"I Run a Strip Company": Why We Publish Our Formulation Choices in Public

I need to say something uncomfortable before I make the case for transparency.

I run a sublingual strip company. I have a financial incentive for you to believe our products are better than the pill bottle you already own. Every word I write about XYNE Health is colored by that incentive, and if I pretend otherwise, I've already failed the test I'm about to describe.

So here's the deal: this article is a manifesto about why we publish our formulation choices in public — every ingredient, every dose, every sourcing decision, every rationale. It's also an argument that the supplement industry's default mode of operating (vague labels, proprietary blends, trust-us marketing) is broken. And it's written by someone who profits from you agreeing with that argument.

Hold both of those things at once. I think you can.

---

The trust problem is real, and it's worse than you think

The supplement industry is approaching $500 billion globally. In the US alone, sales grew over 11% in the twelve months ending February 2026. That's a lot of capsules, a lot of gummies, and a lot of money flowing toward products that most consumers can't independently verify.

Here's what that verification gap looks like when researchers actually check:

A 2023 study published in JAMA Network Open tested 57 supplements purchased from major retailers. Eighty-nine percent had inaccurate labels. Forty percent contained no detectable amount of at least one ingredient listed on the panel. Twelve percent contained ingredients that were outright banned. These weren't gas-station pills — they were products from real shelves at real stores.

On the regulatory side, identity testing failures are the number-one cited cGMP deficiency in FDA inspections. The FDA issued 145 warning letters to supplement companies in Q2 2024 alone, and has taken more than 7,500 enforcement actions between 2024 and early 2026. In March 2026, thirty warning letters went to telehealth companies selling supplements that didn't meet manufacturing standards.

Meanwhile, consumer trust is fragile. A 2026 Vitamin Shoppe survey of 2,000 Americans found that 47% had declined to purchase a supplement specifically because they couldn't verify what was in it. A Thorne/Fitt Insider study from late 2025 found that 65% of Americans feel more confident filing their taxes than selecting a supplement. When asked what would change that, 37% said science-backed formulas, 33% said clear labeling, and 33% said clean ingredients.

The industry's trust deficit isn't a marketing problem. It's an accuracy problem. And the solution isn't better copywriting — it's showing your work.

---

What "transparency" means vs. what brands use it to mean

Every supplement brand in 2026 says they're transparent. The word has become meaningless through overuse. So let me define what I actually mean when I use it, and what I think you should demand before you accept it from anyone — including us.

Real transparency has four layers:

Layer 1: Full dose disclosure. Every active ingredient listed with its exact milligram dose. No proprietary blends. No "blend totals" that hide which ingredient got 5 mg and which got 500 mg. If the panel says "Energy Blend: 800 mg" and lists five ingredients without individual doses, you don't know what you're taking. Full stop.

Layer 2: Form specificity. Not just "B12" — methylcobalamin or cyanocobalamin? Not just "magnesium" — glycinate, citrate, or oxide? The form determines the absorption, the mechanism, and whether the dose is therapeutically relevant. A label that says "Vitamin B12 — 1,000 mcg" without specifying the form is incomplete.

Layer 3: Sourcing and testing. Where the ingredients come from, who tests them, and whether you can see the results. Third-party Certificates of Analysis — identity, potency, purity, contaminant screening — available on request or published directly. cGMP facility compliance isn't a bonus feature; it's the legal minimum that a startling number of brands don't meet.

Layer 4: Rationale. This is the layer almost nobody does. Why this ingredient? Why this dose? Why this form and not another? What does the evidence say, and where is it weak? This is where transparency becomes useful rather than just reassuring.

Most brands stop at Layer 1 — and many don't even get there. Proprietary blends are still everywhere. The brands that reach Layer 2 are better. The ones that reach Layer 3 are the ones worth considering. Layer 4 is rare because it requires admitting what you don't know.

---

What XYNE publishes — and why

Here's what we put in public for every product in the XYNE lineup:

Every active ingredient, every dose, every form. Our Energy Strips contain 100 mcg of methylcobalamin (not cyanocobalamin — here's why), paired with L-theanine at a specific dose designed for the sublingual route. The panel tells you what, how much, and in what form. No blends. No hiding.

