How suplements.store reviews products
We are an independent editorial buyer-guide platform. We do not manufacture, stock, ship, or process orders for any product. Our work is reviewing what is already on the market and routing buyers to the official manufacturer source for products that pass our screens. This page documents exactly how that screening works — so readers, the FTC, and brand owners can audit our process.
The four-screen audit
Every product we publish a review for must pass all four of these checks before going live. Products that fail any one of them are excluded. The screens are applied in order — failure at any step ends the review.
1. Official source verification
We confirm a single canonical manufacturer page exists for the product — not a reseller listing, not a marketplace storefront, not a dropshipper clone. The product must be sold direct-to-consumer through a verifiable manufacturer page that handles its own fulfillment, customer service, and refunds.
Products distributed only through Amazon / eBay / third-party marketplaces — without an identifiable manufacturer page — are not covered. We have no way to verify formula consistency, expiration handling, or refund process on those listings.
2. Ingredient and dose transparency
The official label must disclose every active ingredient with its per-serving dose. Products that hide the formula behind a “proprietary blend” or list ingredients without doses are screened out. Buyers cannot compare what they are paying for if they cannot see what is in the bottle.
We cross-reference the disclosed ingredients against publicly available research from NIH, NCBI, PubMed, and similar primary sources before writing any benefit-related copy. When the science is mixed or the evidence is preliminary, we say so in the review.
3. U.S. GMP-facility confirmation
The manufacturer must operate in a registered, GMP-compliant facility on U.S. soil. Good Manufacturing Practice certification is the baseline production-quality standard for dietary supplements in the United States. We do not cover products manufactured in unregulated facilities or without a verifiable production-quality claim.
4. Refund-window honesty
Every product we cover must have a clearly stated money-back guarantee (typically 60 or 90 days) that is enforceable through the manufacturer directly. The terms must be on the official checkout page — not buried in fine print, not contradicted by a separate “all sales final” clause, not gated behind a restocking fee.
If the refund process appears designed to trap buyers (mandatory phone calls during business hours only, RMA hoops, “empty bottle only” refusal to honor the guarantee on partially-used product), we either flag it explicitly in the review or skip the product altogether.
What we screen out
Beyond the four-screen audit, we will not publish a review for products that:
- Make hard medical claims (cure / treat / diagnose any disease)
- Use stolen photography or unlicensed customer testimonials
- List a fabricated AggregateRating in their schema markup
- Operate offers structured to violate consumer protection laws (forced continuity billing without clear disclosure, drip-fed RMA terms, chargeback-trap pricing)
- Use names, packaging, or marketing designed to be confused with a regulated medication or a competing established brand
How we describe results
Reader expectations are part of editorial integrity. For every review we publish, the body copy reflects three rules:
- Routine, not miracle. Dietary supplements work as part of a sustained daily routine — not an overnight transformation. We frame every product as a 60–90 day commitment, not a 7-day promise.
- Lifestyle pairing. No supplement replaces sleep, hydration, balanced meals, or movement. We pair each product with the foundational habits that actually move the dial in its category.
- Individual variability. Buyer outcomes vary based on consistency, baseline health, age, diet, sleep, and other factors. We do not promise results, and we do not present testimonials as predictions for any specific reader.
How we cite research
Each category guide on this site links to peer-reviewed research from NIH, NCBI, PubMed, and similar primary sources. These citations support the ingredient-level discussion only — they do not endorse any specific commercial product.
When the underlying research is mixed, preliminary, or based on small sample sizes, we say so in the review and frame the supplement as “traditionally used for” rather than “clinically proven to.” Statements about dietary supplements have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Affiliate links and editorial independence
We may earn a commission when readers purchase through affiliate links on this site — at no additional cost to the reader. Affiliate links are clearly marked with rel="sponsored" per FTC 16 CFR Part 255 guidance on endorsements and material connections.
Commission rates do not influence our editorial ratings or which products pass the four-screen audit. We have rejected products from coverage that offered higher commissions because they failed one or more screens, and we have published reviews for products with lower commissions because they cleared every screen cleanly.
Corrections and feedback
If you spot a factual error in any of our reviews — outdated pricing, changed ingredient panels, modified guarantee terms, or any other misstatement — please reach out via our contact page. Verified corrections are applied promptly and noted in the review where material.
Brand owners with a concern about how their product is described can also use the contact page. We will review the feedback against our four-screen audit and the public-source evidence we relied on for the original review.