Have federal agencies or state medical boards taken disciplinary action against Dr Eric Berg?

1. The Virginia board action: what happened and why

A public disciplinary matter tied to Eric Berg, D.C., is documented in a consent order reproduced by Quackwatch, which states the Virginia board issued a formal REPRIMAND and imposed a monetary penalty after finding he made therapeutic claims not supportable by reasonable scientific or medical evidence; the consent agreement describes multiple unsupported treatment claims on his website and writings ^[1]. The Quackwatch item cites the board’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and notes that Berg consented to the order ^[1]. Available sources do not mention the precise dollar amount or every term of the order beyond the reprimand and monetary penalty in the Quackwatch summary ^[1].

2. California consumer enforcement tied to Berg Nutritionals

California Attorney General materials included in the search indicate a Proposition 65 60-day notice and related enforcement language naming Berg Nutritionals and The Health & Wellness Center, Inc. (doing business as Dr. Berg Nutritionals), seeking to enjoin sale or distribution of products that expose consumers above specified lead levels and to impose civil penalties; the document describes permanent injunctive relief and non-contingent civil penalties in the settlement language ^[2]. The notice shows state-level civil regulatory action involving products associated with Berg’s business, not a professional licensing board discipline ^[2].

3. Other public reporting and allegations — context, not board rulings

Reporting and commentary portray Berg as a controversial figure: RationalWiki summarizes criticism labeling him an antivaxxer and promoter of pseudoscience and cites the disciplinary action as part of that record ^[3]. Independent blog reporting has also covered a 2022 civil lawsuit alleging improper workplace pressure to participate in Scientology-related activities ^[4]. These sources reflect public controversy and allegations; they are not the same as state licensing sanctions and do not substitute for formal board or court decisions ^{[3] [4]}.

4. What the records do and do not show about federal action

Available search results do not show any federal agency disciplinary action against Dr. Eric Berg. The files provided include a state licensing consent order (Virginia) and a California consumer enforcement notice related to product lead exposure, but no federal sanctions or actions appear in the materials returned ^{[1] [2]}. If you seek confirmation of federal enforcement, current reporting in the provided sources does not mention it.

5. How to interpret these actions — professional vs. consumer enforcement

The Virginia action documented in the reproduced consent order is a professional-licensing matter addressing therapeutic claims in Berg’s chiropractic practice and public materials; it resulted in a reprimand and monetary penalty ^[1]. The California materials reflect consumer-product enforcement under Proposition 65 concerning lead exposure by products sold by Berg-affiliated entities, involving injunctive terms and penalties ^[2]. These are distinct enforcement categories with different legal bases and remedies ^{[1] [2]}.

6. Limits of the available reporting and next steps to verify

Search results here include secondary reproductions (Quackwatch), advocacy and commentary sites (RationalWiki, blog coverage), and a California AG notice; primary source files from the Virginia Board or a full California settlement document are not included in the search results provided ^{[1] [3] [2]}. To confirm details (exact penalty amounts, dates, and complete terms), obtain the original Virginia Board of Medicine/Chiropractic consent order and the final California settlement or complaint from official state records or court filings; those primary documents are not present in the current reporting ^{[1] [2]}.