About

Global supplement transparency—based on available evidence, independent of industry influence.

An independent, evidence-informed platform for the structured analysis of dietary supplements, integrating ingredient composition, health claims, and labeling within established scientific and regulatory frameworks to support transparent and comparable interpretation across global markets.

What is Supplement.ge

Supplement.ge is an independent platform dedicated to the structured, evidence-informed analysis of dietary supplements, based on publicly available information, peer-reviewed literature, and established regulatory frameworks.

The initiative is led by the Public Health Institute of Georgia (PHIG) and developed with contributions from multidisciplinary experts in public health, clinical medicine, pharmacology, toxicology, nutrition, and regulatory science.

The global dietary supplement market has expanded substantially over recent decades, accompanied by considerable heterogeneity in regulatory oversight, product classification, and post-market surveillance systems across jurisdictions [1–4]. In many settings, supplements are regulated under food legislation rather than pharmaceutical frameworks, resulting in differences in pre-market evaluation requirements and evidentiary standards for safety and efficacy [2–5].

Empirical evidence indicates variability in labeling accuracy, the presence of undeclared or adulterated ingredients, and inconsistencies between marketed claims and available scientific evidence [6–9]. These factors contribute to uncertainty for consumers attempting to interpret product information and assess potential risks.

Supplement.ge addresses this gap by providing structured, non-exhaustive, evidence-informed interpretations of publicly available data.

The platform does not provide definitive assessments and does not represent a complete evaluation of any product.

Why We Created It

The conceptual foundation of Supplement.ge was established in 2024, with the development of a structured analytical framework aimed at evaluating dietary supplements based on ingredient composition, labeling characteristics, and the scientific substantiation of claims.

In 2025, this framework was operationalized through the launch of a national-level platform in Georgia. Early analyses identified patterns consistent with international evidence, including variability in compliance with labeling standards, inconsistencies in health claims, and limited accessibility of reliable, evidence-based consumer information [6–10].

A central observation emerged:
the dietary supplement market operates globally, whereas access to relevant safety and regulatory information remains fragmented.

A critical inflection point occurred in December 2025, following widely reported concerns in international markets involving products intended for infants and young children. These events highlighted systemic challenges in the timely and consistent cross-border communication of safety-related information, particularly where products were distributed across multiple jurisdictions under comparable formulations and branding.

Although international information-sharing mechanisms exist, the availability, timing, and accessibility of such information may vary across jurisdictions. Consequently, products subject to regulatory scrutiny or recall in one country may remain available in others for a period of time, reflecting differences in regulatory processes and communication pathways [11–14].

This episode reinforced a broader structural issue:
global product distribution is not matched by globally synchronized access to safety and evidence-based information.

It became evident that a country-specific monitoring approach is insufficient within a highly interconnected marketplace.

In response, Supplement.ge evolved from a national initiative into a platform designed to support cross-border analytical interpretation, focusing on elements that remain consistent across markets—namely ingredients, claims, and labeling.

In April 2026, the platform underwent a major methodological and structural upgrade, marking its transition into a globally oriented, evidence-informed initiative.

What We Analyze & Our Approach

Supplement.ge focuses on four core domains:

  • Ingredient composition and declared substances
  • Health and functional claims
  • Labeling accuracy and completeness
  • Certification logos and quality indicators

This analytical focus aligns with international regulatory priorities emphasizing transparency, substantiation of claims, and accurate consumer information [2,4,15,16].

The platform adopts an ingredient- and claim-centered analytical framework, rather than a brand-centered approach, enabling cross-market applicability and comparability.

Analyses are based on the interpretation of publicly available information within established scientific and regulatory contexts. This includes consideration of uncertainties, limitations of available data, and documented risks such as contamination, adulteration, or mislabeling [7–9,17–19].

The analytical process is non-exhaustive and does not substitute for regulatory evaluation or clinical assessment.

Who We Are & Our Principles

Supplement.ge is developed under the leadership of PHIG, with contributions from experts across multiple disciplines.

This multidisciplinary model reflects internationally recognized approaches to health risk analysis, integrating perspectives from epidemiology, clinical sciences, pharmacology, toxicology, and regulatory policy [20,21].

The platform is guided by:

  • Scientific rigor and evidence-informed interpretation
  • Independence from commercial and industry influence
  • Transparency regarding scope, methodology, and limitations
  • Commitment to public health and consumer awareness

Risk Classification, Role & Disclaimer

Supplement.ge applies a risk indication framework based on the interpretation of publicly available information.

Risk indications are provided exclusively for informational purposes and do not constitute regulatory classification, safety determination, or product approval.

