What are the best natural supplements?

Natural is three claims: the source claim and its labelling criterion, the processing claim and the identical-molecule point

What are the best natural supplements is a question whose key word makes three different claims at once, and the honest way to answer is to separate them and test each, because a tub that says natural is saying three things and is usually right about one. The first is a claim about source: that the substance came from a plant, an animal or a mineral deposit rather than from a chemical reactor, that the vitamin C was pressed from a fruit, the magnesium dug from a seabed, the omega-3 squeezed from a fish. This claim has a criterion behind it in UK food labelling, because the food standards guidance on the terms fresh, pure and natural sets out when natural may be used: for an ingredient produced by nature without human intervention, and only minimally processed, which rules out most of what sits in a capsule, since an extract is an intervention and a purified salt is a process. The same guidance states that the word must not be used to imply that a product is superior or safer than one without it, which is the clause that the second and third claims collide with. The source claim is therefore sometimes true on a tub and sometimes not, it is checkable against a criterion, and it is the only one of the three that has any legal standing, with the standing being that it may be made where true and may not be used to sell anything.

The second is a claim about processing: that the substance was extracted, pressed or dried rather than synthesised or purified, and that the gentler route left it somehow more itself. This claim meets the identical-molecule point, which is the single most useful fact a supplement buyer can hold. Ascorbic acid synthesised from glucose in a factory is the same molecule, atom for atom, as ascorbic acid in a rosehip; the body's transporters bind it identically, the blood level rises identically, and the two cannot be told apart by any test the body runs or any laboratory runs on the pure substance. Creatine made in a reactor from sarcosine and cyanamide is the same molecule as the creatine in a steak, and the muscle stores it identically, which is why every creatine trial used the synthesised kind and the authorised claim attaches to the molecule. Magnesium bisglycinate made in a vessel by reacting a magnesium salt with glycine delivers the same magnesium ion as the magnesium in a leaf, and the gut absorbs the ion. For a single-molecule nutrient, natural describes the route and not the destination, and a tub charging more for the natural route is charging for the word, since the molecule that arrives is the one that would have arrived anyway. The one place the processing claim has content is the whole-food extract, a mushroom or a plant, where a crude extract contains hundreds of compounds and a purified isolate contains one, and there the question is not natural versus synthetic but which of the hundreds does anything and whether the extract is standardised to it, which is a question about the label's ratio and marker compound rather than about the word.

The safety claim and why it is false in the direction that matters, the natural supplements that are honestly best, and the tub that does not use the word

The third claim is the one that sells, and it is false in the direction that matters: the implication that what came from nature is gentler, safer or less likely to harm than what came from a laboratory. The toxicology is unambiguous that natural origin is not a safety classification, since the most toxic substances known are natural. The amatoxin in a death cap mushroom destroys a liver from a single meal and is as natural as the mushroom in a capsule. Aristolochic acid, in a traditional herb used for centuries, causes kidney failure and urinary tract cancer and was withdrawn after the cases were traced. The pyrrolizidine alkaloids in comfrey, once sold as a tea, cause a liver vein disease. And the register of liver injury from supplements, kept by clinical hepatologists, is written largely by botanicals: green tea extract at high doses, kava, certain traditional herbs, and multi-ingredient botanical blends sold for weight or muscle, with synthetic single-nutrient vitamins and minerals almost absent from it except at doses far above the upper levels. A lifter who has absorbed the safety claim buys the botanical blend because it is natural and avoids the synthesised mineral because it is not, which is exactly the wrong way round by the register, and the labelling guidance's clause that natural may not imply safety exists because the regulator knows it.

So the best natural supplements, honestly, are the ones for which natural is a true statement about source that changes nothing, and they are the dull ones: the minerals, where the ion is the ion by any route and the questions are the elemental dose, the form and the metals test; the fish oil, where the EPA and DHA per capsule and the oxidation state matter and the sea it came from does not; vitamin D, where the molecule from lanolin or lichen is the same cholecalciferol; and creatine, which no honest tub calls natural because the trials used the synthesised kind. The botanicals that are natural in every sense, the mushroom extracts and the herbs, are the products where the word does the most selling and the least work, and where the questions that matter are the ones the word distracts from: the species, the tissue, the extract ratio, the marker compound, the heavy metals, and for the herbs with a liver record, the record. The tub that does not use the word is the honest buy for a single-molecule nutrient, and the worked example is one: {FL}, magnesium bisglycinate, an HPMC shell and rice flour, three lines, 1500mg of the compound stated as 300mg elemental at 80% NRV, batch tested for lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium with the certificate on request, UK made under GMP and BRC, four authorised claims and no others, 180 capsules for £19.99 at 22p a day, and nowhere on its label the word natural, because the magnesium ion it delivers is the same one a leaf delivers, and a buyer who wants the ion is paying for the ion.

