Four documents.
Two kinds of number.
Every figure in the tables below is transcribed from a certificate of analysis, with the lot number on it and the date it was issued. Where a figure comes from our label instead, the panel says so and says what the certificate does and does not corroborate. Two of the four report measured results. Two report specification limits, which is a different thing, and each panel says which it is. If you have never read one of these before, the next section is written for you.
What is on this page today, and what is not
The numbers are here. The files are not, yet.
Every certificate we hold carries a line requiring our manufacturer's written approval before it is reproduced. We do not have that approval yet. Until we do, we publish the figures rather than the files — a measured result is a fact about a quantity of powder, and a fact is ours to state.
So this is the whole table, transcribed row by row, with the method and the specification printed beside every result so you can see the margin rather than take a word for it. The day the approval arrives, six PDFs appear at the foot of this page and this note comes down. Nothing else on the page will need to change, because nothing on it is a summary.
What a certificate of
analysis actually is.
Nobody is born knowing this. It takes about three minutes and it makes every supplement shelf in the country legible.
A certificate of analysis is a lab report on one production lot. It is not a certificate in the sense of an award — nothing is being awarded. A quantity of powder was made, a sample was pulled from it, tests were run, and the numbers came back. The certificate is the paper those numbers are written on. It names the product, it names the lot, and it lists one row per test.
Every row carries up to four things, and reading a certificate is reading those four in order.
- Analysis
- What was tested. Lead. Salmonella. Magnesium. One row each.
- Method
- How it was tested.
USP <2021>andAOAC 991.14are published methods with numbers — anyone can look up what they involve. A row with no method printed on it is a row you cannot check. - Specification
- The limit the formula has to meet.
< 3 ppmmeans the result has to come in under three parts per million. This is a target, not a finding. - Result
- What the test actually found.
0.005 ppm. This is the finding.
The whole skill is holding the last two apart
A specification is what the formula is supposed to be. A result is what a test found. Read a certificate that prints only the specification column and you have learned what the manufacturer was aiming at. You have not learned whether they hit it.
Both kinds of document are worth having and they are not the same document. Two of ours report both columns. Two report only the specification. We print which is which at the top of every panel below, in words, because a reader would work it out in about a minute and it is better coming from us.
How to read a result once you have one
Read it against the specification beside it, never on its own. 0.005 ppm means nothing by itself. 0.005 ppm against a limit of 3 ppm is a margin of roughly six hundred to one, and now the number has told you something. That is why every table below keeps the two columns side by side instead of printing a tidy list of results.
Two conventions worth knowing before you meet them. “Record only” in a specification column means the method has no pass-or-fail limit set for this product: the value is recorded and reported, not judged against a ceiling. And a result written as less-than something — < 0.001 ppm, < 20 cfu/g — is the smallest amount the method can report, not zero. It means the test could not find any, which is a different sentence from “there is none.” We are not going to round that up for you.
And what a table replaces
This category runs on short phrases printed on labels — that a product is tested, that a facility is registered, that a jar is clean. A phrase is a summary somebody wrote about a document. We are not going to tell you anyone else's summary is wrong; we have not read anybody else's paperwork and we are not going to guess at it.
What we will do is name the difference and let you use it. A phrase has no lot number on it. A table does. Ours has four lot numbers on it, and the specification is printed beside every result so the margin is visible rather than described. Take that to any other jar on your shelf and ask it for the same table. That is the only comparison worth making, and it takes about ten seconds.
There are two specific phrases you will not find anywhere on this site, and the reason we do not use them is written out on the policies page. It is the same reason: we read the documents, and the documents do not say it.
What we hold,
at a glance.
Four certificates of analysis, one per formula. Two report measured results. Two report specification limits and no results at all. Every one of them names a lot — though on the two that report no results, nothing was run on it.
| Formula | Lot on the certificate | Document dated | What it reports | Facility GMP assessed by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Food — colostrum | R506064 | 2026-02-03 | Measured results | UL Solutions · to 2028-11-12 |
| Training Water — creatine | 5120130 | 2026-03-04 | Specification limits — no results | UL Solutions · to 2028-11-12 |
| Mineral Base — shilajit | 6010323 | 2026-06-18 | Specification limits — no results | UL Solutions · to 2028-11-12 |
| Night Work — magnesium | MGL250923 | 2026-02-10 | Measured results | NSF International · to 2027-01-20 |
Two of the four also print a manufacturing date: Training Water 2025-12-09, Mineral Base 2026-03-10. The other two do not. One prints its test dates: Night Work, 2 and 3 October 2025. The other three do not.