Products are categorized as:

  • Low Risk — no significant concerns identified within available data
  • Moderate Risk — elements requiring cautious interpretation
  • High Risk — potential concerns related to claims, evidence, or regulatory consistency

This approach reflects the absence of globally harmonized regulatory standards and the need for cautious interpretation of available evidence [3,5,22].

Supplement.ge:

  • does not act as a regulatory authority
  • does not approve, certify, or authorize products
  • does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment

All analyses are based on non-exhaustive publicly available data and may not include all relevant scientific, regulatory, or product-specific information.

Supplement.ge assumes no liability for decisions made based on the information provided.

Users are advised to consult qualified healthcare professionals and relevant regulatory authorities.

References

  1. World Health Organization. WHO global report on traditional and complementary medicine 2019. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241515436 (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  2. European Food Safety Authority. Scientific and regulatory framework for health claims in the European Union. EFSA Journal. 2011;9(4):2170. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2170. Available from: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2170 (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). Available from: https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  4. European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on food information to consumers. Official Journal of the European Union. 2011. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/1169/oj (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  5. European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. Official Journal of the European Union. 2006. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2006/1924/oj (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  6. Cohen PA. Hazards of hindsight—monitoring the safety of nutritional supplements. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014;370(14):1277–1280. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1315559.
  7. Geller AI, Shehab N, Weidle NJ, et al. Emergency department visits for adverse events related to dietary supplements. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;373(16):1531–1540. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1504267.
  8. Starr RR. Too little, too late: ineffective regulation of dietary supplements in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2015;105(3):478–485. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302348.
  9. Tucker J, Fischer T, Upjohn L, Mazzera D, Kumar M. Unapproved pharmaceutical ingredients included in dietary supplements. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(6):e183337. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3337.
  10. Dickinson A, MacKay D. Health habits and characteristics of dietary supplement users: a review. Nutrition Journal. 2014;13:14. doi:10.1186/1475-2891-13-14.
  11. World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization. INFOSAN: International Food Safety Authorities Network. Available from: https://www.who.int/initiatives/infosan (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  12. European Commission. Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF). Available from: https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/rasff_en (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  13. European Food Safety Authority. Scientific opinion on infant and follow-on formulae. EFSA Journal. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3760.
  14. Food and Agriculture Organization. Risk communication applied to food safety. Available from: https://www.fao.org (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  15. European Food Safety Authority. General scientific guidance for stakeholders on health claim applications. EFSA Journal. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4367.
  16. European Medicines Agency. Guidelines on herbal medicinal products. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  17. National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements. Available from: https://ods.od.nih.gov (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  18. World Health Organization. Pharmacovigilance guidelines. Available from: https://www.who.int (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  19. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Consumer product safety risk assessment. Available from: https://www.oecd.org (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  20. World Health Organization. Environmental health criteria: principles for risk assessment. Available from: https://www.who.int (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  21. Food and Agriculture Organization, World Health Organization. Risk analysis framework for food safety. Available from: https://www.fao.org (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  22. European Medicines Agency. Scientific guidelines on safety evaluation. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu (accessed 2 Apr 2026).

Methodology

  1. Rationale and Conceptual Framework

The global dietary supplement market has expanded substantially over recent decades, accompanied by increasing complexity in product composition, marketing practices, and cross-border distribution [1–3]. This expansion has taken place within a regulatory landscape characterized by significant heterogeneity, where dietary supplements are commonly regulated under food law frameworks rather than pharmaceutical regulatory systems. As a consequence, considerable variation exists in pre-market evaluation requirements, evidentiary standards, and post-market surveillance mechanisms across jurisdictions [2–5].

At the same time, the widespread availability of dietary supplements has been associated with persistent concerns regarding labeling accuracy, the presence of undeclared or adulterated ingredients, and inconsistencies between marketed claims and the available scientific evidence [6–9]. These issues are further amplified by globalized supply chains, in which products with comparable formulations may be distributed across multiple markets, while regulatory responses and safety communications remain fragmented and temporally misaligned [3,10,11].

From a public health perspective, this environment gives rise to conditions of informational asymmetry. Consumers are frequently required to interpret complex and, at times, inconsistent product information without access to harmonized, evidence-based guidance. Such asymmetry may influence risk perception, decision-making processes, and ultimately health outcomes, particularly in contexts where regulatory oversight and communication capacity vary across regions [12–14].

The methodological approach adopted by Supplement.ge has been developed in response to this gap and is based on the application of evidence-informed analytical interpretation. Within this context, evidence-informed analysis is understood as the structured interpretation of publicly available information, including scientific literature, regulatory references, and product-level data, situated within established knowledge while explicitly acknowledging uncertainty, variability, and limitations of the available evidence [15–17].

