Which independent labs publish certificate‑of‑analysis (CoA) databases for dietary supplements?
Executive summary
Several well-known independent testing organizations and programs publish searchable verification records or product-test results for dietary supplements, but a distinction matters: some publish full Certificates of Analysis (CoAs) or batch-level results, while others publish verification marks, product lists, or member-only reports rather than open CoA databases [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. NSF — independent certification with public product listings, not a full public CoA portal
NSF developed a formal certification program for dietary supplements and maintains public lists of certified products and sport‑safe certifications, confirming that products were tested in NSF’s own accredited labs rather than relying solely on manufacturer data [1]. NSF’s public materials emphasize label‑claim confirmation and contaminant testing, but reporting describes NSF as publishing certification results and lists rather than a universal, downloadable batch‑by‑batch CoA database for every tested supplement [1].
2. INFORMED (LGC) — batch testing and a global “certified” program that publishes program results
The INFORMED (Informed Sport / Informed Ingredient) certifications are ISO 17025‑backed programs run by LGC that test every batch of certified products and operate retail monitoring programs; their public presence includes program details and lists of certified products, and they state they test tens of thousands of samples per year [2]. Reporting indicates INFORMED’s strength is batch testing and program marks for sports products, but the available snippets describe program certification and retail monitoring rather than a single public CoA download hub for all analytical reports [2].
3. ConsumerLab.com — publishes independent test reports and makes methods public, but access is gated
ConsumerLab.com conducts independent product testing, publishes detailed Product Review reports and testing methods, and makes results available to members; their process includes retesting failures in a second independent lab and publicizing product‑level results within paid reports [3] [6]. ConsumerLab warns about trusting manufacturer CoAs and explicitly explains its independent-methods approach, but its database of test results is provided through member reports rather than an open, free CoA repository [3] [7].
4. USP and federal databases — verification programs and government label databases (not independent commercial CoA publishers)
The United States Pharmacopeia runs a Dietary Supplement Verification Program that performs rigorous testing and auditing and publishes verified products under its program [4]. Separately, federal projects such as the Dietary Supplement Label Database (DSLD) and the analytically focused Dietary Supplement Ingredient Database (DSID) provide searchable label and ingredient‑analysis resources created by ODS/NLM/USDA, but these are databases of label information and targeted analytic studies rather than universal independent commercial CoA repositories [5] [4].
5. Commercial ISO/ISO‑accredited labs and contract testing providers — perform CoAs but rarely publish public CoA databases
Many ISO/17025–accredited contract laboratories (examples in reporting: NJ Labs, RSSL, various commercial labs) offer testing services and can issue Certificates of Analysis to clients, and some brands or labs publish individual CoAs on product or brand pages [8] [9] [10]. However, the sources make clear these labs are primarily service providers; while they generate CoAs for customers, there is limited evidence in the reporting that they maintain open, searchable public CoA databases comparable to a centralized registry [8] [9] [10].
6. What this means for someone seeking CoAs: partial transparency, mixed access, and business incentives
Taken together, the landscape is fragmented: certification bodies like NSF, INFORMED, and USP publish verification lists and program results [1] [2] [4], ConsumerLab publishes detailed paid reports and methods [3], and federal label/ingredient databases provide complementary analytic and label data [5], but there is no single reporting source here that demonstrates a universal, freely accessible public CoA database aggregating every independent lab’s batch CoAs; many labs and brands instead publish selected CoAs or verification marks, and labs’ commercial incentives can shape what is published and to whom [8] [10] [11].
7. Caveats, alternative viewpoints, and gaps in the reporting
Sources argue third‑party testing and certifications are essential for consumer trust and that some programs test every batch (INFORMED) or make methods public (ConsumerLab) [2] [3], yet the data here do not prove that all independent labs publish open CoA databases; some organizations gate their full reports behind memberships or client interfaces and many contract labs issue CoAs only to paying customers [3] [8] [10]. Reporting also carries potential agendas: certification bodies promote their marks and market trust [1] [4], labs advertise services [8] [9], and brands highlight transparency when it benefits sales [11].