The format rationale. We make sublingual strips, not pills. That's a real decision with real tradeoffs. Strips deliver certain nutrients — B12, curcumin, L-theanine, iron — more efficiently than swallowed capsules because they bypass stomach acid and first-pass liver metabolism. But strips aren't better for everything. Calcium needs the gut. Magnesium glycinate absorbs fine orally. We've written a full per-nutrient comparison explaining which format wins for which nutrient — including the nutrients where the pill is the right answer. We don't sell sublingual calcium. That's a formulation choice we publish alongside the ones that make us look good.

Third-party testing. Every batch goes through identity, potency, and purity testing at an independent lab. We manufacture in a US-based cGMP facility. These aren't differentiators — they're supposed to be the default. But given the FDA data above, they aren't.

The honest limitations. Our strips have a dose ceiling. A thin film can hold roughly up to 150 mg of active ingredient per strip. For nutrients where you need 500 mg or more — like vitamin C at therapeutic doses — the strip format isn't the answer. We say this in our product descriptions. We say it in our article on sublingual science. We'll say it here again: the format has boundaries, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest.

---

The brands doing this right (they're not all us)

A transparency manifesto that only praises itself isn't transparent. It's marketing. So here's credit where it's due.

Ritual built their entire brand around a "visible supply chain" model. You can trace every ingredient to its source, see the supplier, and understand the sourcing decision. They were early to the no-proprietary-blends commitment, and they've been consistent about it. Their model works particularly well for their multivitamin lineup, where broad ingredient sourcing is complex and hard to verify.

Momentous operates with the philosophy "if it's in our formula, it's on the label." They carry NSF certification across their product line, which means an independent third party verifies both what's in the product and what's not (contaminant screening). Their focus on sports nutrition means their testing rigor is partly driven by anti-doping requirements — a useful external forcing function.

There are others. The point isn't that XYNE invented transparency. The point is that the brands doing it well are still a small fraction of the market, and the gap between them and the median supplement company is enormous. If more brands published their work the way Ritual traces supply chains and Momentous submits to NSF, the 89%-inaccurate-labels finding wouldn't exist.

---

What we don't do — and why it matters

Some of the most important formulation decisions are the things you leave out. Here's what XYNE doesn't do, and why we think these omissions matter as much as our inclusions:

No proprietary blends. Ever. Every active gets its own line with its own dose. The intellectual-property argument for proprietary blends has always been thin — most supplement formulations aren't genuinely novel, and the ones that are can be protected through other means. The practical effect of a proprietary blend is that you can't verify what you're taking. We don't think that tradeoff makes sense for the consumer.

No artificial colors or sweeteners. Our pullulan strips use plant-derived film and natural flavoring. This isn't a purity claim — it's a formulation choice. The strip format doesn't require the fillers, binders, and colorants that gummies and coated tablets need. We don't add them because the product doesn't need them.

No megadosing as a marketing strategy. The supplement industry's answer to poor absorption has been to make pills bigger. Take a 1,000 mcg B12 pill, absorb 1.2% of it — that's about 12 mcg. The response? Make it 5,000 mcg. You'll absorb 60 mcg. Problem "solved." We'd rather deliver 100 mcg sublingually at roughly 28% absorption efficiency — about 28 mcg absorbed — from a dose that doesn't require swallowing a horse pill. The absorbed dose is what matters, not the number on the label.

No unsubstantiated health claims. Our products support health — they don't treat, cure, or prevent disease. That distinction isn't just legal compliance (though it is). It's the honest version of what supplements do. A B12 strip supports energy metabolism. It doesn't "boost your energy." An L-theanine strip supports calm focus. It doesn't "eliminate anxiety." The language matters because the claims shape expectations, and inflated expectations are how people lose trust in products that actually work.

---

The uncomfortable part: why most brands don't do this

I said I'd be honest, so here's the part that makes the industry uncomfortable.

Publishing your formulation choices in detail is risky. It invites scrutiny. It gives competitors a roadmap. It means that if a study comes out next year that challenges one of your dosing decisions, you can't quietly reformulate — you have to address it publicly.