This approach is conceptually distinct from both regulatory assessment and clinical evaluation. It does not aim to establish product safety, efficacy, or regulatory compliance, nor does it provide clinical recommendations. Rather, it functions as an interpretative analytical layer that supports contextual understanding of supplement-related information across heterogeneous regulatory environments.

The approach is aligned with internationally recognized principles of risk analysis, as articulated by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization, which emphasize systematic evaluation, transparency, and explicit consideration of uncertainty [18–20]. It also reflects key principles of evidence-based public health, including the use of the best available evidence, transparency in interpretation, and relevance to population-level decision-making [21].

A defining characteristic of this methodology is its non-exhaustive and non-definitive nature. Given the reliance on publicly available information and the variability of scientific and regulatory evidence, the analysis does not aim to provide definitive conclusions. Instead, it supports structured interpretation and informed awareness within a broader scientific and regulatory context.

 

  1. Scope and Analytical Domains

The methodological scope of Supplement.ge is defined to ensure clarity, reproducibility, and appropriate interpretation of outputs within a non-regulatory, evidence-informed context. The platform focuses on dietary supplements and related products that are marketed with health, nutritional, or functional claims. These products may be categorized under different regulatory frameworks, including food supplements, botanical preparations, or nutraceuticals, depending on the jurisdiction in which they are marketed [1–3].

The scope of analysis is inherently global, reflecting the cross-border nature of the supplement market. Products are frequently distributed across multiple jurisdictions with comparable formulations but are subject to differing regulatory classifications and requirements. The methodology is therefore designed to support cross-jurisdictional interpretability rather than jurisdiction-specific compliance assessment.

The analytical approach is explicitly non-regulatory and non-exhaustive. It does not seek to determine legal compliance, product authorization status, or clinical efficacy. Furthermore, the methodology excludes pharmaceutical products, clinical decision-making processes, laboratory or experimental testing, and the use of proprietary or non-public data. This delineation ensures that the platform operates within its intended role as an independent analytical and informational tool.

The analytical structure is organized around four core domains: ingredient composition, health and functional claims, labeling and product information, and certification and quality indicators. Ingredient composition is assessed in terms of declared components and their alignment with existing scientific and regulatory knowledge. Claims are interpreted in relation to available scientific evidence and applicable regulatory frameworks, with particular attention to both explicit and implicit messaging. Labeling is evaluated with regard to completeness, clarity, and internal consistency, while certification and quality indicators are examined in terms of their meaning, origin, and potential for misinterpretation [2,4,15,16].

Across all domains, the methodology adopts an interpretative and context-dependent approach. It recognizes that available evidence may be incomplete or evolving, that regulatory standards differ across jurisdictions, and that product formulations may vary between markets. The objective is therefore to support comparability, transparency, and contextual understanding rather than definitive classification.

 

  1. Data Sources and Analytical Process

The analytical framework relies exclusively on publicly available information, ensuring transparency, reproducibility, and independence from proprietary or commercially controlled data sources. Data are derived from several categories, including product-level information such as labels and manufacturer disclosures, peer-reviewed scientific literature, regulatory and institutional frameworks, and publicly accessible safety communications and databases [1–5,11–14].

Scientific literature is used to contextualize product-related information within current knowledge regarding safety, efficacy, and biological plausibility. Regulatory frameworks, including those of the European Union, the World Health Organization, Codex Alimentarius, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the European Medicines Agency, provide the normative basis for interpreting claims, labeling practices, and ingredient use [2–6,18–20].

Data handling follows a structured and standardized process. Information extracted from different sources is organized into predefined analytical domains, enabling comparability across products. Cross-referencing is applied to identify consistency or discrepancies between sources. Interpretation is conducted within established scientific and regulatory contexts and explicitly acknowledges the presence of uncertainty and limitations in the available data.

The analytical procedure follows a sequential process involving identification of relevant information, extraction of key variables, cross-referencing against scientific and regulatory sources, contextual interpretation, assessment of uncertainty, and synthesis of findings into a structured output. This process ensures consistency while maintaining flexibility to accommodate variability in data availability and quality.

The methodology is characterized by transparency, reproducibility, and context dependence. It does not aim to provide definitive conclusions regarding safety, efficacy, or regulatory compliance, but rather to support structured interpretation and improve access to relevant information.

