SHOP BEST SELLERS
Shop our best selling products
Type: Performance Supplements
Protein Powder
Type: Performance Supplements
Electrolytes - Stick Packs
Type: Performance Supplements
Electrolytes
Type: Performance Supplements
Creatine Monohydrate
Type: Core Supplements
Source Magnesium
Type: Core Supplements
Vitamin D3 & K2
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Elements Shampoo
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Elements Conditioner
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Elements Tallow Soap (Lemongrass)
Type: Performance Supplements
Raw Honey
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Tallow Sun Balm
Pure ingredients
Raw ingredients. Ancient wisdom. Modern results. Every product contains only what nature intended:
- Grass-fed tallow rich in bioavailable nutrients
- Raw honey and adaptogenic herbs in their purest form
- Regeneratively sourced proteins, never denatured
- Zero synthetic additives or lab-made fillers
Small-batch wellness our ancestors would recognize. Because when you honor nature's integrity, your body knows the difference.
Purely Natural, Perfectly You
Let customers speak for us
Works great!
Great customer service
The taste and quality of this honey is amazing, bought 2 and definitely will buy again.
Love it!
The best! Amazing! Love it! And my kids also love it :)
The best
Great product
I am on subscription
I was super happy to see that even though it comes in a small container, a little goes a long way.
Great taste quality ingredients. Highly recommend.
Have tried a bunch others, these are the best. Actually hydrating and the packs are PERFECT for on the go. I keep some in my car, at home, everywhere
The best protein ever! The cleanest and purest protein I’ve ever tasted.
No comments. You are awesome! Even got some samples with my purchase.
One word: amazing. Bought the shampoo together with conditioner. Please believe when I say this is the best organic shampoo in the market. Leaves hair smelling amazing- so soft from root to end.
Beyond my expectations. It truly does work and smells amazing. Consistency is perfect. Highly, highly recommend it. Have tried other organic conditioners, but they don’t work. This one is by far my favorite one of all. Will be buying more!
Love this Honey, such a great taste. And it’s all raw.
Why Purishh?
Pure Ingredients
Handpicked and ethically sourced from trusted, natural farms.
Effective Results
Each product is designed to protect, nourish, and enhance your skin’s natural balance.
Holistic Wellness
Embrace a balanced lifestyle with supplements and creams that work in harmony with your body.
Frequently Asked Question
What makes Purishh products different from conventional supplements or skincare?
What makes Purishh products different from conventional supplements or skincare?
Purishh’s mission is to return to the raw, unprocessed power of nature. Every product is formulated with 100 % natural ingredients and no synthetic preservatives, fillers, or dyes. For example, the Raw Honey Butter contains whipped Wagyu beef tallow, cold‑pressed olive and coconut oils, mango butter, raw honey and beeswax – it moisturizes deeply and can even replace conventional lotion. The Raw Tallow Sunbalm uses grass‑fed tallow, non‑nano zinc oxide and organic oils to provide mineral sun protection while nourishing the skin. Purishh’s Protein Powder combines grass‑fed whey and hydrolyzed collagen with organic superfoods to deliver 26 g of easily digestible protein with zero added sugar. Across their range, Purishh keeps ingredient lists short and transparent, using only what is necessary to support health and well‑being.
Are Purishh’s ingredients ethically and sustainably sourced?
Are Purishh’s ingredients ethically and sustainably sourced?
Yes. The founders emphasize sustainable sourcing and ethical treatment of animals and land. Tallow for the skincare range is hand‑sourced from 100 % grass‑fed, Wagyu, halal cattle in New Zealand, ensuring humane slaughter and optimal nutrient quality. Olive and coconut oils are single‑origin, cold‑pressed. The whey in Purishh protein powder comes from grass‑fed cows raised without hormones or antibiotics, and the collagen is hydrolyzed for better absorption. These practices mean customers receive products that are both pure and sustainable.
Why does Purishh use beef tallow in its skincare products?
Why does Purishh use beef tallow in its skincare products?
Grass‑fed beef tallow is biocompatible with human skin; its fatty‑acid profile closely resembles natural sebum, so it’s absorbed efficiently. Properly rendered tallow is a vitamin powerhouse, naturally supplying vitamins A, D, E, and K that support cell turnover, immune function, and antioxidant protection. Tallow also contains oleic, stearic and palmitic acids that strengthen the skin’s barrier, calm inflammation and maintain moisture. Grass‑fed tallow offers a high concentration of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), an anti‑inflammatory fatty acid. These nutrients collectively help Purishh’s Raw Honey Butter and Raw Tallow Sunbalm to moisturize, nourish and protect the skin without clogging pores or causing irritation.
How is Purishh protein powder different, and why is it easy to digest?
How is Purishh protein powder different, and why is it easy to digest?
