What company has the cleanest supplements?

Clean has no legal definition, so replace it with a count: the excipient count per label, how it is read, how it is averaged across a catalogue, and the three excipients it flags by name

What company has the cleanest supplements is a question that cannot be answered with a name until the word has a number, because clean has no legal definition on a supplement label: the claims register governs health claims and the labelling rules govern the mandatory particulars, and neither governs the word clean, which is why it appears on products that differ in everything that could be meant by it. The one measurable thing the word usually means, when a buyer uses it, is how little sits in the capsule beside the active, and that is a count a buyer can run on any brand in ten minutes with its labels and nothing else. The count replaces the word, and the cleanest company is the one whose count is lowest, which is often not the one whose marketing says clean most loudly.

The count is run per label. A supplement's ingredient list runs in descending order of weight, with the active first and everything after it being an excipient, the materials that make a capsule fillable, a tablet pressable and a powder pourable; the count is the number of items after the active, with the capsule shell counting as one, the flow agent as one, and each further item as one. A capsule of a mineral with a vegetable shell and a flow agent is a count of two, which is the lowest a machine-filled capsule reaches without a slower and dearer fill; a coated tablet of the same mineral with a binder, a disintegrant, a lubricant, a coating of two or three materials and a colour is a count of seven or eight, for the same dose. Three items are flagged by name because they mark a product made for appearance rather than for the dose: a colour, which no capsule needs and which the pigment research has questioned for one in particular; a coating on a tablet, which is for the machine's speed and the shelf's shine; and a sweetener in a powder or a chewable, which is for the taste and brings its own list. A product with any of the three has been made to look or taste like something, and a buyer who wanted clean has a reason to count it.

The count is then averaged across the catalogue, because a brand's cleanliness is not its flagship's. A brand with one three-ingredient capsule on the front of its website and twenty coated, coloured tablets behind it is a coated-tablet brand, and a buyer who reads ten of its labels and takes the median count has the brand's number; a brand whose median is two or three across the catalogue has made a manufacturing choice that costs it fill speed and shelf appeal, and a brand whose median is six has made the other choice. The count takes ten minutes on a brand's own website, where the labels are shown, and it produces a number no amount of marketing moves.

A count that replaces a word, run per label, averaged across a catalogue and flagging three items, and the count worked on three kinds of brand, the cost of a count of one, the honest limit of the count, and the worked example counted, which is the next section.

The count worked on three kinds of brand: the value brand that fills and coats, the premium brand that markets clean and lists six, the small brand that lists three; why a count of one is a dearer fill; what the count does not measure; the worked example counted; and the verdict

Run on three kinds of brand, the count produces three numbers that the marketing would not predict. The value brand, built to a cost floor, fills and coats by design: tablets rather than capsules because they are cheaper to make, with a binder, a disintegrant, a lubricant and a coating, a filler to bulk a small dose into a tablet a machine can handle, and often a colour, so that its median count is six or more, which is a genuine product built to a price and is the opposite of clean in the count's sense. The premium brand that markets clean most loudly, with the word on its tub and its website, often lists five or six: a capsule, a flow agent, an anti-caking agent, a second anti-caking agent for the machine and, in its gummies and powders, a sweetener and a colour, because the premium is spent on the marketing and the packaging rather than on a slower fill, and the count exposes it. The small direct brand that says least about cleanliness often lists three, the active, a vegetable capsule and a flow agent, because it buys a simple fill from a contract manufacturer and does not pay for the coating or the colour, and the count rewards it without it having asked.

A count of one or two is worth understanding before it is demanded, because it is a dearer fill. A capsule with the active and a shell alone, a count of one, is hard to fill accurately on a machine, since a pure powder does not flow evenly without an agent, and a brand that offers it has either accepted more variation in fill or paid for a slower, hand-checked fill and charged for it; a count of two, the shell and one flow agent, is the honest floor for a machine-filled capsule at a fair price, and rice flour or a silica is the agent that buys the fill accuracy. A buyer who wants the dose accurate wants the one agent, and a buyer who wants a count of one wants a reason and pays the premium.

The count does not measure what the purity question measures, and the two are kept apart. The count says how little sits beside the active; it says nothing about whether the active is what it says, whether the tub is free of heavy metals, or whether the dose is accurate, which are the certificate's questions, answered by lot and covered on the purest supplements page. A three-ingredient capsule with no metals certificate is clean and unproven; a six-ingredient tablet with a four-metal certificate by lot is proven and not clean; and the buyer who wants both counts the label and asks for the certificate, which are two different minutes.