What to check on the label

Questions people also ask

Are natural supplements better than synthetic ones?

For a single-molecule nutrient, no, by the identical-molecule point: ascorbic acid synthesised from glucose is the same molecule as ascorbic acid in a rosehip, creatine from a reactor is the same as creatine in a steak, and a magnesium salt made in a vessel delivers the same magnesium ion as a leaf, so the body's transporters, the blood level and every laboratory test treat them identically and the price difference buys the word; for whole-food extracts, mushrooms and herbs, the question is which of hundreds of compounds does anything and whether the extract is standardised to it, which is a question about the label's ratio rather than about natural.

Are natural supplements safer?

No; natural origin is not a safety classification, and the most toxic substances known are natural, the amatoxin in a death cap, the aristolochic acid in a traditional herb that caused kidney failure and cancer, the pyrrolizidine alkaloids in comfrey; the register of liver injury from supplements is written largely by botanicals, green tea extract, kava, certain traditional herbs and botanical blends, with synthesised vitamins and minerals almost absent except at doses far above the upper levels; the food standards guidance on the word natural states it must not be used to imply safety, because the regulator knows this.

Can a supplement legally be called natural in the UK?

Only where it meets the food standards guidance criteria for the term: an ingredient produced by nature without human intervention and only minimally processed, which most capsule contents fail, since an extract is an intervention and a purified salt is a process; and the guidance states that natural may not be used to imply that a product is superior or safer than one without the word, so a tub using it to sell gentleness or quality is using it outside the guidance whatever the source of its contents.

What is the most natural form of magnesium?

The question has no useful answer, because the magnesium ion the gut absorbs is the same ion whatever salt carried it and whatever route made the salt; the useful questions about a magnesium are the elemental dose against the 375mg NRV, read from the label rather than the compound weight, the form, oxide, citrate, glycinate or malate, each with a known absorption profile, and the heavy metals test, since magnesium salts come from mined or sea-derived material that can carry lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium, which is the one place where the source matters and the certificate rather than the word answers it.

Which natural supplements have the best evidence?

The dull ones, where natural is a true statement about source that changes nothing: creatine monohydrate, which no honest tub calls natural because every trial used the synthesised molecule and the authorised claim attaches to it; vitamin D through the UK winter, the same cholecalciferol from lanolin or lichen; omega-3 at 250mg of combined EPA and DHA for people who eat no oily fish; and the minerals at stated elemental doses; the botanicals that are natural in every sense are the products with the thinnest evidence and the longest list of questions, species, tissue, ratio, marker compound, metals and liver record, which the word distracts from.

Sources

1. The Food Standards Agency criteria for the use of the term natural in food labelling: the ingredient should be produced by nature without human intervention and only minimally processed, with the term not to be used to imply superiority or safety. https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/criteria-for-the-use-of-the-terms-fresh-pure-natural-etc-in-food-labelling
2. The natural product toxicology literature: many of the most toxic substances known are of natural plant, fungal or animal origin, so natural origin is not a safety classification and regulatory status is assigned by substance rather than by source. PubMed record
3. The herb-induced liver injury literature: documented case reports of liver injury associated with botanical supplements including ashwagandha and high-dose green tea extract, rare but recognised in hepatology. PubMed record
4. The amatoxin poisoning literature: misidentified wild mushrooms containing amatoxins cause acute liver failure, the most serious mushroom-and-liver interaction in medicine. PubMed record

Related answers

• What are the best third party tested supplements?
• Are Amazon supplements 3rd party tested?
• Are NOW supplements on Amazon legit?
• What are the best made supplements?
• Which supplements are approved by Informed Sport?
• Which supplements are Informed Sport certified?