Many conventional protein powders use cheap sources and add artificial thickeners or sweeteners that cause bloating and digestive discomfort. Purishh starts with grass‑fed whey processed via cold‑filtration, which preserves natural enzymes and bioactive peptides that aid digestion. It also adds hydrolyzed bovine collagen to support joints, skin and gut health. The powder uses organic monk fruit for sweetness and contains no carrageenan, gums, sucralose or artificial preservatives, so it mixes smoothly and is gentle on the stomach. Each serving provides 26 g of complete protein with only 1 g of fat and zero sugar, making it suitable for keto, gluten‑free and non‑GMO diets.
What are Purishh Electrolytes, and how do they support hydration?
What are Purishh Electrolytes, and how do they support hydration?
Purishh’s Electrolytes formula offers clean hydration without the artificial colors and preservatives found in many sports drinks. Each serving includes over 800 mg of unrefined Himalayan salt, providing sodium and trace minerals, plus magnesium malate and potassium chloride. Organic fruit powders (raspberry or lemon‑lime) and monk fruit sweetener give a natural flavor without sugar. The formula helps replenish electrolytes lost through exercise, supports muscle function, and is keto‑friendly.
What is Raw Shilajit, and how should it be used?
What is Raw Shilajit, and how should it be used?
Raw Shilajit is a resin harvested from high‑altitude Himalayan rocks. It forms from decomposed plant material and is rich in minerals and fulvic acid. Traditionally used as an adaptogen, Shilajit helps boost energy, improve stamina and support overall health. Purishh provides 100 % pure Himalayan shilajit. Users typically dissolve a pea‑sized amount in warm water, tea or milk. Due to its potent minerals, start with a small dose and consult a healthcare professional if you have existing medical conditions.
What is the Ishh Leaky Gut Protocol?
What is the Ishh Leaky Gut Protocol?
The Ishh Leaky Gut Protocol is a step‑by‑step program designed to help restore gut health naturally. It includes dietary recommendations, lifestyle tips and natural supplements to support the intestinal lining. The protocol focuses on removing irritants, replenishing beneficial bacteria and repairing the gut barrier. It is not a medical treatment, so customers with chronic digestive issues should consult a healthcare professional before starting.
How should I store Purishh products?
How should I store Purishh products?
Store supplements and protein powders in a cool, dry place away from direct sunlight. Skincare products like Raw Honey Butter and Raw Tallow Sunbalm are natural and free from artificial stabilizers; keeping them at room temperature helps maintain texture. If you live in a hot climate, refrigerating tallow‑based balms can prevent melting. Always use clean hands or a spatula to avoid introducing bacteria.
When will my order ship, and how long will delivery take?
When will my order ship, and how long will delivery take?
Purishh asks customers to allow 2–3 business days for processing and production before an order ships. Once dispatched, average transit times are 7–10 business days; however, natural disasters, holidays and weather can cause delays. Free standard shipping is offered on orders over US$150 (or equivalent), and shipping costs for smaller orders are calculated at checkout. Purishh cannot guarantee exact delivery dates because delivery is ultimately the responsibility of the shipping carrier.
Can I subscribe and save on regular purchases?
Can I subscribe and save on regular purchases?
Yes. Purishh offers a subscription program for products like protein powder. Subscribing gives 10 % off the regular price, and you can choose delivery intervals (e.g., monthly). Subscriptions auto‑renew, but you may skip or cancel at any time through your account.
Are Purishh products allergen‑free or suitable for special diets?
Are Purishh products allergen‑free or suitable for special diets?
Purishh formulates products without common synthetic additives, but some items may contain potential allergens. The protein powder contains whey (a dairy product) and collagen derived from bovine sources; it is unsuitable for vegans or those with dairy allergies. The Electrolytes formula is gluten‑free, sugar‑free and keto‑friendly. Always review ingredient lists carefully and consult your healthcare provider if you have specific allergies or dietary restrictions.
Where are Purishh products made?
Where are Purishh products made?
Purishh sources ingredients globally, such as New Zealand Wagyu tallow and Himalayan shilajit, but manufactures products in small batches under rigorous quality control. By keeping production small and hands‑on, Purishh can maintain freshness and ensure every batch meets the highest standards.
