Good Manufacturing Practice is a set of rules about how a facility operates: how it documents, tests, cleans, trains and keeps records.
Which means every honest GMP claim is a statement about a building. Not about a formula, not about a jar, and not about whether anything in the jar does anything.
What does GMP certified actually mean?
It means an assessor visited a facility, examined its quality system against a written standard, and issued a document saying it conformed on that date. In the United States the underlying legal requirement for dietary supplements is a federal manufacturing rule that applies to every facility whether or not anyone certifies it. Compliance is the floor, not the badge.
So a certification adds an outside assessment on top of an existing obligation. That is worth something and it is worth exactly what it says: a named assessor looked at a named facility on a named date against a named standard.
Who issues a GMP certification?
Private assessors, not the government. The Food and Drug Administration inspects facilities and enforces the rule; it does not run a certification programme and it does not certify supplement makers. The organisations whose names appear on GMP certificates — UL Solutions, NSF International, the Natural Products Association among them — are private bodies operating their own audit schemes.
This is where most of the confusion in the category is manufactured, usually by omission. A government agency enforcing a rule and a private body issuing a certificate are two different things, and copy that blurs them is doing so on purpose.
What should be asked of a GMP claim?
Five questions, and a claim surviving all five is a strong one. Who assessed it, by name. Against what standard, cited. Which facility, specifically the one making this product. When the assessment expires. And who holds the document, the brand or the manufacturer. The fifth is the one nobody asks.
- Who assessed it? A named body, not "a leading auditor".
- Against what standard? A citable document, not the letters GMP on their own.
- Which facility? The one making this product, or a different site in the same group.
- When does it expire? A certification with no expiry printed beside it is half a fact.
- Who holds the document? The brand, or the manufacturer.
The fifth changes the meaning of the other four, and it is the reason the paragraph below exists.
What does TARE hold?
Nothing. As of August 2026 TARE holds no facility certification claim at all, and prints no facility badge. We changed manufacturer that month, and the letters we used to cite named the previous one. A GMP document describes a specific building; it does not travel with a brand when the brand moves, and a company that carried the old letter across would be making exactly the substitution the five questions above are designed to catch.
Two things follow, and both belong here rather than three pages later. No badge goes back on this site until a letter naming the current manufacturer is in hand — and when one is, what we will hold is an attestation letter rather than the certificate itself: the manufacturer’s written confirmation that the original is in the manufacturer’s possession. We will say so in that word. And separately, TARE holds no third-party product certification of any kind — not NSF Certified for Sport, not Informed Sport, not USP Verified. There is no badge on this site because there is no certificate behind one.
What does a GMP claim never cover?
The product. It is an assessment of a quality system, so it says nothing about whether a given jar contains what its panel says, nothing about whether the formula does anything, and nothing about whether the ingredients were well chosen. A facility can be well run and make a poorly designed product.
One further distinction, because it is the one that matters to anyone who competes. NSF International also operates a separate and far more demanding programme that screens finished products for banned substances. TARE does not hold it and does not claim it. That programme is named in full, and disclaimed, on Testing & Certification — and a facility GMP claim is never a substitute for it.
Where the honest line sits
No dietary supplement is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, this one included, and registration of a facility would not be approval in any case. Any copy implying otherwise is describing a regulatory system that does not exist.
Print the expiry dates or do not make the claim. Ours are above, they are taken from the documents rather than from the filenames, and when one lapses the row changes or the claim comes off the page. That is a promise TARE keeps by paying attention, and it is the reason the dates are printed where a reader can hold us to them.
And the stronger evidence is elsewhere on this site anyway, which is the point worth leaving with. A GMP letter is an authority claim: it asks you to trust an assessor you will never meet about a building you will never see. A measured result needs no authority. Creatine assayed at 99.87% against a greater-than-99.5% specification. Collagen protein measured at 9.8 g against a 9 g specification, and lead at 0.07 mcg against a 0.5 mcg Proposition 65 limit. Those are on Testing & Certification, with the laboratory that ran each one named beside it — and a brand with no facility badge and three measured certificates is in a better position than the reverse.
More in this cluster: specification against result, the format that removes the arithmetic, and the sixty-second label procedure.