In January 2026, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration quietly removed several webpages from its website — pages that had stated, for years, that cell phone radiation poses no known health risk. Around the same time, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a new study on the health effects of cellphone radiation, directed by the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) Commission under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
These two actions represent the most significant shift in the U.S. government’s official position on cell phone radiation in nearly three decades. Whether you find that reassuring or alarming depends on your perspective — but either way, it’s worth understanding what actually happened.
What Pages Did the FDA Remove?
The FDA had maintained a set of webpages under its “Radiation-Emitting Products” section that addressed consumer concerns about cell phone radiation. The key pages that were taken down included:
- “Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard?” — a consumer FAQ that concluded current evidence does not show a link between cell phone use and health problems
- “Scientific Evidence for Cell Phone Safety” — a summary of FDA’s position that the weight of scientific evidence did not support an association between RF exposure and adverse health effects
- “Reducing Exposure: Hands-Free Kits and Other Accessories” — guidance on reducing exposure (while maintaining that reduction wasn’t medically necessary)
These pages had been the FDA’s official public-facing position since at least 2018, when the agency reviewed the results of the National Toxicology Program’s landmark $30 million study and concluded that existing safety limits were adequate.
What the Pages Used to Say
The removed pages consistently made several claims:
- “The weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems.”
- Cell phone SAR limits set by the FCC are protective of public health.
- The NTP study findings in rats were not directly applicable to humans.
- No changes to cell phone safety standards were warranted.
These statements were not fabricated — they reflected the FDA’s genuine scientific assessment at the time. But they also reflected an assessment that many researchers have argued was incomplete, outdated, or overly influenced by industry-funded studies.
Why Were the Pages Removed?
The FDA hasn’t issued a formal public explanation for the removal. But the timing — coinciding with the HHS study announcement — suggests a deliberate repositioning rather than a routine website update.
Several factors likely contributed:
1. The 2021 Court Ruling
In August 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC had failed to adequately explain why its 1996 safety limits for RF radiation still protect public health. The court specifically cited the FCC’s failure to address:
- New scientific evidence since 1996
- The impact on children, who absorb more radiation due to thinner skulls
- Long-term exposure effects
- The effects of carrying phones against the body
The FDA’s safety pages essentially endorsed the very limits the court said were inadequately justified. Keeping them up while a federal court had questioned their basis was increasingly untenable.
2. The ICBE-EMF Analysis
In 2024, the International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF (ICBE-EMF) published a detailed analysis arguing that current FCC/ICNIRP limits may be 15–900 times too high to protect against cancer effects, based on a systematic review of published studies. The paper, co-authored by former NTP researcher Ron Melnick and UC Berkeley’s Joel Moskowitz, directly challenged the scientific basis the FDA had relied on.
3. Political Realignment
RFK Jr.’s appointment as HHS Secretary brought someone to the top of America’s health agency who had publicly and repeatedly questioned whether cell phone radiation limits are protective enough. Maintaining webpages that asserted cell phones are definitively safe was inconsistent with the new administration’s stated priorities.
4. The Research Gap
The NTP cell phone radiation study — the most comprehensive ever conducted — was controversially defunded in 2018. Its findings of “clear evidence” of heart tumors in rats have never been adequately followed up with human epidemiological data. The FDA’s safety pages cited the NTP results as non-concerning, but several independent scientists have challenged that interpretation.
Check your EMF exposure
See cell towers, power lines, and substations near any US address.
Search Your AddressWhat Is the New HHS Study?
HHS announced that the MAHA Commission would oversee a new study on the health effects of cellphone radiation. Here’s what we know so far:
What’s Been Announced
- Scope: The study will review both existing evidence and commission new research on RF exposure and health outcomes, with a particular focus on children and long-term exposure.
- Oversight: Directed by the MAHA Commission, housed within HHS, rather than delegated solely to the FDA.
- Focus areas: Cancer risk (updating NTP findings), neurological effects, reproductive health, and effects on children.
- Timeline: No specific completion date has been announced, but the review of existing evidence is expected to produce preliminary findings within 12–18 months.
What It Could Mean
Best-case scenario: The study produces rigorous, independent science that either confirms current limits are adequate or provides the evidence base for updating them. Either outcome would be valuable — the current regulatory limbo, where limits are being simultaneously enforced and questioned, serves nobody.
Worst-case scenario: The study becomes politicized, producing results that reflect the administration’s stated positions rather than dispassionate science. This would undermine public trust regardless of the findings.
Most likely scenario: The study will take years, produce complex results that don’t yield simple “safe” or “dangerous” conclusions, and the regulatory process will move slowly — much like the NTP study, which took 10 years and $30 million before producing results that were then largely shelved.
What Does This Mean for You Right Now?
Let’s be direct: the removal of FDA safety pages does not mean cell phones are suddenly dangerous. And the launch of a new study does not mean they’re being declared unsafe. Here’s the practical takeaway:
Nothing Has Changed About Your Phone’s Emissions
Your phone emits the same amount of RF radiation today as it did before the FDA pages came down. The FCC’s SAR limits haven’t changed. Phone manufacturers haven’t been ordered to modify anything. If you weren’t concerned before these developments, there’s no evidence-based reason to suddenly panic.