Pür Insights
The Gut-Skin Axis: Why What You Eat Shows Up on Your Skin
The idea that gut health affects skin has been part of dermatology for almost a century, and it's also one of the most overextended concepts in modern wellness marketing. Both things are true at once, which is exactly why this topic deserves a careful look rather than either blanket dismissal or blanket acceptance. This post covers where the gut-skin connection actually comes from, what mechanisms have real evidence behind them, what the strongest human trials have found, and where the popular version of this idea has traveled further than the research supports. Every claim below is tied to a specific, named study you can look up yourself. The idea is nearly a century old The gut-skin connection isn't a recent wellness trend. It was first proposed in 1930 by two dermatologists at the University of Pennsylvania, John H. Stokes and Donald M. Pillsbury, in a paper titled "The effect on the skin of emotional and nervous states: III. Theoretical and practical consideration of a gastro-intestinal mechanism," published in the Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology. Stokes and Pillsbury hypothesized that emotional states could alter gut bacteria, increase intestinal permeability, and drive systemic inflammation that showed up on skin, particularly in acne. They were working entirely from clinical observation, decades before anyone could sequence a microbiome or measure inflammatory markers directly. Their idea was largely set aside for most of the twentieth century, in part because the tools to actually test it didn't exist yet. It resurfaced as a serious research topic once microbiome science matured enough to investigate it properly. A widely cited 2011 review by dermatologist Whitney Bowe and researcher Alan Logan, published in the journal Gut Pathogens, revisited the original theory and found that a meaningful portion of it had held up: the ability of gut bacteria to influence systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, and even mood has since been documented, giving the old hypothesis a genuine modern foundation. This history matters because it explains why the field carries real scientific weight while also being unusually prone to overinterpretation. A grain of a very old, plausible hypothesis has grown into a much larger set of claims, and not all of that growth is equally well supported. How a gut process could plausibly reach your skin Before looking at specific conditions, it helps to understand the actual biological pathways being proposed, since "gut health affects skin" is a conclusion, not a mechanism. Gut barrier function. Your intestinal lining is one cell thick, and the seals between those cells, called tight junctions, control what's allowed to pass from your gut into your bloodstream. In 2000, researcher Alessio Fasano and colleagues at the University of Maryland School of Medicine identified a protein called zonulin, published in The Lancet, which reversibly regulates how open or closed those tight junctions are. When zonulin signaling is disrupted, the barrier becomes more permeable than intended, a real, measurable phenomenon generally referred to as increased intestinal permeability. This is where a lot of popular content overstates what's actually established. The evidence for meaningfully increased intestinal permeability is strongest and most consistent in specific, well-defined conditions, celiac disease being the clearest example, where Fasano's own research is concentrated. Its role in vaguer, broader "leaky gut syndrome" claims covering everything from eczema to fatigue to autoimmune disease in general is a much less settled extrapolation. It's also worth knowing, in the spirit of genuine skepticism, that the popular commercial blood and stool tests marketed directly to consumers to measure "zonulin levels" have documented accuracy problems. Independent analyses published in Frontiers in Endocrinology (2018) and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2019) found that several widely used commercial zonulin test kits don't reliably detect the actual zonulin protein and may cross-react with an unrelated protein instead. The underlying biology of gut barrier function is real and well-published. The consumer tests built around measuring it are a separate, much shakier claim. Short-chain fatty acids. When gut bacteria ferment dietary fiber, they produce compounds called short-chain fatty acids, butyrate being the most studied. These aren't just a byproduct; they're a genuine signaling mechanism that influences immune regulation, including the activity of regulatory T cells that help keep systemic inflammation in check. This is one of the more mechanistically solid links between diet, gut bacteria, and downstream inflammatory tone, since fiber fermentation and its immune effects have been documented extensively in the broader microbiome literature. Systemic inflammation as the connecting thread. Both of the mechanisms above ultimately funnel into the same place: circulating inflammatory activity. Skin is a highly vascularized, immune-active organ, which means it's genuinely sensitive to shifts in the body's overall inflammatory state, whatever is driving them. This is the plausible thread connecting gut processes to skin outcomes; it's a real physiological pathway, not itself a proof that any specific dietary change will produce any specific skin result. The strongest direct evidence: diet and acne If you're looking for the best human clinical evidence connecting a dietary change to a measurable skin outcome, this is it. A 2007 randomized controlled trial by Robyn Smith, Neil Mann, and colleagues at RMIT University in Melbourne, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, assigned 43 young men with acne to either a low-glycemic-load diet or a typical high-glycemic-load control diet for 12 weeks. The low-glycemic-load group's diet was built around 25 percent of calories from protein and 45 percent from low-glycemic-index carbohydrates. At the end of the trial, the low-glycemic-load group showed a significantly greater reduction in acne lesion counts than the control group, along with greater improvements in insulin sensitivity. A companion analysis from the same trial, published the same year in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, found the low-glycemic-load group also had reductions in free androgen index and increases in a hormone-binding protein associated with less androgen-driven skin activity. It's worth being honest about the limitations here too, since that's the whole point of this kind of writing. The trial was