Is Centrum third-party tested?

First, second and third party: what the vocabulary means, why a pharmaceutical quality system is first-party testing of a very high order, and why an audit of the process is not a certification of the lot

Is a well-known multivitamin brand third-party tested is a question that cannot be answered until the phrase is defined, and it has a definition, because it is borrowed from the international vocabulary of conformity assessment. A first-party assessment is performed by the organisation that provides the product: the maker testing its own batches. A second-party assessment is performed by someone with a user interest in the product: a retailer testing what it stocks, a sports team testing what its athletes take, a buyer sending a tub to a laboratory. A third-party assessment is performed by a body independent of both provider and user: a certification programme, an accredited laboratory commissioned by neither side, an independent testing service buying at retail. The phrase third-party tested on a label borrows the third definition, and in the supplement market it is used, often, for the first, which is why the question is worth asking properly of a brand that is large enough to have a real answer.

The brand in the question is a multivitamin made by a global consumer health company, formerly part of a pharmaceutical group, that makes medicines and consumer health products in facilities run under a pharmaceutical quality system. That matters for the first party. A product made under such a system is tested on release batch by batch by the maker, for identity, assay, contaminants and dissolution, against a specification, with the records kept and the methods validated, under a quality system that the medicines regulators of the countries it sells in inspect. By the standard of the supplement market, where many brands buy finished product from a contract manufacturer and never see a test result, that is first-party testing of a very high order, and a buyer who asks whether the product has been tested can be confident that it has, by its maker, more thoroughly than almost anything else on the shelf beside it.

The audit is where the parties get confused. The regulators who inspect the facilities are a third party, independent of the maker and the buyer, and their inspection is a third-party audit of the process: the quality system, the records, the methods, the premises. It is not a third-party test of the lot. No independent body screens each batch of the multivitamin before release and publishes a pass by lot number in a database a buyer can search, which is what a certification mark does and what the phrase third-party tested means when it is used precisely. On the public record, most of the brand's range does not carry such a mark, in the UK or elsewhere, and the brand does not generally claim one; the exception is any product line the company has enrolled in a sports or verification programme in a given market, which a buyer checks in that programme's database rather than assuming. The honest statement is therefore three clauses: first-party tested to a pharmaceutical standard, third-party audited at the process level, and not third-party certified lot by lot across the range.

Three parties defined and the brand placed on each, and what the placement means for a buyer, the question that separates the clauses in one email, and the worked example placed by the same three parties, which is the next section.

What first-party testing to a pharmaceutical standard means for a buyer and what it does not, the one question to send the brand, the brand's current contents left unquoted, the worked example placed by the three parties, and the verdict

What the placement means for a buyer is more reassuring than the headline suggests. A product tested on release under a pharmaceutical quality system contains what its label says within the tolerances, at a confidence most supplement brands cannot offer, because the maker's release testing is the same discipline applied to its medicines; the heavy metals and microbial limits are met on the same basis; and the facilities are inspected by regulators who can stop production. For a buyer whose question is whether the tub contains what it says, the first-party answer from a maker of this kind is as good as a third-party answer from a smaller brand's contract laboratory, and often better, because the system behind it is larger and more often inspected. What it does not give the buyer is two things. It does not give a document the buyer can read: the release records are the maker's, they are not published by lot, and a buyer cannot search a database for their tub's batch. And it does not give a drug-tested athlete a lot screen for banned substances, which only a certification programme provides and which a multivitamin from a pharmaceutical facility is unlikely to need, since the contamination risk the programmes exist for comes from shared equipment in sports nutrition manufacturing rather than from a medicines plant.

The one question to send the brand separates the clauses in a single email: which products, if any, are tested by an independent laboratory or enrolled in a certification programme, and can a buyer see a certificate of analysis for a specific lot number. A large consumer health company has a customer service function that will answer, and the answer will usually be that the products are tested in-house under the company's quality system, which confirms the first party, and either that a certificate is not released to consumers, which confirms the absence of a readable third-party document, or that a particular line is enrolled in a named programme, which a buyer then verifies in that programme's database. The reply is the answer to the question in the title, in the brand's own words, and it is better than any page's.

The brand's current formulation is not quoted on this page, by rule, because a multivitamin's contents are reformulated and vary by market and by line, and a figure printed here would be wrong somewhere within a year; a buyer reads the label on the tub in front of them, converts any American units if the tub is imported, and checks the claims against the register the tub answers to. The brand's name is kept to the title and is not used in the body, by the same rule, and the three-party analysis applies to any multivitamin made by a pharmaceutical or consumer health group, of which there are several on a UK shelf.