All four are issued on our manufacturer's letterhead, prepared electronically, and carry the line “this document has been prepared electronically and is valid without a signature.” All four carry the same disclaimer: values reported relate only to the product tested, and the document is representative and provided for general quality and informational purposes.
No laboratory is named on any of them. First Food's rows identify one only as Lab ID: 1. Who that laboratory is, whether it is internal or independent, and whether it holds an accreditation from a named body are open questions with our manufacturer. Until they are answered, we do not describe our testing as anything at all — we print the numbers and let them be the description.
First Food — colostrum powder
Fifteen rows, each with its method and its specification printed beside the result. The panel heading on the document reads Complete Micro Profile, HM, FTIR — microbiology, heavy metals, and an infrared identity assay. Row names below are as they appear on the certificate.
| Analysis | Method | Specification | Result | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FT-IR Analysis — identity | ARL 8.012 | > 95 | 98.5 | % |
| Total Plate Count | USP <2021> | < 100,000 | None detected | cfu/g |
| Coliforms | AOAC 991.14 | Record only | None detected | cfu/g |
| E. coli | USP <2022> | Absent | Absent | cfu/10 g |
| Staphylococcus aureus | USP <2022> | Record only | Absent | cfu/10 g |
| Salmonella | USP <2022> | Absent | Absent | cfu/10 g |
| Yeast | USP <2021> | < 10,000 | None detected | cfu/g |
| Mold | USP <2021> | < 10,000 | None detected | cfu/g |
| Arsenic (As) | ARL ICPMS 8.016 | < 2 | 0.028 | ppm |
| Cadmium (Cd) | ARL ICPMS 8.016 | < 2 | < 0.001 | ppm |
| Mercury (Hg) | ARL ICPMS 8.016 | < 2 | < 0.001 | ppm |
| Lead (Pb) | ARL ICPMS 8.016 | < 3 | 0.005 | ppm |
| Appearance | ARL 2.003 | Record only | Powder | — |
| Color | ARL 2.003 | Record only | Pale yellow | — |
| Odor | ARL 2.003 | Record only | Neutral | — |
Every row on this certificate carries Lab ID: 1. No laboratory is named. Method detection limit for the four metals is 0.001 ppm; for plate count, yeast and mould it is 100 cfu/g; for coliforms, 10 cfu/g.
Reading the two that matter most
Lead came in at 0.005 ppm against a limit of less than 3 ppm. That is the margin, and the margin is the point — roughly six hundred times under the ceiling rather than scraping beneath it.
Cadmium and mercury read < 0.001 ppm, which is the method's floor, not zero. The test could not find any. We are printing the document's words rather than translating them into “none.”
This certificate does not assay IgG, so the figure came off our label.
There is no immunoglobulin assay of any kind on this document. Not a low result and not a failed one — the test was not run and the row does not exist.
What the certificate does establish is identity. An infrared scan matched the powder against a colostrum reference at 98.5% against a specification of 95. That confirms the powder is colostrum. It says nothing about how much immunoglobulin is in it, and 98.5% is a spectral match score rather than a purity figure — worth knowing before anyone quotes it back at you, including us.
The specification we buy the powder to is 25% IgG. That figure is our manufacturer's own product specification. It is what we order and what we pay for, and it is why the number was on the label to begin with. It is not a result, and this certificate does not corroborate it. We asked our manufacturer for an assay that would. We did not get one.
So on 31 July 2026 we took it off. The label and this site read 2,300 MG · 25% IgG = 575 MG · 30 SERVINGS; they now read 2,300 MG · 30 SERVINGS. We did not put the 98.5% in its place either — it is an identity match score, and next to a milligram figure it reads as a purity number.
If an assay arrives, it publishes here in full, like everything else, and the figure goes back on the label. Until then, this is where the number used to be.