The worked example is counted in the open: {FL} lists three ingredients, magnesium bisglycinate, an HPMC capsule and rice flour as the flow agent, which is a count of two after the active, the honest floor for a machine-filled capsule, with no colour, no coating and no sweetener, stating 1500mg magnesium bisglycinate as 300mg elemental at 80% NRV in two capsules with the evening meal, and with the other minute's answer beside it, batch testing for lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium with the certificate by lot on request, UK made under GMP and BRC, 180 capsules for £19.99 at 22p a day. The full label breakdown is here.

The verdict: no company has the cleanest supplements until the word is replaced by the excipient count, run per label in descending order of weight, averaged across the catalogue and flagging a colour, a coating or a sweetener by name. The value brand counts six or more by design, the premium brand that markets clean often counts five or six, and the plain small brand often counts three; a count of two is the honest floor for an accurate machine fill; and the count is one minute of two, with the certificate by lot being the other.

What to check on the label

Questions people also ask

Which supplement brand has the fewest additives?

The one with the lowest excipient count across its catalogue, which a buyer finds in ten minutes by reading ten of a brand's labels in descending order of weight, counting the items after the active with the shell as one and the flow agent as one, flagging a colour, a coating or a sweetener, and taking the median; the value brands built to a price count six or more by design, the premium brands that market clean often count five or six because the premium went on marketing rather than a slower fill, and the plain small brands often count three, with two being the honest floor for an accurate machine-filled capsule.

What does clean mean on a supplement label?

Nothing legally: clean is not governed by the claims register, which covers health claims, or by the labelling rules, which cover the mandatory particulars, so it can be printed on anything, and the products carrying it differ in everything the word could mean; the measurable version is how little sits in the capsule beside the active, which is the excipient count, and a buyer who replaces the word with the count has a number that no marketing moves and that a brand saying clean most loudly often fails.

Are supplements with no fillers always better?

Not necessarily, and a count of one is a dearer fill: a capsule with the active and a shell alone is hard to fill accurately on a machine because a pure powder does not flow evenly without an agent, so a brand offering it has either accepted more variation in the dose or paid for a slower, hand-checked fill and charged for it; a count of two, the shell and one flow agent such as rice flour or a silica, is the honest floor for a machine-filled capsule at a fair price and buys the fill accuracy, and a buyer who wants a count of one wants a specific reason and pays the premium.

Is a clean supplement the same as a pure one?

No, they are two different minutes: the excipient count says how little sits beside the active and nothing about whether the active is what it says, whether the tub is free of heavy metals or whether the dose is accurate, which are the certificate of analysis's questions answered by lot; a three-ingredient capsule with no metals certificate is clean and unproven, a six-ingredient tablet with a four-metal certificate is proven and not clean, and a buyer who wants both counts the label and asks the brand for the certificate.

How clean is this site's magnesium by the count?

A count of two after the active, which is the honest floor for an accurate machine-filled capsule: the label lists magnesium bisglycinate, an HPMC capsule and rice flour as the flow agent, with no colour, no coating and no sweetener, stating 1500mg magnesium bisglycinate as 300mg elemental at 80% NRV in two capsules with the evening meal; the other minute is answered beside it, with batch testing for lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium and a certificate by lot on request, UK made under GMP and BRC, at 22p a day.

Sources

1. The pharmaceutical excipient literature: capsule shells, bulking agents, glidants and anti-caking agents, binders, disintegrants and coatings are functional non-active ingredients whose purpose is manufacturability, stability and dosing accuracy rather than effect. PubMed record
2. The clean label literature: clean label is a consumer and marketing concept with no regulatory definition, generally taken to mean short ingredient lists, recognisable ingredients and the absence of artificial additives. PubMed record
3. The food information regulations on the ingredients list: ingredients are listed in descending order of weight as used, allergens are emphasised in the list, and the name of the ingredient must identify the substance, so that a supplement's ingredients paragraph reveals the forms of each nutrient, the excipients and their proportions by position. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/1169/article/18
4. The titanium dioxide reviews: the EU withdrew authorisation of E171 as a food additive in 2022, while the UK's Food Standards Agency conducted a separate review and it remains permitted in Great Britain, with manufacturers increasingly reformulating away from it. https://www.food.gov.uk/news-alerts/news/titanium-dioxide

Related answers

• What company has the purest supplements?
• Is British Supplements a legitimate company?
• Is British supplements a genuine company?
• What is the best cheap supplements?
• Is it safe to buy supplements from Amazon?
• What are the best third party tested supplements?