It's also expensive. Third-party testing costs real money. Full dose disclosure means you can't cut corners on ingredient quantities without getting caught. cGMP manufacturing costs more than the alternative. All of this narrows margins in an industry where margins are already the difference between survival and failure for smaller brands.

Most brands don't publish their formulation rationale for the same reason most restaurants don't put calorie counts on the menu voluntarily: the numbers don't always look great, and once you start publishing them, you can't stop.

I don't think that's a good enough reason. The 47% of consumers who walked away from a supplement purchase because they couldn't verify what was in it — those are people who wanted to take your product and couldn't justify trusting you. That's not a branding failure. That's a transparency failure. And the fix is structural, not cosmetic.

---

What to check before you trust any supplement brand

Whether you buy from us or not, here's the checklist I'd give a friend:

Check the Supplement Facts panel. Does it list every active ingredient with an exact dose? If you see "Proprietary Blend" followed by a single total weight, you don't know what you're taking.

Check the ingredient forms. "Vitamin B12 — 1,000 mcg" is incomplete. Methylcobalamin and cyanocobalamin have different absorption profiles, different stability, and different costs. The form matters. If the label doesn't specify, ask why.

Look for third-party testing. Certificates of Analysis, NSF certification, USP verification, Informed Sport — any credible third-party validation that the product contains what it claims. If a brand says they test but won't show results, treat that the way you'd treat anyone who says "trust me" when you ask for evidence.

Check the "other ingredients" list. This is where fillers, binders, colorants, and flow agents live. Some are necessary for manufacturing. Some aren't. A long "other ingredients" list isn't automatically bad, but it should be explainable — and the brand should be willing to explain it.

Ask why. Why this ingredient? Why this dose? Why this form? If a brand can't answer those questions clearly, they either don't know or don't want to tell you. Neither is a good sign.

This checklist isn't XYNE-specific. It applies to every supplement you take. And if applying it to our products raises questions, we'd rather answer them than have you assume the best.

---

Frequently asked questions

What does supplement transparency actually mean?
Real supplement transparency means publishing exact doses of every active ingredient (no proprietary blends), naming ingredient suppliers and sourcing origins, sharing third-party test results, and explaining why each ingredient was chosen at that specific dose. Marketing phrases like "clean" or "pure" without this backing are positioning, not transparency.

How can I tell if a supplement brand is actually transparent?
Check four things: Does the label show exact milligrams for every active, or does it hide behind a "proprietary blend" total? Can you find third-party testing results on their website? Do they name the specific forms of each ingredient? Do they explain why they chose those forms and doses? If any of those are missing, the brand is asking you to trust without evidence.

Why do supplement brands use proprietary blends?
Proprietary blends let brands list ingredients without disclosing individual doses. The stated reason is usually intellectual property protection. The practical effect is that you can't verify whether the product contains a meaningful dose of each listed ingredient. Some proprietary blends contain effective doses; many don't. Without the numbers, you have no way to tell.

Are supplement labels required to be accurate?
The FDA requires supplement labels to accurately reflect contents, but supplements aren't pre-approved before sale. The FDA enforces accuracy after the fact, through inspections and warning letters. A 2023 JAMA Network Open study found 89% of tested supplement labels were inaccurate. cGMP compliance and third-party testing are what separate trustworthy brands from the rest.

What third-party testing should I look for in supplements?
Look for Certificates of Analysis from independent labs that verify identity, potency, and purity. NSF International, USP, and Informed Sport are well-known third-party certification programs. At minimum, a brand should test for identity, potency, and contaminants. If a brand can't show you these results, ask why.

---

The supplement industry has a credibility problem, and more marketing isn't going to fix it. What fixes it is brands showing their work — every formulation choice, every ingredient decision, every honest admission about what their products can and can't do.

That's what we're trying to build at XYNE. Not a supplement brand that asks you to trust us, but one that gives you the information to decide for yourself. We publish our formulation rationale. We publish our per-nutrient format decisions. We publish what we don't sell and why. And we publish the limitations of our own format.

If you want to see the work, here's the lineup. If you want a recommendation based on what you're actually trying to address, start with the quiz. And if you want to read the science underneath all of this, the pharmacokinetics breakdown is the place to start.

— Brandon Herrion, Founder