The Precautionary Principle Got a Boost
What has changed is the government’s willingness to say “this is definitely fine.” The removal of safety assurances — without replacing them with danger warnings — puts the U.S. in a position closer to several European countries that have adopted precautionary approaches for years:
- France banned cell phone sales to children under 13 and required SAR labeling on all phones
- Belgium banned advertising cell phones to children under 7
- Israel issued government guidelines recommending reduced cell phone exposure for children
- India lowered its SAR limit to 1.6 W/kg (same as FCC) but also required SAR labeling and warnings
Simple Steps That Cost Nothing
Whether current limits are adequate or not, reducing unnecessary exposure is free and easy:
- Use speakerphone or wired earbuds for calls lasting more than a few minutes
- Don’t sleep with your phone under your pillow — keep it at least 3 feet from your head
- Don’t carry your phone in a pocket against your body if you can avoid it — phones aren’t tested at zero distance
- Check your phone’s SAR rating — use our SAR Comparison Tool to see how your phone compares
- Teach kids to use speakerphone — regardless of where the science lands, children’s developing brains absorb more radiation than adults’
The Bigger Picture: A Regulatory System Under Pressure
The FDA page removal is a symptom of a broader problem in how the U.S. regulates wireless radiation. Here’s the timeline that matters:
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 1996 | FCC sets current SAR limits based on thermal heating effects only |
| 1996 | EPA’s EMF research program defunded by Congress |
| 2011 | WHO/IARC classifies RF-EMF as “possibly carcinogenic” (Group 2B) |
| 2018 | NTP study finds “clear evidence” of tumors in rats — then gets defunded |
| 2021 | D.C. Circuit Court rules FCC failed to justify its 1996 limits |
| 2023 | FCC still hasn’t responded to the court ruling |
| 2024 | ICBE-EMF publishes evidence that limits may be 15-900× too lax |
| 2025 | RFK Jr. appointed HHS Secretary |
| 2026 | FDA removes safety pages; HHS launches new study |
Thirty years of the same limits. A $30 million study whose results were shelved. A federal court order that’s gone unanswered. An agency that oversaw the research now saying it can’t stand behind its own safety claims.
This isn’t a conspiracy — it’s regulatory inertia meeting legitimate scientific uncertainty. And it’s why tools like EMF Radar’s interactive map exist: because when the official guidance is in flux, having actual data about your specific environment matters more than ever.
What to Watch For
Here’s what we’re tracking as this develops:
- FCC response to the 2021 court order — still pending after four years. If the FCC initiates a formal review of SAR limits, that’s the most consequential regulatory action possible.
- MAHA Commission study design — who’s on the panel, what’s the methodology, and is industry excluded from funding/reviewing the research?
- FDA replacement content — will the FDA post new guidance, or will the removed pages simply remain blank?
- International coordination — the WHO is also reviewing its RF-EMF guidelines. If the U.S. and WHO both shift their positions simultaneously, that would be unprecedented.
- Industry response — CTIA (the wireless industry trade group) has historically pushed back against any suggestion that cell phones pose health risks. Their response to the FDA page removal will be telling.
We’ll update this article as developments unfold. In the meantime, check your local cell tower environment and make informed decisions about your own exposure — because that’s always been the point.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the FDA say cell phones are dangerous?
No. The FDA removed pages that said cell phones are safe, but it did not replace them with pages saying they are dangerous. The current position is essentially a reset — the FDA is no longer making affirmative safety claims while a new review is underway. This is closer to a “we’re still looking into it” stance than a warning.
Should I stop using my cell phone?
No. Cell phones remain essential tools, and there’s no evidence of acute health risks from normal use. The precautionary steps that make sense — using speakerphone, not sleeping with your phone, keeping it out of pockets — cost nothing and are worth doing regardless of where the science ultimately lands.
How is the new HHS study different from the NTP study?
The NTP study (completed 2018) was a controlled animal study that exposed rats and mice to specific RF frequencies over their lifetimes. The new HHS study is expected to be broader, encompassing both a review of existing evidence and new research that may include epidemiological (human population) data, not just animal studies.
When will we get answers from the new study?
Preliminary findings from the evidence review phase are expected within 12–18 months. However, if the study commissions original research (as the NTP study did), full results could take 5–10 years.
Are children at greater risk?
Multiple studies suggest children absorb more RF radiation than adults due to thinner skulls, higher tissue conductivity, and longer expected lifetime exposure. This is one reason several countries have issued specific guidance about children’s phone use, and it’s a stated focus of the new HHS study.
Does this affect 5G specifically?
The FDA page removal and HHS study encompass all cell phone radiation, not just 5G. However, 5G operates across a wider range of frequencies than previous generations (including mmWave bands above 24 GHz), and long-term health data on these newer frequencies is essentially nonexistent — which is one of the gaps the new study may address.