Night Work — magnesium glycinate
The most complete of the four. It prints its test dates, its methods, its limits of detection and quantitation, and a pass or fail against every line but one — the magnesium row reports a measured quantity rather than a verdict, which is why its cell reads “—”. Minerals and heavy metals by ICP-MS; microbiology by Petrifilm and qPCR; heavy metals assessed under USP <233>, microbiology under USP <2021> and <2022>.
| Analysis | Method | Specification or limit | Result | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magnesium | ICP-MS | > 91.6 mg per serving | 96.91 mg per serving | — |
| Arsenic | USP <233> | 15 mcg/day | 0.019 ppm | Pass |
| Cadmium | USP <233> | 5 mcg/day | < LOQ | Pass |
| Lead | USP <233> | 5 mcg/day | 0.023 ppm | Pass |
| Mercury | USP <233> | 15 mcg/day | < LOQ | Pass |
| Total aerobic plate | Petrifilm/qPCR | < 100,000 cfu/g | < 20 cfu/g | Pass |
| Coliform | Petrifilm/qPCR | < 100 cfu/g | < 20 cfu/g | Pass |
| Yeast | Petrifilm/qPCR | < 1,000 cfu/g | < 20 cfu/g | Pass |
| Mold | Petrifilm/qPCR | < 1,000 cfu/g | < 20 cfu/g | Pass |
| Escherichia coli | Petrifilm/qPCR | Negative / 10 g | Negative / 10 g | Pass |
| Salmonella | Petrifilm/qPCR | Negative / 10 g | Negative / 10 g | Pass |
| Staphylococcus aureus | Petrifilm/qPCR | Negative / 10 g | Negative / 10 g | Pass |
Limit of quantitation 0.010 ppm and limit of detection 0.005 ppm on all four metals; 0.1 ppm on magnesium. The metals rows print results in ppm against limits in micrograms per day — two different units. The document does not show the conversion between them, so neither do we; both columns are reproduced as printed rather than arithmetic the certificate did not do. This is one of the questions outstanding with our manufacturer.
Read the word “serving” carefully, because we do not use it the same way
The certificate states a serving size of 926.08 mg — that is one capsule. Our serving is three capsules. So the 96.91 mg on the document is per capsule, and three of them is 290.7 mg of elemental magnesium.
Our label claims 275 mg. The certificate found more than we claim. That is the direction the error should run, it is the single strongest line on this page, and it is the reason we would rather publish a document than describe one.
The certificate also carries a general statement about the testing procedures, equipment calibration and maintenance behind it. It names no laboratory and no accrediting body, so we do not build a claim on it, and the identity of the laboratory stays on the open list.
Training Water — creatine hydration powder
Plainly: this document reports no test results. It sets out what the formula contains per serving and the limits it must not exceed. It names no method and no date of testing. Where the two certificates above have a result column, this one does not have one at all.
That does not make it worthless. Composition per scoop is a fact you can hold our label to, and a limit is the ceiling the formula is built against. It does make it a different kind of document from the two above, and we are not going to let one word cover both kinds.
| Line | Kind of figure | As printed on the certificate |
|---|---|---|
| Serving size | Stated | 1 scoop, approximately 10.8 g |
| Creatine (as creatine monohydrate) | Composition | 5,000 mg per serving |
| Sodium (as sea salt) | Composition | 1,000 mg per serving |
| Potassium (as potassium chloride) | Composition | 200 mg per serving |
| Magnesium (as magnesium malate) | Composition | 60 mg per serving |
| Lead | Limit, not a result | ≤ 6.0 mcg per serving |
| Cadmium | Limit, not a result | ≤ 4.1 mcg per serving |
| Mercury | Limit, not a result | ≤ 2.0 mcg per serving |
| Arsenic | Limit, not a result | ≤ 10 mcg per serving |
| Total plate count | Limit, not a result | NMT 100,000 cfu/g |
| Yeast & mold | Limit, not a result | NMT 10,000 cfu/g |
| E. coli | Limit, not a result | Absent, cfu/10 g |
| Salmonella | Limit, not a result | Absent, cfu/10 g |
NMT means “not more than.” The document heads its metals block “Heavy Metals (ppm)” and then states the figures in micrograms per serving; we have reproduced the figures as printed rather than resolving the discrepancy ourselves. It is on the open list.