 

  1. Risk Interpretation, Governance, and Limitations

The analytical outputs are accompanied by a structured risk indication intended to support interpretation. Risk, in this context, is understood as an interpretative construct reflecting the relationship between available information, the strength of supporting evidence, and the degree of uncertainty identified during analysis. It is not a quantitative measure and does not constitute a formal risk assessment in a regulatory sense [18–20].

Risk indications are categorized into three levels, reflecting increasing levels of concern based on the available evidence and identified uncertainties. These categories do not represent determinations of safety, efficacy, or regulatory status but serve as a structured means of communicating the need for cautious interpretation.

The methodology is developed and maintained under the leadership of the Public Health Institute of Georgia, with contributions from experts across multiple disciplines. The platform operates independently and does not receive funding from product manufacturers or commercial entities, thereby minimizing potential conflicts of interest.

Several limitations must be acknowledged. The analysis relies exclusively on publicly available information and may therefore not capture all relevant data, including unpublished studies or confidential regulatory submissions. The completeness and quality of available information may vary across products and jurisdictions. Additionally, scientific evidence related to dietary supplements is often heterogeneous and evolving, which may affect the strength of interpretation.

The outputs generated through this methodology are intended solely for informational purposes. They do not constitute medical advice, clinical guidance, or regulatory decisions. Users are advised to interpret the information within its methodological context and to consult qualified healthcare professionals and relevant authorities where appropriate. All interpretations are subject to change as new scientific or regulatory information becomes available, and no liability is assumed for decisions made based on the information provided.

References

  1. World Health Organization. WHO global report on traditional and complementary medicine 2019. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019.
    Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241515436 (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  2. European Food Safety Authority. Scientific and regulatory framework for health claims in the European Union. EFSA Journal. 2011;9(4):2170.
    doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2170
    Available from: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2170 (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).
    Available from: https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  4. European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers. Official Journal of the European Union. 2011.
    Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/1169/oj (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  5. European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. Official Journal of the European Union. 2006.
    Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2006/1924/oj (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  6. Codex Alimentarius Commission. Guidelines for vitamin and mineral food supplements (CAC/GL 55-2005). Rome: FAO/WHO; 2005.
    Available from: https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  7. Cohen PA. Hazards of hindsight—monitoring the safety of nutritional supplements. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014;370(14):1277–1280.
    doi:10.1056/NEJMp1315559
    Available from: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1315559 (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  8. Geller AI, Shehab N, Weidle NJ, et al. Emergency department visits for adverse events related to dietary supplements. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;373(16):1531–1540.
    doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1504267
    Available from: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1504267 (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  9. Starr RR. Too little, too late: ineffective regulation of dietary supplements in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2015;105(3):478–485.
    doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302348
    Available from: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302348 (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  10. Tucker J, Fischer T, Upjohn L, Mazzera D, Kumar M. Unapproved pharmaceutical ingredients included in dietary supplements associated with US Food and Drug Administration warnings. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(6):e183337.
    doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3337
    Available from: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2706496 (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  11. Dickinson A, MacKay D. Health habits and other characteristics of dietary supplement users: a review. Nutrition Journal. 2014;13:14.
    doi:10.1186/1475-2891-13-14
    Available from: https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-13-14 (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  12. World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization. INFOSAN: International Food Safety Authorities Network.
    Available from: https://www.who.int/initiatives/infosan (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  13. European Commission. Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF).
    Available from: https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/rasff_en (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  14. European Food Safety Authority Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies. Scientific opinion on infant and follow-on formulae. EFSA Journal. 2014;12(7):3760.
    doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3760
    Available from: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3760 (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  15. Food and Agriculture Organization. Risk communication applied to food safety: handbook. Rome: FAO; 2016.
    Available from: https://www.fao.org (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  16. European Food Safety Authority. General scientific guidance for stakeholders on health claim applications. EFSA Journal. 2016;14(1):4367.
    doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4367
    Available from: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4367 (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  17. European Medicines Agency. Guidelines on herbal medicinal products.
    Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  18. National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements. Dietary supplement fact sheets.
    Available from: https://ods.od.nih.gov (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  19. World Health Organization. Safety monitoring of medicinal products: guidelines for setting up and running a pharmacovigilance centre. Geneva: WHO; 2000.
  20. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Consumer product safety risk assessment framework.
    Available from: https://www.oecd.org (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  21. World Health Organization. Environmental health criteria: principles for risk assessment.
    Available from: https://www.who.int (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  22. Food and Agriculture Organization, World Health Organization. Risk analysis framework for food safety.
    Available from: https://www.fao.org (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  23. European Medicines Agency. Scientific guidelines on safety evaluation of substances.
    Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  24. European Food Safety Authority. Guidance on botanicals and botanical preparations used in food supplements. EFSA Journal. 2009;7(9):1249.
    doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1249
    Available from: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1249 (accessed 2 Apr 2026).
  25. World Health Organization. Guideline: implementing effective actions for improving nutrition.
    Available from: https://www.who.int (accessed 2 Apr 2026).

