A: Many of our products meet each of these designations. To see which product qualifies for which, look in the “Allergen” area of each Product Page. If you have questions about a specific product, ask our Customer Service at 1-877-433-9860.

A: Other than water, no residual solvents are used in the production of gelatin and glycerin used in our softgels.

A: You must be a practitioner and provide a copy of a practitioner’s license to open an account.  You must complete an Account Set Up Form.

A: No, but to receive free shipping, the minimum is $175 USD anywhere in the United States.

A: This means that it would take 2000 mg of regular quercetin to equal 1 capsule of our EMIQ.

A: NAC can be listed as either N-Acetyl-L-Cysteine or L-alpha-acetamido-beta-mercaptopropionic acid according to Health Canada. From a regulatory standpoint the names are interchangeable. Many of the ingredients listed with the Health Canada have multiple accepted names that are used when a product is being submitted to receive a Natural Health Products (NPN) license.

A: No. PGX Granules are not certified Kosher.

A: No. Suntheanine contains no caffeine. It is pure L-theanine.

A: Calm-Pro is suitable for vegetarians and vegans.

A: It is unlikely, but it is possible. After reviewing PubMed data, the only component which may potentially have anticoagulant effects is Withania. An active component (Withaferin A) was shown to have several anticoagulant effects in a cell-based study, including inhibition of platelet aggregation and prolongation of aPTT and PT (24534482). We have not seen any animal data or human data investigating this further, so it is hard to make any firm conclusions.

Additionally, both rhodiola and eleutherococcus were shown to not affect the anticoagulant activity of warfarin (animal-based, 18844284, 16635739)

A: No. Croscarmellose sodium is a plant fiber. There is not a source of salt.

A: No. Both our chewable Somno-Pro tablets and enteric coated softgel products are shellfish free.

A: Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”), known as “the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, ” is a California right-to-know law that was passed by voters in 1986¹. Among other things, the law requires companies to inform the public about the presence – – even at trace levels –– of certain substances in the products they sell or use. These “Prop 65– listed chemicals” are ones for which the State of California has decided that information about the chemical’s toxicity satisfies the regulatory requirements for addition to the Prop 65 list of chemicals.

When such a substance is present or may be present in a product above a very low level, the company is required to provide “clear and reasonable” warnings to the public that the product contains or exposes the consumer to “chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer”

or “chemicals known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.” Depending on the circumstances, companies may provide the warning by printing it on product labels, including it in documents that accompany the product when it is shipped to a consumer

 in California or posting it on signs in California businesses².

Prop 65 warnings are required for chemicals that are commonly present in a wide variety of everyday products, such as foods, dietary supplements, cleaners, and beauty care products,

 as well as for substances, such as pesticides, gasoline, car exhaust, and cigarette smoke.

As a result, warnings can be seen not only on product labels but also posted throughout California

in establishments, like restaurants, coffee shops, hotels, stores, buildings, and parking garages. In addition, for certain types of food, the purveyor is allowed to provide a general Prop 65 warning on a sign posted in the establishment rather than giving a warning for each specific food that contains Prop 65 chemicals above the trigger level. These include:

• Bulk fish and seafood
• Bulk fruits and vegetables
• Food sold in a restaurant
• Alcoholic beverages sold in a restaurant or bar

Prop 65 is enforced through lawsuits brought by the State Attorney General, district or city attorneys, or private plaintiffs³. A plaintiff does not need to show that anyone has been hurt in order to bring a lawsuit.

¹ Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/P65law72003.html
² Title 27, California Code of Regulations, Article 6, §25601 – 2560–5
³ California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.6, section 25249.7

For more info, visit California law Proposition 65 (ahpa.org)

A: When a Prop 65 warning occurs on a product, it needs to be considered in context with a consumer’s other environmental and dietary exposures to chemicals. You may want to contact the manufacturer and determine the substance that is the subject of the warning. You should also consider other sources of the substance in your diet and environment. Keep in mind that many foods, – including fruits and vegetables with important nutrition benefits, – contain trace levels of contaminants.

Lead and heavy metals are often the cause of Prop 65 warnings. If you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or planning to have children (even if you are male), you should take care to minimize your exposure to lead and other heavy metals.

Consumers should also consider that some products that may contain Prop 65 listed chemicals are not required to display a Prop 65 warning – products, such as pharmaceuticals, foods that contain naturally– occurring chemicals, and drinking water, as well as some products manufactured and distributed by small businesses.

For more info, visit California law Proposition 65 (ahpa.org)

A: Prop 65 is not a product safety law. Rather, it is a right-to-know law requiring the public to be informed when a Prop 65-listed chemical is present above a very low threshold. As the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the California agency responsible for implementing Prop 65, has noted, “A Proposition 65 warning does not necessarily mean that a product is in violation of any product-safety standards or requirements⁴.”

The law specifically requires that the level of a listed substance triggering a Prop 65 warning is significantly lower than the level at which any harm has been documented. In many cases, the substances in question occur at levels much too low to cause any measurable health effect, and no known link between exposure to the substances at these low levels and any actual risk of cancer or reproductive harm has been established.

For example, in the case of listed reproductive toxicants, the warning threshold is 1000 times lower than the level found to cause no reproductive harm⁵. In other words, if animal studies predict that a human could eat up to 1000 grams per day of a substance without any reproductive effect, Prop 65 would require a warning on a food item that contains 1 or more of the substance in a daily serving. This is further illustrated in the figure below.