Three things are open with our manufacturer on this formula. Whether heavy-metal and microbiological testing was performed on this lot at all. If it was, a certificate reporting the measured values with the method and the date on it. And if it was not, a plain statement to that effect — in which case we will commission independent testing ourselves rather than duplicate work already done. Whichever answer arrives, it lands on this page.
Mineral Base — shilajit adaptogen complex
Same kind of document as Training Water: composition and limits, no measured results. No method named, no date of testing. The extract ratios and botanical names below are as printed on the certificate.
| Line | Kind of figure | As printed on the certificate |
|---|---|---|
| Serving size | Stated | 1 capsule |
| Shilajit extract 30:1 (Asphaltum) | Composition | 400 mg per capsule |
| Ashwagandha root extract 30:1 (Withania somnifera) | Composition | 100 mg per capsule |
| Sea moss extract 20:1 (Chondrus crispus) | Composition | 100 mg per capsule |
| Tongkat ali root extract 300:1 (Eurycoma longifolia) | Composition | 100 mg per capsule |
| Lead | Limit, not a result | ≤ 6.0 mcg per serving |
| Cadmium | Limit, not a result | ≤ 4.1 mcg per serving |
| Mercury | Limit, not a result | ≤ 2.0 mcg per serving |
| Arsenic | Limit, not a result | ≤ 10 mcg per serving |
| Total plate count | Limit, not a result | NMT 100,000 cfu/g |
| Yeast & mold | Limit, not a result | NMT 10,000 cfu/g |
| E. coli | Limit, not a result | Absent, cfu/10 g |
| Salmonella | Limit, not a result | Absent, cfu/10 g |
The limits on this document are identical to Training Water's, line for line, on two formulas with nothing in common. A customer running our full range takes both daily, so the two ceilings stack: 12.0 mcg of permitted lead a day between them, and no measured figure for either. That sum is ours, not the document's — it is 6.0 plus 6.0, and we would rather do it here than leave it for you.
The one we most want a measured result for
Shilajit is a mineral pitch. Its heavy-metal content is a property of where it was dug as much as of how it was purified — which makes a measured lead figure more informative here than anywhere else in our range. It is the formula where a result matters most and it is one of the two where we do not have one.
A measured lead figure for this lot is the single most useful number our manufacturer could send us, and it sits at the top of the open list. If the answer comes back that no such testing is done for this formula, we will pay for it ourselves. That is the honest state of it today.
The facility is a separate
question. Here is its
separate answer.
A certificate of analysis is about a batch of powder. GMP is about the building it was made in, the systems that run it, and the date somebody last audited them.
“The facility that makes it holds a current GMP certification assessed by UL Solutions against 21 CFR Part 111 and the Natural Products Association GMP standard, valid to 12 November 2028.”
That is the sentence, and it is the whole of it. Night Work is made under a different certification, assessed by a different body, expiring on a different day — so it gets its own sentence rather than being averaged into that one.
| Item | First Food · Training Water · Mineral Base | Night Work |
|---|---|---|
| Assessed by | UL Solutions | NSF International |
| Against | 21 CFR Part 111 et al., Part 121, Part 117 (Subparts A, B, F as applicable), Part 1 Subpart L; Natural Products Association Good Manufacturing Practices Standard for Dietary Supplements | NSF/ANSI 455-2 – 2024, including 21 CFR Part 111, Part 117, Part 11, Part 1.5 Subpart L and Part 1.9 Subpart O |
| Scope | Manufacturing and packaging of dietary supplements — capsules, tablets and powders | Dry formulation, encapsulation, mixing, packaging and labelling operations, quality unit operations, warehousing — capsule, gummy, ingestible liquid, powder, soft gel, tablet |
| Letter dated | 12 August 2025 | 22 December 2025 |
| Expires | 12 November 2028 | 20 January 2027 |
Both letters are dated from New Jersey and both are prepared electronically without a signature. The filename our manufacturer gave the NSF letter says 22 January 2027. The document itself says 20 January 2027, and the document is the one that counts. We use 2027-01-20 everywhere.
What we hold, exactly
Two letters from our manufacturer, each confirming that the original certificate of conformity is in their possession. We hold the letters. We do not hold the UL Solutions or NSF International certificate, and nothing on this site should be read as saying we do. The certificate is theirs, not ours, and that distinction is small enough that most brands round it off — which is exactly why we print it.