small, 43 participants, all young men, and later academic critiques pointed out that both groups used the same topical cleanser throughout the study, which may have partly influenced results independent of diet, and that the researchers didn't fully control for other nutritional differences, such as fiber, zinc, and vitamin A intake, between the two diets. This doesn't erase the finding, but it does mean "low glycemic load improves acne" should be read as a genuinely promising, statistically significant result from one well-designed but modestly sized trial, not as a settled, universal law. Probiotics and eczema: a real case study in mixed evidence This is a useful example of how easily a topic in this space can be oversold, because the actual research history here is genuinely a back-and-forth rather than a straight line toward confirmation. A 2008 Cochrane systematic review, led by Robert Boyle, examined 12 randomized controlled trials of probiotics for treating existing eczema and concluded that probiotics were not an effective treatment. That's a genuinely negative, high-quality finding from one of the most rigorous review bodies in medicine, and it's worth taking seriously rather than skipping past. Since then, the picture has become more nuanced without becoming clearly positive. An updated Cochrane review in 2018 revisited the question with more accumulated trials. Separately, research specifically on prevention, giving probiotics to pregnant women or infants to reduce the future risk of a child developing eczema, has shown more encouraging signals than research on treating eczema that's already present, an important and often-missed distinction. More recent meta-analyses, including ones published in 2018 and 2025 looking specifically at pediatric populations, have found modest reductions in eczema severity scores with certain probiotic strains, particularly with longer treatment durations, while the researchers themselves consistently describe these findings as preliminary, heterogeneous, and in need of larger, strain-specific trials before they'd support a firm clinical recommendation. The honest summary: probiotics are not an established treatment for existing eczema, based on the best available systematic evidence. There's more encouraging, though still developing, evidence for probiotic use during pregnancy and infancy specifically for eczema prevention. Treating these as the same claim is a common and understandable mistake, but they're genuinely different questions with genuinely different evidence behind them. SIBO and rosacea: an interesting finding that hasn't held up consistently This example is worth including specifically because it shows how a single striking study can travel much further in wellness content than its replication history actually supports. In 2008, Andrea Parodi and colleagues at the University of Genoa published a study in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology examining small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, or SIBO, in 113 rosacea patients compared to 60 healthy controls. SIBO was significantly more common in the rosacea group, found in 52 of 113 patients compared to just 3 of 60 controls. When SIBO-positive rosacea patients were treated with the antibiotic rifaximin, the study reported an almost complete regression of skin lesions, sustained for at least nine months. That's a striking result, and it's a real, peer-reviewed finding. It's also one that later research has struggled to replicate consistently. A more recent controlled study out of Michigan Medicine, published in 2024 and specifically designed to control for confounding variables the original study didn't fully address, noted that the association between rosacea and SIBO has remained "highly variable" across the literature since, likely due to inconsistent testing methods between studies. This doesn't mean the original finding was wrong. It means one well-designed but singular study reporting a dramatic result is a hypothesis worth taking seriously and continuing to investigate, not a settled clinical fact, and that's exactly the distinction that gets lost when this study gets cited in wellness content as if the question were closed. What this actually supports doing Given everything above, the reasonable, evidence-consistent takeaways are more modest than a lot of gut-skin content implies, and that's not a disappointing conclusion, it's an honest one. Supporting fiber intake and the short-chain fatty acid production that depends on it is well-grounded in the broader microbiome literature, even though the skin-specific research is still developing. Moderating glycemic load has the most direct human trial evidence connecting a dietary change to a measured skin outcome, specifically for acne. Adequate protein intake matters for skin structurally, independent of any gut mechanism, since amino acids like glycine and proline are direct building blocks for the collagen matrix that gives skin its structure, which is a nutritional rather than microbiome-mediated pathway. Magnesium's broad role in inflammatory regulation is well established generally, even where its skin-specific research is less developed than its roles in sleep or muscle function. None of this requires believing every claim made about "leaky gut" as a diagnosis, since the well-supported version of that concept is narrower, more specific, and still actively being defined by researchers themselves. The honest summary The gut-skin axis is a real, century-old idea with a genuinely growing modern evidence base behind parts of it. The mechanisms, gut barrier function, short-chain fatty acid signaling, and their downstream effects on systemic inflammation, are legitimate and increasingly well-documented. The strongest direct human evidence connects diet, specifically glycemic load, to a measurable skin outcome in acne. The evidence for probiotics as an eczema treatment is genuinely mixed, more encouraging for prevention than treatment. A single dramatic finding linking gut bacteria to rosacea hasn't replicated as consistently as its popularity in wellness content would suggest. What doesn't hold up as well is the broader, blanket version of this idea, that gut health is a diagnosable, treatable root cause behind essentially any skin condition, testable with a consumer zonulin kit and fixable with a general-purpose gut protocol. The real research supports something narrower and, honestly, more interesting: specific mechanisms, tested in specific conditions, with specific and sometimes contradictory results. That's a less tidy story than most gut-skin content tells, and it's also the true one.
