processed foods in the grocery store, turn your attention to the 30% that likely doesn’t need an ingredient list at all—whole, minimally processed foods like meat, dairy, fruits, and vegetables. These foods come with a history and a track record of safety that do not rely on GRAS designation for validation. As functional medicine doctor Robert Reier says:

“What’s the answer to achieve health, wellness and vibrancy? Well, drum roll please. Eat real one ingredient foods. That’s it end of story, and you’ll be well on your way to a healthier existence. Eat foods that come in nature’s wrapping without any ingredients.”

Prioritizing whole foods means bypassing much of the regulatory uncertainty, chemical additives, and marketing spin—returning to the kind of food your ancestors recognized and trusted. And the evidence supports it: dietary patterns lower in ultra-processed foods and higher in whole, minimally processed foods are associated with lower rates of chronic disease, improved metabolic health, and reduced risk of premature death.

~

If you’ve found value in this article, please cross-post and restack it!

To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.