Holistic Health vs. The FTC: The Rule Nobody Explained to You
There are two very different worlds where people talk about herbal tea, chicken soup, and vitamin C for a cold. In one world, it’s your grandmother, your neighbor, or the homesteading community you belong to — people who’ve relied on these home remedies for generations and pass them down as tradition and personal experience. In the other world, it’s a company printing “boosts your immune system” on a bottle and selling it nationwide. Both worlds are talking about the same ingredients. Only one of them can get fined for it. Understanding why is actually one of the more interesting legal questions in the wellness space right now.
What Actually Happened in 2023
On April 13, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission sent formal warning letters — called Notices of Penalty Offenses — to roughly 670 companies that sell dietary supplements, over-the-counter drugs, homeopathic products, and functional foods. The letters didn’t accuse any of these companies of wrongdoing. They were a warning: if a company makes a health claim (that a product treats, prevents, or reduces a disease or condition) without “competent and reliable scientific evidence” behind it, the company could now face civil penalties of up to roughly $50,000 per violation — which can add up fast when a claim runs in thousands of ads over months or years.
This wasn’t a new law. It was the FTC using an existing legal tool differently, after a 2021 Supreme Court decision (AMG Capital Management v. FTC) stripped the agency of its old ability to claw back money from companies through the courts. The Notice was the FTC’s workaround: put companies on formal notice now, so that if they cross the line later, penalties are easier to pursue.
This built on an earlier, more direct case. In 2020, the FTC sued Teami, LLC, a company selling detox teas, alleging it had claimed — without evidence — that its tea could fight cancer, unclog arteries, reduce migraines, and prevent colds and flu. Teami settled, paid $1 million, and was barred from making those claims again without solid science behind them.
The Rule Companies Are Actually Under
The legal principle behind both actions is called the advertising substantiation doctrine, and it’s been federal law since long before 2023 — see the FTC’s own Health Products Compliance Guidance for the current standard. In plain terms: if a company is going to say a product affects your health, it needs real evidence — ideally clinical research — before it makes the claim, not after. The FTC isn’t saying herbal tea doesn’t do anything. It’s saying a business can’t tell the public “this cures your cold” unless it can prove it.
Why Your Grandmother Isn’t Breaking Any Law
This is the part that gets lost in a lot of online commentary: these rules govern commercial advertising, not personal speech. When your grandmother makes you chicken soup and tells you it’ll help you feel better, or when you post in a homesteading group about the herbal tea you drink when you feel a cold coming on, you are not “advertising a product” in the legal sense the FTC regulates. You’re sharing tradition, personal experience, and folk wisdom — the same way people have for centuries. The FTC’s authority kicks in when someone is selling a product and making a claim about what it does to move that product. It does not reach into your kitchen.
Two Honest Viewpoints
The traditional-remedies view: Millions of people grew up with home remedies — herbal tea, broth, rest, vitamin C, honey — as the first line of care for minor, self-limiting illnesses like the common cold. This isn’t fringe; it’s a documented part of home health culture across cultures and generations, and for a healthy adult with ordinary cold symptoms, plenty of these practices are low-risk and personally meaningful, even where the clinical evidence for a given remedy is thin, mixed, or simply hasn’t been well studied.
The regulatory view: When a company puts a specific claim on a product and sells it to the public at scale, the calculus changes. I’ve relied on home remedies my whole life for the everyday stuff — colds, minor aches, the things the body handles on its own with some help. That’s different from an emergency or something serious, where I want real, appropriate care just like anyone would. The problem with a company slapping “cures X” on a bottle isn’t that natural remedies don’t work — it’s that an exaggerated claim can talk someone out of getting real help for something that actually needed it. That’s a company being dishonest, not proof that home remedies don’t have their place. The FTC’s job is to make sure companies making health claims can back them up — not to police what people do or believe in their own homes.
Both of these things are true at the same time. The tension isn’t “the government vs. your right to take care of yourself.” It’s “how much proof should a business need before it puts a health claim on a label it sells to millions of people” — a much narrower and more answerable question.
Where This Leaves You
If you use herbal tea, chicken soup, or basic vitamins as part of how you take care of your own family for everyday things, that’s a personal and family health choice — rooted in generations of experience — and nothing in these FTC actions changes that. If you’re curious what the actual research says about any specific remedy — honey for cough, zinc for cold duration, vitamin C for cold symptoms — that’s worth its own look, because the evidence varies a lot from one to the next: some have real (if modest) clinical support, others don’t, and either way that doesn’t make the tradition worthless.
What the FTC actions really tell us is something narrower: a company selling a product owes you real evidence before it makes a claim, not the other way around. That’s not an argument for handing your health decisions over to any one institution — it’s just a reminder to be skeptical of a specific commercial claim, especially one that sounds too certain, whether it’s coming from a supplement bottle or anywhere else. You’re still the one who gets to weigh tradition, experience, and evidence for yourself, and reserve urgent or serious situations for the care they actually need.
Free EMF Awareness Guide
Tivon and I spent years researching this for our own home — we put what we learned into a free 60-page guide. It walks you room by room through your own space: grounding and shielding options, things to consider around smart meters or a nearby cell tower. We’re not doctors and this isn’t medical advice — just what we researched and found useful for our own household, and we wanted to hand it to you the same way. Completely free:
https://www.ftwproject.com/free-ftw-complete-guide-to-practical-emf-protection/
Free Harmonic Phone Shield (Just Pay Shipping)
This is our small business — my husband and I hand-make orgonite ourselves, using the best ingredients we can source, because it’s something we built for our own home first. We’re giving away a free Harmonic Phone Shield, you just cover shipping, plus a few other exclusive deals we only offer here:
https://www.ftwproject.com/free-harmonic-shield-exclusive-deal/
Sources
FTC, “FTC Warns Almost 700 Marketing Companies That They Could Face Civil Penalties if They Can’t Back Up Their Product Claims” (April 2023) — https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/04/ftc-warns-almost-700-marketing-companies-they-could-face-civil-penalties-if-they-cant-back-their
AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), Supreme Court opinion — https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-508_l6gn.pdf
FTC, “Tea Marketer Misled Consumers, Didn’t Adequately Disclose Payments to Well-Known Influencers, FTC Alleges” (March 2020) — FTC v. Teami, LLC settlement — https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/03/tea-marketer-misled-consumers-didnt-adequately-disclose-payments
FTC, Health Products Compliance Guidance (December 2022) — https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance
Eyes Open. Hands Dirty.