Learn more
What "Third-Party Tested" Should Actually Mean: A Checklist for Any Supplement Brand
"Third-party tested" is one of the most common and least meaningful phrases in the supplement industry. It shows up on labels, on websites, on social media bios, and in marketing copy as if it's a defined standard with a specific meaning. It isn't. There is no federal requirement governing what a brand must have done before it can call itself third-party tested, no minimum number of tests, no required type of analysis, no specification about which laboratory, no rule about how often testing must happen or whether results need to be published. The phrase has become a trust signal that a large portion of the industry uses without earning, because using it costs nothing and sounds like something meaningful to a consumer who hasn't looked too closely. This post is a checklist for what third-party testing should actually mean, built from what the words literally say and what a consumer would reasonably assume they mean. Apply it to us. Apply it to every other brand you buy supplements from. The questions are the same regardless of who you're asking. Start with what "third party" actually requires A third party, in any meaningful sense, is an entity with no stake in the outcome. In testing, that means a laboratory that isn't owned by or financially entangled with the brand paying for the test. This sounds obvious but breaks down quickly in practice. A supplement company can set up an internal testing operation, give it a separate name or brand identity, and call tests run by that operation "third-party." A manufacturer can have its own in-house quality control lab, run whatever analysis it chooses, and describe those results as independent. Neither of these involves a genuinely independent party. Even when a brand sends samples to an actual external laboratory, the independence is only partial. The brand selects which lab to use, pays for the testing, receives the results, and then decides whether to publish them. If a test comes back showing a product is below its stated potency, or contains an elevated heavy metal, the brand can simply decline to publish that result and run the test again, or switch to a lab more likely to pass the product. There's no mandatory disclosure of failed tests in the supplement industry, which means published certificates of analysis represent a self-selected sample of testing results, not an unfiltered picture of what testing actually found. The only version of third-party testing that eliminates this selection bias is when the third party buys the product themselves and tests it without the brand's involvement. This is what organizations like ConsumerLab do: they purchase products off retail shelves, the way any consumer would, run analysis, and publish results regardless of outcome. Brands can't choose not to participate, can't select which products get tested, and can't withhold results. That's genuinely third-party testing. Everything else involves some degree of brand control over what gets tested, when, and what gets shown. The accreditation question Not all laboratories that call themselves testing labs are equivalent. The recognized international standard for laboratory competence is ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation, which is granted by accrediting bodies that have evaluated the lab's technical competence, equipment calibration, quality management systems, and personnel qualifications. In the United States, A2LA (the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation) and PJLA (Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation) are the two most recognized accrediting bodies for dietary supplement testing labs. An ISO 17025 accredited lab has been externally evaluated and found to meet defined standards for producing reliable results. An unaccredited lab may still run competent testing, but there's no external validation that it does. When a brand says a product is third-party tested, a basic question to ask is: accredited by whom, to what standard? If the brand can't answer that, or answers with a lab name but no accreditation details, that's an incomplete answer. The information should be on the document itself, not something you have to take the brand's word for. What type of testing was actually done This is one of the most common ways the "third-party tested" claim misleads without technically lying. A brand might run microbial testing on a product and then describe it as third-party tested. Microbial testing tells you whether a product is contaminated with bacteria, yeast, or mold. It tells you nothing about whether the product contains what the label says it contains, or whether it's free of heavy metal contamination. Complete supplement testing should address three separate questions. Safety. Is the product free of heavy metal contamination and microbial contamination? Heavy metals, specifically lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury, are the ones that show up most commonly in contamination issues, and they get into supplements through raw ingredient sourcing rather than manufacturing process. Microbial testing covers bacterial and fungal contamination that can enter through handling and production. These are different tests for different risks, and both matter. Potency. Does the product actually contain what the label says, in the amounts the label claims? This is a separate analysis from safety testing, and many brands do one without the other. A product can pass heavy metal testing while being significantly underdosed. A product can be microbially clean while containing twice its labeled potency of a nutrient. Independent testing organizations have documented both kinds of failure regularly across the supplement category. Identity. Is the ingredient actually what it's claimed to be? This is particularly relevant for botanical extracts and specialty ingredients where adulteration is common, including shilajit, certain mushroom supplements, and high-value botanical extracts that can be substituted with cheaper materials. A brand that has only run microbial testing can truthfully say it's been third-party tested. Most consumers would assume that means something much more comprehensive. The gap between what was done and what a reasonable person would infer is where a lot of the misleading happens. The batch-specificity requirement A test result that isn't tied to a specific batch or lot number isn't telling you anything about the product in your hand. Ingredients change. Suppliers change. Manufacturing conditions vary from one production run to the next. A certificate of analysis from 18 months ago on a batch that's long since been sold describes a product that no longer exists on the shelf. When a brand publishes a certificate of analysis as a permanent webpage or PDF without ever updating it, or uses a single test result across all batches of a product regardless of when they were manufactured, they're representing