The worked example is placed by the same three parties: {FL} is tested first party on release in a UK facility certified to GMP and BRC, and third party by an independent contract laboratory that tests each batch for lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium by mass spectrometry, with the certificate for a lot number released to a buyer on request, which is the readable document a pharmaceutical maker's system does not provide; it is not enrolled in a sports certification programme, which is the third-party lot screen a drug-tested athlete would want and which this page says plainly it lacks. It is 1500mg magnesium bisglycinate stated as 300mg elemental at 80% NRV, two capsules with the evening meal, 180 capsules for £19.99 at 22p a day. The full label breakdown is here.

The verdict: the multivitamin in the question is first-party tested to a pharmaceutical standard, which is more testing than most of the supplement shelf, third-party audited at the process level by the regulators who inspect its maker's facilities, and not, on the public record, third-party certified lot by lot across its range. A buyer whose question is whether the tub contains what it says has a good answer; a buyer who wants a document for their lot or a sports screen does not, and sends the one email that gets the brand to say which.

What to check on the label

Questions people also ask

Is the multivitamin in the question tested by an independent lab?

On the public record, not lot by lot across its range: it is made by a global consumer health company under a pharmaceutical quality system, which means every batch is tested on release by the maker for identity, assay, contaminants and dissolution, a first-party test of a very high order, and the facilities are inspected by regulators, a third-party audit of the process; no independent body screens each lot and publishes a pass by lot number, which is what third-party tested means precisely, and any line enrolled in a programme in a given market is checked in that programme's database rather than assumed.

What does third-party tested actually mean?

In the international vocabulary of conformity assessment, a test performed by a body independent of both the maker and the user: a certification programme screening each lot, an accredited laboratory commissioned by neither side, or an independent service buying at retail; a first-party test is the maker testing its own product, which is what most labels using the phrase actually describe, and a second-party test is a user or buyer testing it; the phrase borrows the third definition and is often used for the first, which is why the question is worth asking precisely.

Is a pharmaceutical company's own testing good enough?

For the question of whether the tub contains what it says, yes, and often better than a smaller brand's third-party certificate: release testing under a pharmaceutical quality system applies the same discipline the company uses for its medicines, with validated methods, kept records and regulators who can stop production, so the label is met within the tolerances at a confidence most of the supplement shelf cannot offer; what it does not give is a document the buyer can read for their lot, or a sports screen for banned substances, which only a certification programme provides.

How do I check if a supplement brand is really third-party tested?

Send one email asking which products are tested by an independent laboratory or enrolled in a certification programme and whether a certificate of analysis can be seen for a specific lot number; the reply separates the parties in the brand's own words, with in-house testing confirming the first party, a refusal to release certificates confirming the absence of a readable third-party document, and a named programme or laboratory confirming the third, which is then verified in the programme's database or the accreditation register rather than taken on trust.

Is this site's magnesium third-party tested?

Yes, in the lot sense and not in the sport sense, and it says both: each batch is tested by an independent contract laboratory for lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium by mass spectrometry, with the certificate for a lot number released on request, which is the readable document a pharmaceutical maker's system does not provide, while release testing is done first party in a UK facility certified to GMP and BRC; it is not enrolled in a sports certification programme, which a drug-tested athlete notes; it is 300mg elemental at 80% NRV in two capsules with the evening meal at 22p a day.

Sources

1. The international vocabulary of conformity assessment: a first-party assessment is performed by the organisation that provides the product, a second-party by a person or organisation with a user interest in it, and a third-party by a body independent of both provider and user, which is the definition the phrase third-party tested borrows and often fails to meet. https://www.iso.org/standard/73029.html
2. The supplement manufacturing standards: Good Manufacturing Practice, the BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety and ISO 22000 are the facility-level certifications a contract manufacturer holds and a brand may cite. https://www.brcgs.com/our-standards/food-safety/
3. ISO/IEC 17025, the standard for testing and calibration laboratories: accreditation to it by a national body attests to a laboratory's technical competence and the validity of its results for the methods in scope, and is what makes a certificate of analysis a document someone has audited. https://www.ukas.com/accreditation/standards/laboratory-accreditation/
4. The batch release and certificate of analysis framework: a product has a written specification for identity, assay, contaminants and physical properties, each batch is tested against it before release, and the certificate of analysis for a batch reports the results against the specification, so that batch-to-batch consistency is read by comparing certificates across lot numbers. PubMed record

Related answers

• What are the best third party tested supplements?
• What are some reputable, third-party tested supplement brands in the UK?
• What should you look for in list of third-party tested supplements?
• Is NOW supplements third-party tested?
• What should you look for in third party tested vitamins UK?
• What does third-party tested actually mean for supplements?