⁴ OEHHA, Proposition 65 Frequently Asked Questions http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/p65faq.html
⁵ California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.6, section 25249.10(c)

For more info, visit California law Proposition 65 (ahpa.org)

A: People often equate the word “chemical” with synthetic hazardous substances. However, scientifically, the word simply refers to any substance with a defined molecular structure or  can be analyzed using chemistry. In this sense, every substance on the planet and all living organisms are made of chemicals. The Prop 65 list of chemicals includes both natural and synthetic substances, and both isolated chemicals and complex mixtures; under the Prop 65 regulations, these are all lumped together using the term “chemical.” 

For more info, visit California law Proposition 65 (ahpa.org) 

A: A product does not have to contain a level of the substance that represents an actual risk to trigger a Prop 65 warning.

• In the case of chemicals that may cause reproductive harm, the trigger is set at a level 1000  times below the level at which no measurable reproductive effect can be scientifically detected¹⁰. In other words, the Prop 65 warning would be required on a food containing a daily serving of 1 oz or more of the chemical if animal studies predict that a human would have no reproductive effect when eating up to 62.5 lb per day of the chemical.
• In the case of chemicals that may cause cancer, the trigger is set at a level which that may cause no more than one case of cancer in 100,000 people exposed to the chemical at that level on a daily basis for a 70-year lifetime¹⁰.
• For many Prop 65– listed chemicals, the responsibility for determining these trigger levels is placed on the companies selling products in California. In such situations, to protect themselves from lawsuits, companies may decide to provide the Prop 65 warning no matter how low the level of the substance is in their product.

Thus, because of Prop 65’s stringent warning thresholds, a warning may be required under Prop 65 even if no one would ever be harmed, and a warning may appear on products even when not required.

¹⁰ California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.6, section 25249.10(c)

For more info, visit California law Proposition 65 (ahpa.org)

A: Prop 65 exempts “any entity in its operation of a public water system¹¹,” which effectively exempts public water systems from the Prop 65 warning requirements. The regulations also consider that non-exempt businesses otherwise responsible for exposure to a Prop 65– listed chemical contained in drinking water (including drinking water in foods and other consumer products) do not cause exposures when the source of the drinking water is a public drinking water supply, a commercial supplier of drinking water, or any other source of drinking water that is in compliance with all applicable primary drinking water standards so long as the chemical in question is the result of treatment of the water to achieve compliance with primary drinking water standards (e.g., chlorination by-products)¹².

City, county, district, state, and federal government agencies are also exempt from the Prop 65 warning requirements¹¹.

Prop 65 warnings are not required when a company sells a product that is subject to federal labeling laws that conflict with or preempt the requirements of the California law¹³. This exemption applies to pharmaceutical companies, for example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must approve prescription drug labeling under federal pharmaceutical regulations¹⁴. This means a drug that contains a Prop 65 listed chemical does not provide the warning required for other products unless the FDA also requires the warning.

Prop 65 is intended to exempt small businesses having fewer than 10 employees¹¹. However, in practice, the law affects many small businesses that make consumer products because they sell through large distributors and retail chains. These larger parties are subject to Prop 65 warning requirements, and normally require the product manufacturer to indemnify them against any Prop 65-related expenses. Thus, the burden of Prop 65 compliance is often pushed onto small businesses despite the intent of the law to exempt them.

¹¹ California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.6, section 25249.11(b)
¹² Title 27, California Code of Regulations, Article 5, §25502
¹³ California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.6, section 25249.10(a)
¹⁴ Dowhal v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, 32 Cal. 4^th 910, 12 Cal Rptr.3d 262 (2004)

For more info, visit California law Proposition 65 (ahpa.org)

A: The presence of a Prop 65 warning on a food or supplement does not necessarily mean the food is less safe or pure than other comparable products.

Various reasons may explain the presence of a warning on one product and not on another. Some companies’ products may not contain any Prop 65 listed chemicals or may contain low enough levels that a warning is not required. Thus, the presence of a warning does not necessarily mean that a product causes more exposure to Prop 65– listed chemicals than a similar product without a warning sitting on the shelf next to it. No definite correlation between the presence or absence of a Prop 65 warning and the level of Prop 65– listed chemicals in the food or supplement can be assumed.

For more info, visit California law Proposition 65 (ahpa.org)

A: Modern supply chains typically distribute products throughout the U.S. or a region of the U.S. It can be very difficult for companies whose products are distributed both inside and outside of California to arrange for the warning to be delivered only to customers in California.  

A: A great deal of information is available from authoritative sources regarding chemicals in food. Here are a few references to consider.

• State of California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) website: www.oehha.ca.gov/
• U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommendations regarding mercury in seafood: www.fda.gov/food/foodborneillnesscontaminants/metals/ucm351781.htm
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency information regarding mercury and fish: www.epa.gov/choose-fish-and-shellfish-wisely
• State of California recommendations regarding chemicals in fish: www.oehha.ca.gov/fish/chems/index.htmlhttp://www.oehha.ca.gov/fish/general/broch.html
• EPA data on maximum contaminant levels in drinking water: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm
• Study on the cancer-causing potential of chlorinated water and chlorination by-products: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8487327

For more info, visit California law Proposition 65 (ahpa.org)