one data point as ongoing evidence of quality. That's a misrepresentation of what a single test actually establishes. Batch-specific testing means the certificate references a specific lot number that corresponds to a currently available batch of the product. If you buy a bottle with lot number X printed on the label, the certificate for lot number X should be what's produced when you ask for documentation. If the brand produces a certificate with no lot number, or a lot number that doesn't match yours, or tells you they test "all their products" without producing a current, batch-matched document, the testing program isn't providing what the phrase implies. The GMP certification confusion Good Manufacturing Practice certification is a real and meaningful thing, but it doesn't do what many consumers assume it does when they see it on a label. GMP certification, whether from the NSF or another recognized body, evaluates a manufacturing facility's processes, documentation, cleanliness, equipment, personnel training, and quality management systems. It's essentially an audit of how a facility operates. A GMP-certified facility is one that has been evaluated as running sound manufacturing processes. What GMP certification does not do: it doesn't require testing the finished product for what it contains or what contaminants might be in it. A GMP-certified facility can produce a supplement that's underdosed, contaminated, or otherwise fails to match its label, and the GMP certification remains intact because GMP evaluates the process, not the specific outcome of each production run. This is an important distinction because "manufactured in a GMP-certified facility" frequently appears in marketing materials in ways that imply finished product quality assurance that it doesn't actually provide. When a brand responds to questions about testing with "we're GMP certified," that's an incomplete answer to a different question. The publication question Publishing test results is voluntary. No federal requirement compels a supplement company to share its certificates of analysis with consumers, even if it runs excellent, comprehensive, accredited testing on every batch. Some brands with genuinely rigorous testing programs don't make results publicly accessible, and some brands with minimal testing make whatever documentation they have very prominently available because it creates the impression of transparency. The presence of published documentation is a positive signal, not a guarantee that the documentation represents the full picture of what testing found. The absence of published documentation doesn't mean testing wasn't done, though combined with an inability or unwillingness to produce documents on request, it's a reasonable flag. What publication should look like: accessible, batch-specific certificates from named accredited labs covering heavy metals, microbial safety, and potency for the products claimed to be tested. Ideally updated when new batches are produced rather than relying on old documentation indefinitely. What we can and can't claim about our own program We've shared a significant amount of documentation throughout this content series, and this seems like the right place to be precise about where our own testing program meets the checklist above and where it's still being built out. Our protein, electrolytes, and chocolate collagen products were tested at Delta Labs of South Florida and Certified Laboratories, both ISO 17025 accredited labs with specific accreditation numbers on the certificates. Those results cover heavy metals and microbial safety as separate, documented analyses. Our magnesium complex and creatine COAs were issued through Manifest Labs. The documentation on those products includes a note that the information is based on certificates received from the ingredient supplier rather than finished-product analysis commissioned independently. That's a different, and weaker, form of documentation than the Delta Labs and Certified Laboratories results. Our soap, shampoo, and conditioner COAs from Nuvue Labs confirm FDA cosmetic regulatory compliance and microbial safety, but include language noting that some testing was performed in-house or by an approved third-party laboratory, which leaves the independence question partially open. Our shilajit analysis from VibeMedX is the raw material supplier's own batch documentation, not a test commissioned independently by us on finished product. The potency verification we have, creatine dose confirmed through HPLC, magnesium forms confirmed at their individual labeled amounts, protein content confirmed by Kjeldahl, represents some of the most directly useful documentation in the catalog. The gap we're actively working to close is extending that finished-product potency verification more comprehensively across the catalog, rather than relying on supplier-provided documentation for those components. Naming that gap explicitly is the whole point. If the standard we're describing in this post is the right standard, we're obligated to apply it to our own practices honestly, including where we're still building toward it. The checklist, consolidated Here's what "third-party tested" should actually mean when a brand uses it. Ask these questions of any supplement company, including us. Which specific laboratories performed the testing, and what accreditation do they hold? Look for ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation from a recognized accrediting body, and verify that the lab is a genuinely separate entity from the brand and manufacturer. What types of testing were done? Safety testing (heavy metals, microbial) and potency testing are different analyses. A brand that has done one without the other has answered only part of the question. Is the documentation batch-specific? The certificate should reference a lot or batch number that corresponds to currently available product. A document with no lot number or an outdated lot number doesn't describe what's currently on the shelf. Can the actual documents be produced on request? If yes, that's better than marketing language without documentation. If the documents show named accredited labs with specific numeric results against stated specifications for the current batch, that's the complete answer. Is the brand disclosing what wasn't tested or where documentation comes from supplier data rather than independently commissioned analysis? Transparency about the limits of the testing program is itself a meaningful signal. None of this makes "third-party tested" a guarantee of anything. Testing is sampling, not certainty, and even a rigorous program represents a data point about a batch rather than a permanent statement about every unit ever produced. But a brand that can answer all of these questions honestly, including the places where they can't yet answer them completely, is doing something meaningfully different from a brand that prints "third-party tested" on the label and calls it handled.
