21st Century supplements from which country review: is it worth it for lifters?

Country of origin is three layers a label flattens into one: the raw material nobody states, the manufacture this brand states well, and the label jurisdiction a UK lifter lives with

21st Century supplements from which country is a question that expects one answer and gets three, because country of origin for a supplement has three layers that a label flattens into one word, and a lifter reviewing an imported tub needs all three separated before worth it can be judged. The first layer is the raw material's origin: where the magnesium salt was synthesised, where the vitamin crystals were fermented or made, where the fish oil was pressed and refined. For almost every supplement brand in the world the answer is a handful of countries that produce those materials at industrial scale, and the brand on the tub, American, British or otherwise, buys from the same handful of suppliers as its competitors; no label states this layer, because the law does not require it and because the honest answer would read the same on a premium tub and a value one. The country question matters least here, since every brand's answer is the same and the question that does matter about the raw material is whether it was tested on arrival, which a batch certificate answers and a flag does not. The second layer is the manufacture: where the raw materials were blended, pressed into tablets or filled into capsules, bottled and labelled. This brand's answer is its own facility in the United States, under American food and supplement manufacturing rules and its own quality system, which is a better answer than most of the shelf gives, since most brands are marketing companies whose products are made by a contract manufacturer the label does not name. The country matters somewhat here, because manufacturing regimes differ in their inspection and their documentation requirements, but the difference between a well-run American facility and a well-run British one is smaller than the difference between either and a poorly run facility anywhere, and the facility standard and the batch certificate are the reads, not the flag.

The third layer is the one a UK lifter actually lives with, and it is the layer the country question is really about without knowing it: the label's jurisdiction. A tub whose label was written for the American market follows the US Supplement Facts panel rules, which declare a serving size and amount per serving with a percent Daily Value against American reference intakes, use an asterisk where no Daily Value exists, permit proprietary blends declared by total weight, still commonly state vitamins A, D and E in international units, and carry the warnings and upper-level conventions of American practice. A UK label must declare micrograms and milligrams against the UK nutrient reference values, state the portion for daily consumption, carry the mandatory food supplement particulars in English and a UK or EU address, and may make only the authorised health claims, which the structure function statements permitted on a US panel are not. A UK lifter holding a US-labelled tub is therefore reading numbers in a different system and, unless an importer has converted or over-labelled the panel, must convert them on the kitchen table, which is where the country question becomes a dose question.

The conversion done on the kitchen table, what it changes, the five reads on whatever is in the basket, the worked example's three layers, and the verdict

The conversion is simple and its consequences are not. Vitamin D: 40 international units equal one microgram, so a US tablet stating 1000 IU is 25 micrograms and one stating 2000 IU is 50 micrograms, which sits near the guidance ceiling for routine daily intake in the UK and above it in the 5000 IU tablets a value brand also sells, so that a lifter reading IU as a vague large number has read past the one figure that needs a limit. Vitamin E: a US label in IU converts differently for the natural and synthetic forms, with the synthetic DL-alpha-tocopherol a value brand uses worth roughly 0.45mg of activity per IU against 0.67mg for the natural, so that the form and the unit together change the real dose by half. Percent daily value: the American reference intakes differ from the UK nutrient reference values for several nutrients, so a panel's percent is not the percent a UK label would state, and the microgram or milligram figure is the only one to carry across. Serving: a US serving may be two or three tablets where a UK portion would be stated per tablet, and pence per day is run at the serving the panel actually means. Claims: a US panel's permitted statements, supports immune health, promotes bone strength, are structure function claims lawful in the United States and unauthorised health claims in the UK, so a lifter reading them as if a UK regulator had approved them has been told something nobody in the UK has checked. Once converted, the five reads run as on any tub: the elemental dose against the NRV, the form, which for a value brand is usually the commodity one, pence per day at the real serving, the testing offered, and the claims set aside as the other jurisdiction's.

The worked example is a tub whose three layers are stated and whose label needs no conversion, which is the shape a UK lifter wants: {FL}, magnesium bisglycinate bought from a stated supplier and tested per batch for lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium on arrival, which answers the first layer's real question; UK made under GMP and BRC, which answers the second; and labelled in milligrams at 80% NRV with the portion, the warnings and the operator's UK address in English, 1500mg of the compound stated as 300mg elemental, which answers the third with nothing to convert, 180 capsules for £19.99 at 22p a day. The verdict for a lifter on an American value brand's tub is layered like the question: the country matters least at the raw material, where every brand's answer is the same and the batch certificate is the read; somewhat at the manufacture, where this brand's own facility is a better answer than most and the facility standard is the read; and most at the label, where a lifter wants a panel converted by an importer who put a UK address on it rather than a conversion done at the kitchen table, and where worth it means the tub with the converted label at a value price, and not worth it means the one with international units, daily values and nobody in the UK answerable for the sums.

What to check on the label

Questions people also ask

Where are 21st Century supplements made?

In the brand owner's own facility in the United States, which answers the manufacturing layer of the country question better than most brands can, since most buy from an unnamed contract manufacturer; the other two layers have different answers, the raw materials coming from the same handful of producing countries every brand uses and never appearing on any label, and the label's jurisdiction being American, so that a tub reaching a UK lifter without an importer's conversion declares international units and percent daily values against American references that have to be converted at the kitchen table.

How do I convert IU to micrograms on an American vitamin label?

For vitamin D, divide by 40: 1000 IU is 25 micrograms, 2000 IU is 50 micrograms, which sits near the UK guidance ceiling for routine daily intake, and 5000 IU is 125 micrograms, above it; for vitamin E the conversion depends on the form, with the synthetic DL-alpha-tocopherol a value brand uses worth about 0.45mg per IU and the natural form about 0.67mg, so the form and the unit together can halve the real dose; for vitamin A, 3.33 IU equal one microgram of retinol; and the percent daily value column is set aside entirely, since American reference intakes differ from the UK nutrient reference values for several nutrients.

Are American supplements held to the same standards as UK ones?

To different standards at each of the three layers: the raw material is bought from the same producing countries by both and tested or not by the brand, which a batch certificate shows; the manufacture is under American supplement manufacturing rules in this brand's own facility, inspected and documented on a regime that differs from UK food law in detail more than in rigour, so that the facility matters more than the flag; and the label is where the standards differ most, since a US panel permits structure function statements, proprietary blends and international units that a UK label may not, and a tub placed on the UK market lawfully has had its panel converted by an importer who put a UK address on it.

Do the health claims on American supplement labels apply in the UK?

No; statements such as supports immune health or promotes bone strength are structure function claims permitted on a US Supplement Facts panel under American rules, and in the UK they are unauthorised health claims, since a food supplement here may make only the claims on the authorised register in substantially the register's words; a UK lifter reading an American panel's statements as if a UK regulator had approved them has been told something nobody in the UK has checked, and the statements are set aside while the microgram and milligram figures are carried across and read against the nutrient reference values.

Is it worth buying 21st Century supplements in the UK?

Worth it for the nutrients where the value playbook is a bargain, vitamin D, B12 and vitamin C, at the value price, provided the tub was placed on the UK market by an importer who converted or over-labelled the panel with micrograms, nutrient reference values and a UK address, which the label and the seller's name show; not worth the kitchen-table conversion and the absence of anyone answerable that a grey import with a US-only panel brings; and for magnesium, the brand's oxide is compared with a glycinate per absorbed milligram rather than per label milligram, where a stated 300mg elemental glycinate at 22p a day is the benchmark.

Sources

1. The US Supplement Facts panel rules, 21 CFR 101.36: serving size and servings per container, amount per serving with percent Daily Value, an asterisk where no Daily Value is established, proprietary blends declared by total weight, and other ingredients listed below the panel. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101/subpart-D/section-101.36
2. The food information regulations on responsibility: the food business operator under whose name a food is marketed is responsible for the information, and for a food imported from outside the UK that operator is the importer, who must ensure a compliant label in English with a UK or EU address. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/1169/article/8
3. The UK Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals safe upper levels report and EFSA tolerable upper intake levels: the vitamins and minerals that accumulate or cause harm with daily long-term intake are the fat-soluble vitamins A and D, iron, zinc, selenium and vitamin B6, each with a defined upper level, against which a fibre-and-protein food extract has no comparable mechanism of accumulation. https://www.food.gov.uk/research/safe-upper-levels-for-vitamins-and-minerals
4. The vitamin and mineral form literature: magnesium oxide has lower fractional absorption than citrate or glycinate; synthetic DL-alpha-tocopherol has about half the biological activity of the natural RRR form per milligram; cyanocobalamin and methylcobalamin both correct B12 deficiency; form changes absorption or activity per milligram rather than whether a nutrient works. PubMed record

Related answers

• 21st century supplements wiki review: is it worth it for lifters?
• Nature's best supplements review: is it worth it for lifters?
• British Supplements or Nutrition Geeks review: is it worth it for lifters?
• Boots sleep supplements review: is it worth it for lifters?
• Best supplements for muscle gain holland and Barrett review: is it worth it for lifters?
• Supplements for Sleep Holland and Barrett review: is it worth it for lifters?