Testing for 200+ contaminants

A product taken every day should carry a certain kind of discipline.

For us, quality is not only about what a supplement is designed to deliver. It is also about what it should avoid carrying with it. We live in a world of constant low-level exposure, through food, water, air, packaging, dust, and the ordinary materials of modern life^[1]. That background is part of why Winnow exists in the first place. If small exposures matter over time, then a daily product should be built with that same logic in mind.

That is how we think about cleanliness. Not as a finishing touch. Not as a branding layer. And not as a decorative claim meant to sound reassuring from a distance. It is part of the product itself.

That is also why we test broadly. Our current testing looks across heavy metals, glyphosate and AMPA, a broad pesticide screen, microbiology, allergens, and a targeted adulterant panel for compounds that should not be present in a supplement at all. Taken together, the current records cover well over 200 targets.

One note on language before getting into the results: throughout this piece, “not detected” means the analyte was below the method’s detection limit in the third party lab workflow ^[2]. It does not mean someone has proven absolute zero. It means that, within the limits of the method used, the lab did not detect the substance in the submitted sample.

Heavy metals

Heavy metals deserve a more careful frame than they usually get. The point is not to pretend that trace exposure is meaningless. It is not. We live in a world where low-level exposure can come from many directions at once, including food, water, soil, dust, and the products we use every day. That is exactly why daily products should be held to a high standard. If background exposure is already part of modern life, a supplement should be designed not to add avoidable burden where it does not need to ^[1].

FDA identifies arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury as toxic elements it monitors in foods and dietary supplements, and notes that these contaminants can appear across the food system because they are present in the environment ^[1]. That context matters. Not because it makes the issue less important, but because it clarifies the real standard. The question is not whether a product can claim some abstract state of perfect purity. The question is whether it has been measured carefully, whether the levels are low, and whether the brand treats that work as part of the product itself.

Our current reported values are 0.01 micrograms of arsenic per serving, 0.01 micrograms of cadmium per serving, 0.005 micrograms of lead per serving, and mercury not detected. A microgram is one millionth of a gram. Most people do not think in micrograms day to day, which is part of why these numbers can feel distant at first. But for a product taken daily, scale matters, and so does time.

Over a 30 day supply, Winnow at these reported levels would total about 0.3 micrograms of arsenic, 0.3 micrograms of cadmium, and 0.15 micrograms of lead. Using the FDA Total Diet Study comparison values we reference internally, that is less arsenic than a cup of brown rice, less cadmium than a medium carrot, and less lead than a cup of spinach ^[1]. The point of those comparisons is not to wave the category away. It is to give the numbers proportion without stripping them of meaning.

For us, that is the real takeaway. Small exposures still matter. That is why we measure them. That is why we keep them low. And that is why contaminant control is not a cosmetic feature of Winnow. It is part of the underlying discipline of making a product for everyday use ^[1]. It is also why heavy metals are one of the next exposure categories we are most interested in addressing through future functionality.

Glyphosate and AMPA

Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world, and AMPA is its primary breakdown product ^[3]. That is why we test for both. If you care about cumulative exposure, it is not enough to look only at the best-known name in the category. You also have to look at what it becomes.

For us, this is the same underlying standard. A daily product should be designed with respect for background exposure, not indifference to it. We already move through a world shaped by low-level contact with chemicals and materials we did not choose. The job of a supplement is not to add avoidable burden where it does not need to.

In our current results, both glyphosate and AMPA were reported as not detected.

Undeclared or prohibited compounds

This is the section most people do not expect to see in a probiotic piece, which is part of why it belongs here.

Not every risk comes from soil, agriculture, or ordinary background contamination. Some risks come from adulteration, mislabeling, or compounds that simply do not belong in a supplement at all. A serious quality program should make room for that possibility, even when it is not the first thing a customer would think to ask about.

Our current targeted adulterant screen reports “not detected” across all listed compounds in the panel, including DMAA, sibutramine markers, Ligandrol, Ostarine, and 4-DHEA. Our goal is to one day be NHS Certified for Sport. This is our first step towards that.

Allergens

Allergen screening is about something very practical: cross contact can be invisible. A product can be made without a given allergen as an intended ingredient and still pick up trace contamination somewhere along the chain. That is why this category deserves its own dedicated look.

The current results show not detected across the allergen targets tested in the submitted sample, including coconut, sesame, lupin, fish, shellfish, milk, egg, soy, gluten, peanut, and multiple tree nuts. The current test menu also shows that these assays use ELISA to detect the allergen itself.

Microbiology

Microbiology is one of the quieter parts of supplement quality, but it should not be treated as a background detail.

Here it helps to separate two different ideas. One is pathogens or unwanted organisms that should not be present. The other is routine count measures that help describe the microbial profile of a sample. Those are not the same thing.

In the current results, key pathogen related targets such as E. coli, Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria species, Enterobacteriaceae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were reported as not detected. Other readouts, such as total coliforms and Bacillus cereus, were reported at the listed routine levels for the sample.

Pesticides

This is where broad screening matters most. Pesticide risk is not one molecule. It is a category problem. If you only check a narrow shortlist, you can still miss the thing that matters. That is why a wider panel is more useful than a cleaner sounding claim.

The current pesticide panel reports “not detected” across the analytes shown in the table below. The panel is broad, covering organophosphates, pyrethroids, carbamates, neonicotinoids, herbicides, fungicides, and related compounds.

What this means in plain English

We do not test broadly because we think one report can settle every question forever.

We do it because daily products should be made with respect for accumulation, not indifference to it. We do it because a clean label is easy to design, while a clean product is harder to earn. And we do it because in a world of constant low-level exposure, sovereignty begins with paying attention to what we can still control.

The visible part of a supplement is the bottle, the capsule, the claim.

The quieter part is the discipline underneath it.

That part matters more.