Learn more
Raw Honey's Antibacterial Science: What's Proven and What's Hype
Raw honey occupies an interesting position in the wellness world. On one side you have thousands of years of traditional use across cultures that regarded it as a genuine healing substance. On the other you have the modern instinct to dismiss anything with folk medicine roots as placebo until proven otherwise. The actual science sits somewhere in between, which is a more interesting place than either extreme, and more useful once you understand specifically what mechanisms are real and what claims have traveled further than the evidence supports. This post is about what honey's antibacterial properties are, where they come from, how strong the evidence actually is, and where the research ends and the marketing begins. The mechanisms are real, and there are several of them Honey's antibacterial activity isn't one thing. It's the result of multiple overlapping mechanisms that work simultaneously, and this is part of why honey has been consistently effective against a range of bacteria in laboratory settings across a long history of research. Hydrogen peroxide generation. When honey is diluted with water, an enzyme called glucose oxidase, which bees add during honey production, converts glucose in the honey into gluconolactone and hydrogen peroxide. The hydrogen peroxide produced is in low, sustained concentrations, enough to inhibit bacterial growth without the tissue toxicity that makes pharmaceutical hydrogen peroxide unsuitable for wound care at higher concentrations. This is the primary antibacterial mechanism in most non-Manuka raw honeys, and it's also the mechanism most sensitive to processing, which is why it matters that honey is genuinely raw rather than heat-treated. Pasteurization and high-heat processing inactivate glucose oxidase. A pasteurized honey that looks identical to raw honey on a label, unless the label specifies otherwise, may have lost most or all of this specific activity. The enzyme is relatively fragile, and temperatures above roughly 40 to 45 degrees Celsius, the temperature at or above which hive conditions don't typically go, begin to degrade it. This is one of the clearest, most mechanistically grounded reasons to distinguish raw from processed honey, not a marketing claim but a specific biochemical consequence of how the product was handled. Low water activity. Honey is hygroscopic, meaning it draws moisture from its surroundings. Its very low water activity, a measure of available water in a substance, creates an environment where most bacteria struggle to grow simply because there isn't enough free water for them to function. This is a physical rather than chemical mechanism, and it's one reason honey has been used as a preservative historically. This mechanism doesn't require any particular enzyme activity and is largely retained regardless of processing. Acidity. Honey typically has a pH between 3.2 and 4.5, which is meaningfully acidic. Most pathogenic bacteria prefer a more neutral pH range, and the acidic environment honey creates is hostile to their growth. Phenolic compounds and flavonoids. Honey contains a range of phenolic acids and flavonoids that contribute antibacterial and antioxidant activity. The specific compounds and their concentrations vary considerably depending on the floral sources the bees foraged from, which is why honeys from different regions and botanical sources have different antibacterial profiles in laboratory testing. Buckwheat honey, for instance, consistently tests with higher phenolic content than clover honey. The diversity of these compounds in raw honey is part of why the research on honey's antibacterial activity is real, even when different studies test different honey types and get somewhat different results. Defensin-1. Bees add a peptide called defensin-1, part of their own immune system, to honey during production. This protein has demonstrated antibacterial activity in laboratory testing. Like glucose oxidase, it's susceptible to degradation from heat and light, making preservation through minimal processing relevant to retaining it. What Manuka is specifically about Manuka honey, produced in New Zealand and Australia from bees foraging on the Leptospermum scoparium plant, has become the most heavily researched and most heavily marketed honey in the world. Understanding what distinguishes it is useful for understanding what raw honey from other sources actually does and doesn't share. Manuka's distinctive quality is methylglyoxal, or MGO, a compound present in unusually high concentrations compared to virtually all other honey types. MGO is derived from dihydroxyacetone in the nectar of Leptospermum flowers and accumulates in the honey over time. It provides potent antibacterial activity that, crucially, does not depend on hydrogen peroxide, meaning it's heat-stable in a way the glucose oxidase mechanism isn't. This is what gives genuine high-MGO Manuka honey its reputation as particularly effective for topical wound care and as more robust than other honeys. The rating systems you'll see on Manuka products, UMF (Unique Manuka Factor), MGO numbers, or other certifications, are attempts to provide consumers with a standardized way to assess potency. A genuine UMF 20+ or MGO 800+ Manuka honey has documented, verifiable antibacterial activity at a specific level. The ratings matter because the Manuka market has significant adulteration problems, products claiming to be high-grade Manuka with actual activity levels that don't match the label. What this means for raw honey from other floral sources: the hydrogen peroxide mechanism, low water activity, acidity, phenolics, and defensin-1 are all still present and all still real. Non-Manuka raw honey has genuine antibacterial activity. It's just a different profile, more dependent on the H2O2 pathway and more variable by floral source, and with a different evidence base than the Manuka-specific research. What the wound care evidence actually shows This is where the research is strongest, and it's worth being specific about why. Laboratory studies showing honey inhibits bacteria in a dish are abundant and consistent. Honey has demonstrated activity against Staphylococcus aureus including MRSA strains, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and a range of other common wound pathogens. These aren't obscure or contested findings. The antibacterial activity of honey in laboratory conditions is well-established. The clinical evidence for wound care has grown meaningfully over the past two decades, including a Cochrane review that examined honey for acute and chronic wounds and found evidence supporting its use for superficial burns and infected surgical wounds, with