An ingredient is an argument.
Look something up and you get the molecule in three dimensions, the protein it acts on, the trials that worked alongside the ones that didn't, and a dose worked out for your body rather than for an average one.
The good sources are behind a paywall. The free ones look like 2009.
Somebody standing in a pharmacy holding two bottles of the same vitamin has a specific question, and it is never the one the label answers. Somebody formulating that bottle has a different question, and the answer is scattered across six supplier PDFs and a regulation nobody reads for pleasure. Both of them deserve better than a wall of citations with a subscription form in front of it.
You want to know three things. Does it do anything. Does it do anything for someone shaped like you. And is the dose printed on the bottle the dose anyone actually studied. The label answers none of them, and it is not allowed to.
You need the spec, the hazard sheet, the stability profile, the adulteration tests worth paying for, the overage the format demands, and a claim that survives review. Right now that is a week of phone calls and a folder of PDFs from people trying to sell you something.
Because the people who should pay for it are the brands. They license the explanation and drop it into their own product pages, so what you read on a bottle is the same thing you read here, written once and written properly.
{{ it.oneLine }}
Free to read. Licensed to embed.
Every supplement brand builds a version of this page badly, alone, at their own expense, and it is wrong in a slightly different way each time. Write it once, license it, and the same explanation shows up wherever the ingredient does.
The consumer side stays free and indexable. Nobody should have to subscribe to find out whether their multivitamin is fighting itself.
Formulators and regulatory teams pay per seat for the spec, the hazard file, the supply intelligence and the two generators. It replaces a week of work, so it is easy to price.
Branded actives carry their own marks, their own trials and their own licensing terms inside the record, so a company that funded the research gets named for it instead of watching a generic ride on their data.
{{ ing.oneLine }}
Only the things that change the answer for this ingredient are here. Set them once and they follow you to the next one, and they stay set when you come back.
{{ personal.headline }}
{{ noteBand.v }}
{{ ing.stackConsumer.t }}
{{ ing.taste.profile }}
{{ ing.bioavail.t }}
{{ ing.score.verdict }}
{{ ing.score.method }}
Caps the composite
{{ ing.cls.gradeNote }}
{{ t.t }}
{{ ing.evidence.gaps }}
{{ heroMol.note }}
11-cis to all-trans
in 200 fs
{{ p.cap }}
{{ ing.name }} on a spec sheet.
Everything you would otherwise chase across six supplier PDFs, two generators that turn a formulation decision into label copy that survives review, and the commercial surface underneath it.
{{ ing.sds.reality }}
{{ ing.sourcing.suppliers }}
A branded active keeps its mark, its own trials and its own licensing terms wherever it appears, including inside a brand's embed. The supplier controls how the mark renders. We control whether the trial is described accurately.
{{ ing.cost.model }}
Set the five variables and the generator returns what you can legally say, what you cannot, and a Supplement Facts panel drawn to spec.
A licensed brand drops one script onto a product page and renders the authored explanation in their own type and colour, with the seal beside it.
Grade {{ seal.grade }}, expires {{ seal.expiry }}
Serialised, dated and revocable. A licensed brand renders it on the product page through the same API that renders the explanation, so the number on the seal and the number on this page are always the same number. It carries the composite score and the grade, never a marketing adjective.