And what TARE is not
TARE is not “UL certified” and TARE is not “NSF certified.” What those bodies assessed is a manufacturing facility's quality system, on a date, against a standard. Neither of them tested a TARE product.
NSF Certified for Sport is a separate and considerably more demanding banned-substance programme. We do not hold it and we do not claim it. If you compete under a testing body, that is the programme you should be looking for, and you should look for it by name.
Why the expiry dates are printed rather than rounded off
A badge tells you somebody approved of something once. A date tells you when that stops being true, and you can check it. Ours are 12 November 2028 and 20 January 2027. The second one falls inside the first year of any subscription started today, which is precisely why it is printed rather than tucked away.
When one lapses, the row above changes or the claim comes off this site. Hold us to that. It is the only reason a date is worth more than a badge.
What these documents
do not cover.
Publishing a document is undone by overstating it. Seven things these four certificates and two letters do not do, written out rather than left for you to notice.
- They are not your jar. Each certificate names a lot — R506064, 5120130, 6010323, MGL250923 — and naming a lot is one of the things that separates a real document from a marketing PDF. It is not sufficient on its own: two of ours name a lot and report no test on it. But it is not your lot. TARE is fulfilled by a contract manufacturer and never takes possession of inventory, so we cannot connect the lot on a published document to the jar in your hands. We do not offer per-lot traceability and we do not claim it.
- Two of the four report no results at all. Training Water and Mineral Base set out composition and limits. They do not report what a test found, because they do not report tests. Both panels above say so at the top, in words, rather than in a footnote.
- No laboratory is named on any of them. First Food's rows identify one only as
Lab ID: 1. Who it is, whether it is internal or independent, and whether it holds an accreditation from a named body are open questions with our manufacturer. Until they are answered, we describe our testing as nothing at all — the numbers are the description. - First Food's certificate contains no immunoglobulin assay. It confirms identity at 98.5% and it does not measure IgG. Our label carried an IgG figure taken from our manufacturer's product specification; we requested an assay that would corroborate it, did not get one, and on 31 July 2026 took the figure off the label. Full account in the panel above.
- Neither GMP letter mentions allergens. They attest to a quality system, which is a different thing, and we are not going to substitute one for the other. First Food is a dairy product and contains milk; that is on the label and in the FAQ. Until we are told which allergens the facility handles and whether lines are shared, we are keeping “dairy-free” and “free from” language off the other three formulas rather than assuming.
- These lots are not new. The documents describe material tested in October 2025 and manufactured in December 2025 and March 2026. Certificates of this kind carry no expiry. Three more open questions: whether a certificate is generated per production run, whether we can be told which lot is currently shipping, and whether we will be notified when any of these six documents is updated or superseded. Until those are answered, treat every date on this page as the date printed on it and nothing more.
- A certificate verifies contents. It does not verify effects. Nothing on this page is a claim about what any of this does for anyone. What we are permitted to say, and where the research is weakest, is on The Monograph and in The Recovery Journal, and it carries the disclaimer at the foot of this page.
Six documents,
when we may post them.
Four certificates of analysis and two certification status letters. Every figure in the tables above comes out of them. The one figure that does not — Night Work's claimed 275 mg — is named as a label figure wherever it appears, next to what the certificate does and does not corroborate. First Food's label carried two more of that kind until 31 July 2026; the panel above says what happened to them.
Each certificate carries the line: “this certificate shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of Supliful.” We do not have that written approval yet. What we want from it is specific: all six hosted here as complete PDFs, a result table set as HTML alongside them, and the freedom to send a copy to any customer who asks for one.
Until it arrives we publish the numbers, which are facts and need nobody's permission, and we do not publish the files. The markup for the six links is already in this page's source, commented out, so switching them on is a short checklist and no redesign.
If you want to know where this stands before then, email support@taketare.com and we will tell you exactly where it stands. A person answers, within one business day.
One more thing, since this page is about checking
Everything above is transcribed by hand out of six PDFs. If you find a figure here that does not match the document when the documents go up, write to us and we will correct it on this page and say what changed. We edit in public rather than quietly. That is the only version of this that means anything.