Actives, potency and what you are claiming

In most food categories the label describes what is in the package. In supplements it states a quantity of something and that quantity is the product.

The label is a quantitative claim

A Supplement Facts panel declares an amount per serving. That is a measurable assertion, testable by anybody, and it is what distinguishes this category from most small-manufacturer food.

Which means everything that reduces the amount present, degradation, poor blending, a wrong scoop, is not a quality slip. It makes the panel untrue.

Where potency actually goes

Into the blend unevenly, so a serving contains less than the average. This is the invisible one and it is why uniformity is a potency question.

Out over shelf life, through oxidation and moisture. Sensitive vitamins and botanical actives decline; minerals largely do not.

Never in to begin with, if the raw material was not what it claimed. Which is why identity testing sits at the front of the process rather than the end.

Blending itself helps: dispersing a sensitive ingredient evenly with a protective carrier is part of what maintains potency across shelf life, so good blending pays twice.

Standardized extracts

Botanical ingredients are frequently sold standardized to a percentage of a marker compound. That is useful and it is narrower than it sounds: it guarantees the marker, not the whole profile, and two extracts standardized to the same marker can differ substantially otherwise.

It is still far better than an unstandardized material, where the only claim available is the weight of plant matter.

What to promise

An amount you can test, at a level with evidence behind it, protected well enough to still be there at the end of shelf life.

And be careful with the language around it. A structure/function claim is permitted with substantiation and the required disclaimer; a claim to treat or prevent a disease is a drug claim and moves the product into a different regime entirely.

References