honey-impregnated dressings showing faster healing times compared to conventional dressings in several trials. Medihoney, a commercially prepared Manuka honey wound product, is licensed as a medical device in multiple countries, which reflects the regulatory view that the evidence is sufficient for that specific application. The honest limitations: most wound care research uses specific medical-grade honey preparations, not retail raw honey from a wellness brand. Medical-grade honey is gamma-irradiated to eliminate any risk of Clostridium botulinum spores, which is relevant to wound application on open tissue. Retail raw honey is not. The antibacterial mechanisms are the same, but the research establishing efficacy in wound care was done on preparations that went through a specific sterilization process, and applying those findings directly to applying retail honey to open wounds is a bridge the research doesn't clearly support. The dietary and internal claims: where it gets weaker Where honey's antibacterial reputation outpaces its evidence is in internal use as a treatment for infections or as a general internal antibacterial agent. Consuming honey does not deliver meaningful antibacterial activity to your gut or bloodstream in the way applying it to a wound surface does. The hydrogen peroxide, for instance, is inactivated by catalase enzymes present in blood and tissue when honey is consumed. The antimicrobial compounds are diluted significantly through digestion, and the concentrations reaching gut tissue are far below what inhibits bacteria in laboratory settings where honey is applied directly. Where there is some reasonable evidence for dietary honey: it has demonstrated modest prebiotic effects, supporting beneficial gut bacteria in some studies, and may have genuine benefits for throat soothing and cough, supported by several trials comparing honey to placebo or common cough medications, particularly in children. These are real, useful findings. They're different from honey being an internal antibiotic or a treatment for systemic bacterial infection, which it isn't. The "raw honey is antibacterial so eating it supports your immune system" chain of reasoning is one where each step sounds plausible but the conclusion outpaces what the evidence actually tracks. Honey has genuine immunomodulatory and antioxidant properties through its phenolic compounds, but "honey is antibacterial when applied topically" and "eating honey kills bacteria internally" describe two different biological situations with different levels of evidence. What "raw" means, and what it doesn't In the United States, "raw honey" has no legal regulatory definition. Any honey producer can call their product raw, and what they mean by that can vary. The practical, common-usage definition of raw honey: minimally processed, not heated above hive temperature (roughly 35 to 38 degrees Celsius), filtered to remove debris but not ultrafiltered to the point of removing pollen, and retaining its natural enzyme content. This is the version of raw honey where the antibacterial mechanisms described above are most likely to be intact. Ultrafiltered honey is a different product. It's been processed through very fine filters to remove pollen, which makes it shelf-stable and resistant to crystallization but also removes much of what distinguishes honey as a product of specific geographic and floral origin. Pollen content is one of the markers used to verify honey's authentic origin and to distinguish it from adulterated products. Crystallization is worth a specific mention: raw honey that hasn't been overprocessed almost always crystallizes over time. The glucose in honey forms crystals at room temperature, and crystallized honey is a sign of a natural product, not a product that's spoiled. Warming it gently in warm water returns it to a liquid state without damaging the enzyme content. Ultra-processed honey is manipulated specifically to prevent crystallization, which makes it look more appealing on a shelf but removes one of the natural characteristics of the real product. For skin: what it's actually doing Our soap and conditioner formulations include organic raw honey, and it's worth being specific about what it's contributing there, because topical honey in a cosmetic product is a different context from topical honey in a wound dressing. In a soap or conditioner, honey functions primarily as a humectant, drawing moisture to the skin and hair, and contributes its mild antimicrobial activity to the overall formulation. It's genuinely an effective humectant, and the research on honey's moisture-binding properties is solid. In a rinse-off product used in the shower, the contact time isn't long enough for wound-care-level antibacterial activity to be the relevant contribution, but the humectant and conditioning properties are relevant. We include it because it's a functional, well-tolerated natural ingredient with a real role in the product rather than a marketing ingredient added to a formula that doesn't actually use it meaningfully. The one safety point worth making Raw honey should not be given to infants under 12 months of age. Honey can contain Clostridium botulinum spores, which are harmless to adults and older children whose digestive systems can handle them, but which can germinate and produce toxin in the immature gut of an infant. This is a real, well-established risk, and it applies to all raw honey regardless of quality or source. The age threshold of 12 months is the consistent guidance from pediatric and public health authorities globally. The honest summary Raw honey's antibacterial activity is real, mechanistically well-understood, and backed by meaningful research, particularly for topical wound care. The mechanisms, hydrogen peroxide from glucose oxidase, low water activity, acidity, phenolic compounds, and defensin-1, are all genuine contributors. Manuka honey has an additional, heat-stable mechanism through methylglyoxal that explains its stronger evidence base for wound applications. Where the evidence thins is in claims about honey as an internal antibacterial, or as a treatment for systemic infection, or as delivering the same activity internally that it does topically. The biology of how these mechanisms work changes significantly depending on whether honey is sitting on a wound surface or passing through your digestive system. Raw honey from quality sources is a genuinely interesting substance with well-documented activity in specific contexts. The honest position is to be specific about what those contexts are rather than stretching the topical antibacterial evidence across every possible use case. That precision is more useful than a broad claim, and it holds up when examined closely.
Learn more