Governance, Independence, and Transparency

1. Governance and Institutional Oversight

Supplement.ge is developed and maintained under the leadership of the Public Health Institute of Georgia (PHIG), an independent, non-commercial public health organization.

The platform operates within a structured governance framework designed to ensure scientific integrity, methodological consistency, and accountability. Strategic direction and methodological development are overseen by PHIG, with input from a multidisciplinary network of experts in public health, clinical medicine, pharmacology, toxicology, nutrition, and regulatory science.

Analytical outputs are produced in accordance with the defined methodology and are subject to internal review processes aimed at ensuring consistency, coherence, and alignment with the platform’s principles. Governance mechanisms are designed to support independence, transparency, and adherence to public health objectives.

2. Independence Statement

Supplement.ge operates as an independent public health initiative.

The platform does not receive financial support, sponsorship, or in-kind contributions from manufacturers, distributors, or commercial entities related to dietary supplements or associated industries. No external party has influence over the design of the methodology, the analytical process, or the interpretation and presentation of results.

All activities are conducted under the sole responsibility of PHIG, in accordance with its institutional mandate and public health mission.

3. Conflict of Interest Statement

PHIG and contributors to Supplement.ge declare the absence of financial or commercial conflicts of interest in relation to the evaluation of dietary supplements.

Specifically:

  • No financial relationships exist with manufacturers, distributors, or commercial stakeholders in the supplement industry
  • No payments, incentives, or sponsorships are accepted in exchange for evaluation, inclusion, or representation on the platform
  • Analytical outputs are not influenced by external commercial interests
  • No preferential treatment is provided to any product, brand, or entity

All analyses are conducted independently and are based solely on the interpretation of publicly available information within the defined methodological framework.

4. Versioning and Update Policy

The content and analytical outputs of Supplement.ge are subject to periodic review and update.

Updates may occur in response to:

  • Newly available scientific evidence
  • Changes in regulatory frameworks
  • Identification of new data relevant to previously analyzed products
  • Methodological refinement

The most recent update date is indicated on relevant pages where applicable. While version histories may not be publicly displayed for all content, PHIG maintains internal documentation to support traceability and consistency.

Users should consider that interpretations may evolve over time as new information becomes available.

5. Transparency Statement

Supplement.ge is based exclusively on the use of publicly accessible information.

The platform does not rely on proprietary datasets, confidential submissions, or undisclosed sources. All analyses are conducted through structured interpretation of available data, within clearly defined methodological boundaries.

No data are modified, selectively excluded, or manipulated to produce predetermined outcomes. The platform does not provide definitive judgments but supports interpretation within a context of scientific uncertainty and variability.

Transparency in methodology, limitations, and scope is maintained to ensure that users can understand the basis and constraints of the information provided.

Additional Governance and Accountability Provisions

6. Accountability and Institutional Responsibility

Supplement.ge is developed and operated under the responsibility of the Public Health Institute of Georgia (PHIG).

PHIG assumes full institutional responsibility for the methodological framework, analytical outputs, and overall operation of the platform. All content is produced within the scope of PHIG’s public health mandate and in accordance with its internal governance and compliance structures.

For inquiries related to methodology, governance, or data protection, users may contact:

info@accreditation.ge

PHIG remains accountable for ensuring that the platform operates in alignment with its stated principles of independence, transparency, and scientific integrity.

7. Expert Contribution and Technical Input

The development and implementation of Supplement.ge are supported by contributions from professionals with expertise in public health, clinical medicine, pharmacology, toxicology, nutrition, and regulatory science.

These contributions are provided on a non-commercial basis and are intended to support methodological development, analytical consistency, and alignment with current scientific and regulatory knowledge.

The platform does not operate a formal advisory board. Instead, it relies on ad hoc expert input and internal technical review processes to ensure the quality and coherence of its outputs.

8. Ethical and Scientific Principles

Supplement.ge operates in accordance with established principles of scientific integrity, independence, transparency, and public health responsibility.

The platform is designed to support informed interpretation of supplement-related information while explicitly acknowledging the limitations of available data and the variability of scientific evidence.

Analytical outputs are developed without commercial influence and are not intended to promote, endorse, or discourage the use of specific products. The primary objective is to contribute to improved transparency and to reduce information asymmetry in the global dietary supplement market.

Last updated: April 2026

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *