SHOP BEST SELLERS
Shop our best selling products
Type: Performance Supplements
Protein Powder
Type: Performance Supplements
Electrolytes - Stick Packs
Type: Performance Supplements
Electrolytes
Type: Performance Supplements
Creatine Monohydrate
Type: Core Supplements
Source Magnesium
Type: Core Supplements
Vitamin D3 & K2
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Elements Shampoo
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Elements Conditioner
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Elements Tallow Soap (Lemongrass)
Type: Performance Supplements
Raw Honey
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Tallow Sun Balm
Pure ingredients
Raw ingredients. Ancient wisdom. Modern results. Every product contains only what nature intended:
- Grass-fed tallow rich in bioavailable nutrients
- Raw honey and adaptogenic herbs in their purest form
- Regeneratively sourced proteins, never denatured
- Zero synthetic additives or lab-made fillers
Small-batch wellness our ancestors would recognize. Because when you honor nature's integrity, your body knows the difference.
Purely Natural, Perfectly You
Let customers speak for us
This is my 2nd time purchasing & I love it. This formula is better than the first, very smooth, hydrating and doesn't leave a white residue on my skin. Fantastic product. My skin is glowing.
This is one of the best raw organic honeys I’ve tried. It has a rich, delicious flavor that’s naturally sweet without being overpowering. I love that it comes in a glass jar instead of plastic, which helps preserve the taste and quality. Highly recommend if you’re looking for high-quality, great-tasting raw organic honey.
This is the best Honey I have ever had. I love all your products.
I’ve been really impressed with this soap. It’s made with clean ingredients, which was important to me, and it works wonderfully. I wash my hands frequently while cooking, and unlike many other soaps, this one doesn’t leave my hands feeling dry or tight. My hands feel clean, soft, and comfortable after every wash. I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a gentle, high-quality hand soap.
As a longtime follower of Purishh, I usually buy whatever they sell because I trust them. This gives me the hydration I need, and it tastes good. I also learned from them that just drinking plain water isn’t always enough for your body. Highly recommend.
Why Purishh?
Pure Ingredients
Handpicked and ethically sourced from trusted, natural farms.
Effective Results
Each product is designed to protect, nourish, and enhance your skin’s natural balance.
Holistic Wellness
Embrace a balanced lifestyle with supplements and creams that work in harmony with your body.
Frequently Asked Question
What makes Purishh products different from conventional supplements or skincare?
What makes Purishh products different from conventional supplements or skincare?
Purishh’s mission is to return to the raw, unprocessed power of nature. Every product is formulated with 100 % natural ingredients and no synthetic preservatives, fillers, or dyes. For example, the Raw Honey Butter contains whipped Wagyu beef tallow, cold‑pressed olive and coconut oils, mango butter, raw honey and beeswax – it moisturizes deeply and can even replace conventional lotion. The Raw Tallow Sunbalm uses grass‑fed tallow, non‑nano zinc oxide and organic oils to provide mineral sun protection while nourishing the skin. Purishh’s Protein Powder combines grass‑fed whey and hydrolyzed collagen with organic superfoods to deliver 26 g of easily digestible protein with zero added sugar. Across their range, Purishh keeps ingredient lists short and transparent, using only what is necessary to support health and well‑being.
Are Purishh’s ingredients ethically and sustainably sourced?
Are Purishh’s ingredients ethically and sustainably sourced?
Yes. The founders emphasize sustainable sourcing and ethical treatment of animals and land. Tallow for the skincare range is hand‑sourced from 100 % grass‑fed, Wagyu, halal cattle in New Zealand, ensuring humane slaughter and optimal nutrient quality. Olive and coconut oils are single‑origin, cold‑pressed. The whey in Purishh protein powder comes from grass‑fed cows raised without hormones or antibiotics, and the collagen is hydrolyzed for better absorption. These practices mean customers receive products that are both pure and sustainable.
Why does Purishh use beef tallow in its skincare products?
Why does Purishh use beef tallow in its skincare products?
Grass‑fed beef tallow is biocompatible with human skin; its fatty‑acid profile closely resembles natural sebum, so it’s absorbed efficiently. Properly rendered tallow is a vitamin powerhouse, naturally supplying vitamins A, D, E, and K that support cell turnover, immune function, and antioxidant protection. Tallow also contains oleic, stearic and palmitic acids that strengthen the skin’s barrier, calm inflammation and maintain moisture. Grass‑fed tallow offers a high concentration of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), an anti‑inflammatory fatty acid. These nutrients collectively help Purishh’s Raw Honey Butter and Raw Tallow Sunbalm to moisturize, nourish and protect the skin without clogging pores or causing irritation.
How is Purishh protein powder different, and why is it easy to digest?
How is Purishh protein powder different, and why is it easy to digest?
Many conventional protein powders use cheap sources and add artificial thickeners or sweeteners that cause bloating and digestive discomfort. Purishh starts with grass‑fed whey processed via cold‑filtration, which preserves natural enzymes and bioactive peptides that aid digestion. It also adds hydrolyzed bovine collagen to support joints, skin and gut health. The powder uses organic monk fruit for sweetness and contains no carrageenan, gums, sucralose or artificial preservatives, so it mixes smoothly and is gentle on the stomach. Each serving provides 26 g of complete protein with only 1 g of fat and zero sugar, making it suitable for keto, gluten‑free and non‑GMO diets.
What are Purishh Electrolytes, and how do they support hydration?
What are Purishh Electrolytes, and how do they support hydration?
Purishh’s Electrolytes formula offers clean hydration without the artificial colors and preservatives found in many sports drinks. Each serving includes over 800 mg of unrefined Himalayan salt, providing sodium and trace minerals, plus magnesium malate and potassium chloride. Organic fruit powders (raspberry or lemon‑lime) and monk fruit sweetener give a natural flavor without sugar. The formula helps replenish electrolytes lost through exercise, supports muscle function, and is keto‑friendly.
What is Raw Shilajit, and how should it be used?
What is Raw Shilajit, and how should it be used?
Raw Shilajit is a resin harvested from high‑altitude Himalayan rocks. It forms from decomposed plant material and is rich in minerals and fulvic acid. Traditionally used as an adaptogen, Shilajit helps boost energy, improve stamina and support overall health. Purishh provides 100 % pure Himalayan shilajit. Users typically dissolve a pea‑sized amount in warm water, tea or milk. Due to its potent minerals, start with a small dose and consult a healthcare professional if you have existing medical conditions.
What is the Ishh Leaky Gut Protocol?
What is the Ishh Leaky Gut Protocol?
The Ishh Leaky Gut Protocol is a step‑by‑step program designed to help restore gut health naturally. It includes dietary recommendations, lifestyle tips and natural supplements to support the intestinal lining. The protocol focuses on removing irritants, replenishing beneficial bacteria and repairing the gut barrier. It is not a medical treatment, so customers with chronic digestive issues should consult a healthcare professional before starting.
How should I store Purishh products?
How should I store Purishh products?
Store supplements and protein powders in a cool, dry place away from direct sunlight. Skincare products like Raw Honey Butter and Raw Tallow Sunbalm are natural and free from artificial stabilizers; keeping them at room temperature helps maintain texture. If you live in a hot climate, refrigerating tallow‑based balms can prevent melting. Always use clean hands or a spatula to avoid introducing bacteria.
When will my order ship, and how long will delivery take?
When will my order ship, and how long will delivery take?
Purishh asks customers to allow 2–3 business days for processing and production before an order ships. Once dispatched, average transit times are 7–10 business days; however, natural disasters, holidays and weather can cause delays. Free standard shipping is offered on orders over US$150 (or equivalent), and shipping costs for smaller orders are calculated at checkout. Purishh cannot guarantee exact delivery dates because delivery is ultimately the responsibility of the shipping carrier.
Can I subscribe and save on regular purchases?
Can I subscribe and save on regular purchases?
Yes. Purishh offers a subscription program for products like protein powder. Subscribing gives 10 % off the regular price, and you can choose delivery intervals (e.g., monthly). Subscriptions auto‑renew, but you may skip or cancel at any time through your account.
Are Purishh products allergen‑free or suitable for special diets?
Are Purishh products allergen‑free or suitable for special diets?
Purishh formulates products without common synthetic additives, but some items may contain potential allergens. The protein powder contains whey (a dairy product) and collagen derived from bovine sources; it is unsuitable for vegans or those with dairy allergies. The Electrolytes formula is gluten‑free, sugar‑free and keto‑friendly. Always review ingredient lists carefully and consult your healthcare provider if you have specific allergies or dietary restrictions.
Where are Purishh products made?
Where are Purishh products made?
Purishh sources ingredients globally, such as New Zealand Wagyu tallow and Himalayan shilajit, but manufactures products in small batches under rigorous quality control. By keeping production small and hands‑on, Purishh can maintain freshness and ensure every batch meets the highest standards.
Pür Insights
USDA Organic Certification Explained: What It Guarantees (and What It Doesn't)
The word "organic" gets used two different ways, and almost nobody distinguishes between them out loud. There's organic as a casual adjective, meaning something like "natural" or "clean," used loosely in marketing copy across the entire wellness industry, on everything from skincare to snack bars to supplements. And there's organic as a specific, legally defined, federally regulated certification, backed by an actual government program, actual inspections, and an actual certificate number you can look up. Only one of those two things means anything you can verify, and most people encountering the word on a label have no reliable way to tell which one they're looking at, since both versions use the exact same word in the exact same font on the exact same shelf. This post is about the real one: what USDA Organic certification actually requires, how a product earns it, what it genuinely guarantees, and, just as important, what it doesn't. We think understanding this clearly is worth more than picking a side in the broader organic debate, because a lot of that debate is really an argument about a word people haven't defined the same way to begin with, and a surprising amount of the disagreement disappears once everyone's actually talking about the same specific thing. Where this standard actually comes from USDA Organic certification isn't a marketing program or an industry self-regulation scheme. It's a federal regulatory system, created by an act of Congress. The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 authorized the creation of the National Organic Program, administered by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service, and set out to establish national standards for what could legally be labeled organic in the United States, replacing what had been, until then, a patchwork of inconsistent state and private certification schemes with no single, enforceable federal definition. It took over a decade to actually get there. A National Organic Standards Board was seated in 1992 to help develop the details, made up of farmers, handlers, retailers, scientists, and consumer and environmental representatives tasked with recommending which specific substances should be allowed or prohibited, a genuinely broad, multi-stakeholder group rather than a small committee of regulators working in isolation. The first proposed rule came out in December 1997 and drew more than 280,000 public comments, an enormous response, larger than almost any other federal rulemaking of that era, that led to significant revisions before anything was finalized. The regulations that actually govern the label you see today didn't take effect until October 2002, twelve years after the authorizing legislation was signed. That long runway matters context-wise: this wasn't a label a company invented and slapped on a product. It's a genuinely deliberated, publicly debated federal standard that took over a decade of rulemaking, and hundreds of thousands of public comments, to reach the form it exists in now. Since 2002, it's illegal in the United States to use the word "organic" on a product label if it doesn't meet the specific requirements set out in that regulation, formally codified at 7 CFR Part 205, with real civil penalties attached for violations. That's worth knowing on its own: unlike a lot of the loosely regulated wellness vocabulary we've written about elsewhere, like "natural" or "clean," which carry no enforceable legal definition at all, "organic" genuinely is a protected, legally defined term when used on a product label, at least in principle. Whether that protection is consistently enforced in practice is a separate question we'll come back to. The four labeling categories, and what each one actually allows This is the part most people have never seen laid out clearly, and it's genuinely useful once you know it, because the front of a package can say very different things depending on which category a product actually falls into. 100 percent organic. Every ingredient in the product, aside from water and salt, was produced according to organic standards. This is the strictest tier, and it's allowed to carry the full USDA Organic seal. In practice, this tier is most common for single-ingredient or very simply formulated products, since hitting 100 percent gets harder the more separate ingredients a formula includes. Organic. At least 95 percent of the ingredients, again excluding water and salt, meet organic standards. The remaining up to 5 percent must come from a specific, government-maintained list of approved non-organic substances permitted for use in organic products, generally reserved for things that aren't commercially available in organic form. This tier can also carry the USDA Organic seal, and it's the version most people picture when they think of an organic product. Made with organic [specific ingredients]. At least 70 percent of the ingredients meet organic standards. This tier cannot display the USDA Organic seal at all, though it can list up to three specific organic ingredients or ingredient categories on the front of the package, something like "made with organic turmeric and organic ginger," a common formulation choice for multi-ingredient products that can't practically reach the 95 percent threshold above it. Products with less than 70 percent organic ingredients can only mention which specific ingredients are organic within the ingredient list itself, on the back of the package, in small type alongside everything else. No organic claim of any kind is permitted on the front, and no seal applies, no matter how organic-forward the rest of the branding around it looks. The practical takeaway: seeing the word "organic" somewhere on a package tells you almost nothing on its own. Seeing the actual USDA Organic seal specifically tells you the product falls into one of the top two tiers, at least 95 percent organic content. Seeing "made with organic X" tells you it's a meaningfully lower bar, 70 percent, with no seal attached at all. These are genuinely different claims, dressed in very similar-sounding language, and reading which specific version you're looking at is worth the extra ten seconds. This distinction matters more in the supplement aisle than almost anywhere else, since a multi-ingredient formula, several herbs, a protein source, flavoring, and a handful of other functional ingredients, is exactly the kind of product where hitting 95 percent organic content is genuinely difficult, and where "made with organic" or no qualifying language at all is a far more common, and considerably less strict, reality than the front-label impression might suggest. How a product actually earns this certification Getting certified isn't a matter of a company simply asserting its practices meet the standard, filling out a form, and receiving a badge. It requires working with an accredited third-party certifying agent, either a private certification body or a state-run program, that's itself been accredited by USDA and re-evaluated on a five-year cycle to keep that accreditation current, creating a layer of oversight over the certifiers themselves, not just over the farms and companies they certify. The process starts with an Organic System Plan, a detailed written description of exactly what practices and substances are used across the entire production or handling operation, from soil management and pest control to recordkeeping procedures and cleaning protocols for shared equipment. The certifying agent reviews that plan, then conducts an on-site inspection, generally at least annually, sometimes unannounced, to verify the plan is actually being followed in practice rather than just on paper. Certified operations also have to maintain detailed records establishing traceability, meaning an inspector can, at least in theory, follow a specific batch of product backward through every stage of production, from a specific field or lot, through processing, to a specific finished package, and confirm organic practices were maintained the whole way through without a gap where conventional material could have quietly entered the supply chain unnoticed. Once certified, an operation receives a specific certificate, tied to a certificate number, which is searchable in USDA's own Organic Integrity Database. That's a genuinely useful, underused tool: if you want to verify a specific organic claim rather than take a label at its word, that database is where you'd actually check it, the same way we've encouraged checking a lab's accreditation number or a batch's lot number elsewhere in things we've written this year. Most people never think to look, which is understandable, but it's worth knowing the option exists the next time a claim seems worth double-checking. A note on imported organic products One more nuance worth knowing, since it comes up more than people expect: not every product carrying an organic claim in a US store was certified directly under the USDA's own program. The US maintains organic equivalency arrangements with a number of other countries and trading blocs, including the European Union, Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom among others, meaning a product certified organic under one of those countries' own recognized standards can generally be sold as organic in the US without a completely separate, duplicate certification process. The underlying practices and oversight differ somewhat between these systems, even though the label ends up looking identical on a US shelf. This isn't a loophole so much as a practical trade arrangement, but it's worth knowing that "USDA Organic" doesn't always mean every single ingredient inside was certified directly through the exact American process described above. What's actually required and prohibited in production Organic standards govern a fairly specific, defined set of practices, and it's worth knowing what's actually on that list rather than assuming it covers everything the word might imply. For crops: no synthetic pesticides or fertilizers, no genetically modified inputs, no sewage sludge, no ionizing radiation, and required practices around crop rotation, soil fertility management, and buffer zones to prevent contamination from adjoining conventionally farmed land, sometimes as simple as a physical strip of untreated land or a natural barrier separating a certified field from a neighboring conventional one. For livestock: no routine antibiotics, no synthetic growth hormones, organic feed, and required access to the outdoors along with specific animal welfare provisions covering things like space allowances and living conditions. Here's a genuinely common misconception worth correcting directly: organic does not mean pesticide-free. It means no synthetic pesticides, but a specific list of non-synthetic and a small number of specifically approved synthetic substances are permitted under organic standards, things like certain copper-based fungicides or pyrethrin-based insecticides derived from chrysanthemum flowers. Organic farming uses fewer, and different, pest and disease management tools than conventional farming, not zero tools. That distinction gets lost constantly in casual conversation about what the label means, and it's part of why the pesticide-residue research we've written about separately shows organic produce carrying meaningfully lower, but not zero, pesticide residue on average. That approved-substances list itself, formally called the National List, is worth knowing exists, since it's the actual document that draws the line between what's allowed and what isn't in a given category. It's reviewed and updated periodically by the National Organic Standards Board, the same body seated back in 1992, which means the specific boundaries of what counts as organic aren't frozen in time from 2002. They're revisited on an ongoing basis as new substances are proposed, evaluated, and either added or rejected. What this certification does not verify This is the section that matters most for understanding where organic certification actually sits relative to everything else a product label might claim, and it's worth being precise rather than vague about it. Organic certification is an audit of production practices and paperwork, conducted by people trained to check specific things against a specific written plan. It is not a laboratory test of the finished product. A certifying agent verifies that an operation followed its Organic System Plan and didn't use prohibited substances or methods; that's a meaningfully different thing than a lab measuring what's actually present in a specific batch of finished product once it's left the farm or the processing facility. Certification doesn't test a finished item for heavy metal contamination, microbial safety, or potency. Those are questions a Certificate of Analysis is built to answer, tested directly on a specific batch, and they're not questions the organic certification process is designed to ask at all, since its entire scope is upstream of that point, focused on how something was grown or raised rather than what ends up measurably present in the finished package. It also doesn't guarantee superior nutrient content. The actual research comparing organic and conventional food on nutritional grounds is more contested and evolving than either side of the debate usually admits, and we've written about that specific evidence separately rather than repeating it here. What organic certification verifies is method, not outcome, and that distinction holds regardless of which way the nutrient research eventually settles. And it doesn't mean "chemical-free," a phrase that isn't scientifically coherent to begin with, since water itself is a chemical. What organic certification actually restricts is a defined category of synthetic substances, while explicitly permitting a separate list of approved natural and synthetic substances under specific conditions. "Chemical-free" and "USDA Organic" are not the same claim, even though marketing language frequently blurs them together as if they were, and a product can be genuinely, legitimately certified organic while still containing plenty of things a chemist would rightly call a chemical. A real reminder that certification isn't self-enforcing It's worth knowing, honestly, that a certification system is only as good as its enforcement, and this one has had real, well-documented failures worth learning from rather than pretending don't exist. In 2019, federal prosecutors secured convictions in what the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Iowa called the largest organic fraud case in American history. A Missouri grain broker named Randy Constant ran a scheme from 2010 to 2017 involving more than $142 million in grain sales, falsely marketed as certified organic, sold to livestock farmers across the Midwest who then sold "organic" meat, eggs, and dairy to consumers under labels that were, several layers removed, built on fraudulent grain. Constant told buyers the grain came from his own certified organic fields when it didn't, sometimes because the fields themselves had been treated with unauthorized substances, sometimes because organic grain was deliberately blended with non-organic grain, a technique investigators described as "salting," mixing a small proportion of legitimate certified product into a much larger fraudulent batch to make the whole thing harder to detect. Constant was sentenced to more than ten years in federal prison, along with several farmers who supplied him. Evidence at sentencing showed his fraudulent sales alone equaled a meaningful single-digit percentage of all organic corn and soybeans reportedly grown in the country that year, which gives some sense of how much a single, sustained scheme can distort an entire supply chain before it's caught. We're not including this to suggest organic certification is worthless or that fraud is common; the overwhelming majority of certified organic operations follow the standards they've agreed to, year after year, without incident, and cases of this scale are rare precisely because they're unusual enough to draw a multi-year federal investigation once suspicion is raised. A scheme of that size getting investigated, prosecuted, and sentenced is itself evidence the enforcement system functions, even if it functions after the fact, catching and punishing fraud that already happened, rather than a guarantee that prevents every case in advance. We're including it because it's the same lesson we've applied to every other kind of verification we've written about this year: a system that requires real inspection, real accountability, and real consequences for violation is meaningfully different from an honor system, but it's still a system run by people, with real gaps an enforcement agency has to actively close, rather than a guarantee that enforces itself automatically the moment a seal gets printed on a label. Where we actually stand on all of this We're not certified organic, and we've said that plainly elsewhere rather than let the word imply something about our own products that isn't true. What we've built instead is direct, batch-level laboratory verification, tested potency, tested heavy metal panels, tested microbial safety, on the actual finished products we ship. That's a genuinely different kind of standard than organic certification, answering a different question, and we think it's a more directly relevant one for a manufactured, processed product specifically, without it being a claim that organic certification is meaningless for the categories it was actually built to cover. Part of why we've landed here rather than pursuing organic certification itself is the category problem this post has hopefully made clear: a fair share of what we work with, mined minerals, synthesized compounds, a mineral-geological substance like shilajit, doesn't map onto an agricultural growing process the certification was ever designed to verify in the first place. Pursuing a certification built around crop and livestock production for ingredients that were never crops or livestock would be reaching for the word more than reaching for something that actually describes what we do. We'd rather build toward a standard that fits what we're actually making than borrow one that fits a different kind of product. The honest summary USDA Organic certification is a real, legally defined, federally enforced standard, genuinely stricter than most of the loosely used wellness vocabulary surrounding it, and it's worth taking seriously as exactly what it is: a verified production method, checked through inspection and paperwork, covering pesticide use, fertilizer use, GMOs, and specific practice requirements. It is not a nutrient content guarantee, not a finished-product safety test, not a "chemical-free" claim, and not something every farmer, processor, or fraudster actually follows just because it exists. Knowing exactly what that seal does and doesn't promise is worth more than trusting or dismissing it wholesale. The next time you see it, or see the word "organic" without it, on a product from us or from anyone else, you'll know exactly which of the four tiers you're actually looking at, exactly what production practices sit behind it, and exactly what question that tier does and doesn't answer about the specific thing you're about to buy.
Learn more
Are Organic Supplements Actually Better? What the Research Says
This is one of the most searched questions in the entire wellness category, and it rarely gets a straight answer, largely because it sits at the intersection of two things people feel strongly about: wanting to make a healthier choice, and not wanting to be talked into paying more for something that doesn't actually deliver on that promise. Most of what comes up is either a brand insisting organic is obviously superior, since it's selling organic, or a contrarian take insisting the whole thing is a marketing myth designed to justify a higher price tag. Neither is the honest version, and both tend to skip past the actual research in favor of whichever conclusion suits the argument being made. The honest version requires looking at what the actual research says about organic versus conventional food generally, since that's almost the entire body of evidence that exists, and then asking a question that gets skipped constantly: does any of that research actually apply to a manufactured dietary supplement, a capsule or powder that's been extracted, concentrated, and processed well past the point of being a fresh vegetable in a field. It mostly doesn't, and understanding why is more useful than a yes or no answer would be, because it changes what you should actually be looking for on a label the next time you're standing in front of a shelf trying to decide between two products that both use the word. What "organic" certification actually verifies We've made this point before and it's worth repeating here specifically, because it's the foundation everything else in this post rests on. USDA Organic certification is a production-method standard, verified through an accredited certifying body and an ongoing inspection relationship. It governs how a crop was grown or an animal was raised: no synthetic pesticides or fertilizers, no genetically modified inputs, no routine antibiotics or growth hormones for livestock, along with a defined set of soil and land management practices, all verified through an accredited certifying body and an ongoing inspection relationship rather than a single test on a single sample. What it is not is a nutrient content guarantee, a contamination test, or a potency verification. Organic certification tells you about the method used to produce a raw ingredient. It doesn't test the finished product for what's actually in it once that ingredient has been processed further, which turns out to be the single most important thing to understand before this question can be answered honestly. This distinction sounds technical, but it's the entire hinge this post turns on, so it's worth sitting with before moving to what the research actually shows, because almost every misunderstanding about this topic traces back to skipping past exactly this point. What the actual research says about organic versus conventional food Pesticide residue is the clearest, most consistent finding, and it isn't close. A large 2012 systematic review published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, led by Stanford researcher Crystal Smith-Spangler, analyzed 237 studies comparing organic and conventional foods, including 17 human studies and 223 comparisons of nutrient and contaminant levels across fruits, vegetables, grains, meat, milk, and eggs, drawing on decades of published research going back to the 1960s. The review found that organic foods reliably carry lower pesticide residue than conventional ones, and that switching to an organic diet measurably reduces pesticide exposure, detectable in urine testing within days of the switch. That same year, the American Academy of Pediatrics reached a similar conclusion in its own review, confirming that an organic diet reduces pesticide exposure and may reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria as well, tied to the restrictions on routine antibiotic use in organic livestock standards. This is the one part of the "organic is better" claim that holds up consistently across the research, and it's a real, meaningful difference for anyone specifically trying to minimize pesticide intake from produce, even though it's worth noting organic doesn't mean zero pesticide exposure, just meaningfully less of it on average. Nutrient content is a genuinely more contested, evolving area, and it's worth being honest about the disagreement rather than picking whichever finding is more convenient. The Smith-Spangler review found little meaningful difference in overall nutrient content between organic and conventional foods; the one nutrient that came back significantly higher in organic produce was phosphorus, and the researchers themselves noted this has little practical significance since phosphorus deficiency is rare in the first place. A later, larger meta-analysis, published in 2014 in the British Journal of Nutrition by a research team led by Marcin Barański, looked specifically at 343 studies on organic crops, a broader and more recent dataset than the 2012 review drew on, and reached a different conclusion: organic crops showed meaningfully higher concentrations of antioxidant compounds, roughly 18 to 69 percent higher across specific polyphenol groups, with total antioxidant activity averaging about 17 percent higher than conventional crops. That same analysis found organic crops carried substantially lower cadmium levels, averaging around 48 percent lower, a finding the researchers tied to specific organic farming practices, particularly reduced use of certain phosphate fertilizers that can introduce cadmium into soil. Two well-conducted reviews, two different conclusions on nutrient content specifically, and it's worth knowing that isn't the only pair of studies to disagree here; an earlier 2009 UK Food Standards Agency-commissioned review had also found no substantial nutritional differences, a conclusion the 2014 Barański team explicitly set out to revisit with a larger, more current dataset. That's not evidence of bad science on either side, it's a genuinely evolving area where newer, larger, more specific analyses have shifted the picture somewhat since the earlier reviews, and it's worth knowing this is still an area of real scientific discussion rather than a fully settled question in either direction. There's one more honest limitation worth naming plainly, because both major reviews agree on it even though they disagree on the antioxidant question: neither one, nor any research we're aware of since, includes a long-term human clinical trial directly comparing health outcomes, actual disease rates, longevity, chronic illness risk, between people eating organic versus conventional diets over years or decades. What exists is shorter-term measurement of the food itself, plus a handful of short human studies looking at biomarkers like pesticide metabolites rather than long-term health outcomes. That's a meaningful gap in the evidence, and it means the strongest, most defensible claims from this research are about what's measurably in the food, pesticide residue, certain nutrient concentrations, not about what eating organic actually does to a person's long-term health, which remains genuinely unproven in either direction. Why this research mostly can't answer the question people are actually asking Here's the part that gets skipped almost everywhere this question comes up, and it's the whole reason this post exists rather than just linking to the two studies above and calling it done. Nearly all of this research, the Smith-Spangler review, the Barański meta-analysis, and most of what preceded them, was conducted on fresh produce, grains, and some animal products like milk and eggs. It tells you about a tomato, a head of lettuce, a carton of milk. It tells you very little about a dietary supplement, which by definition has already been extracted, concentrated, processed, and often blended with other ingredients well past the point where "how was this crop grown" is still the most relevant question about what's actually in the finished product. A capsule of ashwagandha extract has been through solvent extraction, concentration, drying, and encapsulation; a bottle of magnesium capsules involves a mineral that was never a crop to begin with. Neither one is the tomato this research was actually measuring. Organic certification, when it applies to a supplement ingredient at all, generally covers the raw agricultural input, the ashwagandha root, the turmeric rhizome, the berry, before it becomes a capsule or a powder. It says very little about what happened during extraction, concentration, encapsulation, or blending, which is where a supplement's actual safety and potency questions really live. A raw ingredient grown to organic standards can still end up in a finished product with contamination introduced during processing, with a concentration that doesn't match the label, or blended with other ingredients that were never grown under any organic standard at all, none of which the organic seal on the front of the bottle would ever catch or disclose. There's also a category problem worth naming directly: a meaningful share of supplement ingredients don't fit the organic framework in any coherent way to begin with. Creatine, one of the most common and well-researched supplement ingredients on the market, is typically produced through chemical synthesis rather than extracted from an organic crop, which makes "organic creatine" a somewhat incoherent claim regardless of how it's marketed, since the molecule is chemically identical no matter how it was made. Minerals like magnesium, zinc, or boron aren't grown at all, they're geological or synthesized compounds, which means "organic magnesium" describes something that doesn't map onto what organic certification was actually built to verify. Shilajit, a mineral-rich resin formed over centuries in mountain rock, is a geological substance, not an agricultural crop, and applying an "organic" framework to it doesn't really describe anything meaningful about its origin or safety. Electrolyte blends built around mined salt and synthesized mineral compounds run into the same issue: there's no agricultural growing process for the certification to actually verify, since a mineral pulled from a salt deposit or manufactured through a chemical reaction never passed through a field, a growing season, or a harvest in the first place. Even ingredients that do start as real crops, like the black maca sometimes used for flavor in protein blends, only carry a meaningful organic claim if the specific maca used was actually certified, which is a batch-and-supplier-specific fact rather than something you can assume just because the ingredient category itself is capable of being organic. None of this means these ingredients are lesser or riskier. It means the entire question of "is it organic" was never designed to apply to them, and a brand attaching the word anyway is often reaching for a familiar, trusted-sounding label rather than describing something that's actually true or verifiable about the product. When you see "organic" attached to an ingredient that was never grown as a crop in the first place, that's worth noticing as a marketing choice rather than a meaningful safety or quality claim, and it's a pattern worth watching for across this entire category, not just in our own catalog. The cadmium finding is worth a second, more careful look We want to come back to the Barański meta-analysis's cadmium finding specifically, because it's genuinely interesting and it illustrates the exact distinction this whole post is trying to make, maybe more clearly than any other single fact in this research. Organic crops, on average, across 343 studies, showed meaningfully lower cadmium levels than conventional crops, tied to a real, identifiable agricultural practice, reduced use of certain synthetic phosphate fertilizers that can introduce cadmium into soil. That's a real, statistically meaningful average difference, and it's worth taking seriously rather than waving away as marketing noise, since it's backed by a large, carefully conducted analysis with a plausible causal mechanism behind it. But notice exactly what kind of claim that is: it's an average tendency across hundreds of studies and thousands of samples, not a measured, verified fact about any single specific batch of any single specific product. Organic certification itself doesn't require testing the finished crop, or a supplement made from it, for cadmium content. The lower average shown in that research is a downstream statistical consequence of certain farming practices, not a guarantee backed by an actual test result on the product in front of you. A specific batch of an organically grown crop could still come back with an elevated cadmium reading, and the certification itself wouldn't catch that, because testing finished cadmium content isn't part of what the certification actually checks. The correlation is real. The guarantee isn't there. That's the exact distinction we've built this entire month of content around, applied here to organic certification specifically rather than to any of our own ingredients: a general tendency, however real and well-documented, is not the same thing as a batch-specific, laboratory-verified result. One is a statement about a category on average. The other is a measured fact about the specific thing you're about to consume, and only one of those two things is something you can actually hold a document up and check. When organic certification does apply cleanly to a supplement To be fair to the concept, there are cases where organic certification maps onto a supplement reasonably well: a single-ingredient product made from an actual certified organic crop with minimal processing, like a straightforward herbal capsule or a whole-food powder, can carry a genuine, meaningful USDA Organic seal, complete with a certificate number you can verify against the USDA's own database. In that case, the certification is doing exactly the job it was designed for, verifying the growing practices behind an ingredient that's still recognizably close to its agricultural origin, and it's a legitimate, checkable claim worth taking at face value. Where it gets murkier is exactly the territory most of the supplement industry actually operates in: multi-ingredient blends, concentrated extracts, synthesized actives, and mineral compounds, where either only part of the formula could ever qualify, or none of it meaningfully can. A product listing "organic" ingredients without an actual certificate number, or built around ingredients that were never agricultural to begin with, is using the word in its casual, marketing sense rather than its certified, verifiable one. Knowing the difference between those two uses of the same word is worth more than picking a side in the broader organic-versus-conventional debate. What actually verifies a finished supplement, specifically If organic certification is built to answer "how was the raw crop grown," the questions that actually matter most for a finished, manufactured supplement are different ones entirely: Does this specific batch contain what the label says, at the amount the label says? Is this specific batch free of heavy metal contamination, tested directly rather than inferred from farming method? Is this specific batch free of microbial contamination? Is the ingredient actually what it claims to be, rather than diluted, substituted, or adulterated? Those are exactly the questions a Certificate of Analysis is built to answer, tested on the actual finished batch, not estimated from how the raw ingredient was farmed three steps upstream. It's a different, and for a manufactured product specifically, more directly relevant kind of verification than organic certification provides, and it's not a lesser standard, it's a standard built to answer a different, more specific question that matters more once an ingredient has left the field and entered a processing facility. A supplement can be organic and untested for heavy metals. A supplement can be non-organic and rigorously tested for exactly the contamination risks that matter most. Neither label alone tells you which situation you're actually looking at, which is why we think the more useful habit is asking for the specific document rather than trusting either word on its own. Where we actually stand on this We're not certified organic, and we've been direct about that rather than letting the word do more implying than it's entitled to. What we've built this entire catalog around instead is batch-level testing: verified potency, verified heavy metal panels, verified microbial safety, on the actual finished products we ship, not inferred from the farming method of a raw ingredient several steps upstream. We think that's a more directly useful standard for a manufactured supplement specifically, without dismissing organic certification's real, legitimate value in the categories, like fresh produce, where the research behind it actually applies. This isn't us arguing that organic certification is worthless, and we want to be clear about that. If you're standing in a grocery store deciding between organic and conventional strawberries, the pesticide-residue research is real and it's a reasonable thing to factor into that decision. The argument here is narrower and more specific: that same research, developed almost entirely on fresh produce and whole foods, doesn't transfer cleanly onto a manufactured capsule or powder, and a supplement brand borrowing the credibility of strawberry research to imply something about its processed, concentrated finished product is stretching the evidence further than it actually goes. We'd rather make the narrower, more honest claim and back it with an actual document than make the broader, more familiar-sounding one and hope nobody checks where it actually comes from. So, are organic supplements actually better? If the question is whether an organic label means lower pesticide residue in the raw agricultural input, the evidence is genuinely solid on that specific point, and it's a real reason to choose organic produce if that's specifically what you're optimizing for. If the question is whether it means a meaningfully more nutritious finished product, the research is real but still evolving, and reasonable scientists looking at different data sets have reached different conclusions, which is a more honest answer than either side of this debate usually offers. If the question is whether it means a safer, more accurately dosed, contamination-free finished supplement, that's not what organic certification was ever built to verify in the first place, and no amount of research on organic tomatoes changes that, however often the word gets stretched to imply otherwise. The more useful question isn't "is it organic." It's "has the actual finished product I'm about to take been tested for what matters," which is a question organic certification doesn't answer and was never designed to. Asking that second question, and actually checking whether a brand can answer it with a real document rather than a label, will tell you more about what's in your supplement than the word "organic" ever could on its own, on this bottle or on any other one you're ever deciding between.
Learn more
Mineral vs. Chemical Sunscreen: Where Zinc Oxide Fits (and Where Our Sun Balm Doesn't)
This is the post we've been building toward all month, and it's the one where getting it exactly right matters more than anywhere else we've written. Sun protection isn't a wellness preference. It's a genuine safety question, tied directly to sunburn risk and, over years of exposure, skin cancer risk. That's not a category where we're willing to let a product page's language run ahead of what's actually been tested. So this post does two things. First, it explains the real, well-established science behind mineral and chemical sunscreen filters, what each one is, how each one works, and what current research and regulation actually say about them. Second, and just as important, it tells you plainly where our own Sun Balm fits into that picture and where it doesn't. If you've seen language on our site or anywhere else describing that product as a "sunblock" or as offering "broad-spectrum protection," we want to correct that directly here, because that language got ahead of what we can actually back up, and we'd rather fix it in plain view than quietly edit a product page and hope nobody noticed the difference. What actually makes something a sunscreen, legally and scientifically In the United States, sunscreen is regulated by the FDA as an over-the-counter drug, not a cosmetic. That distinction matters enormously. A cosmetic can describe how a product feels or looks. A drug claim, protecting against sunburn, offering broad-spectrum protection, stating an SPF number, requires the product to be formulated, tested, and labeled according to FDA's sunscreen monograph, the regulatory framework that governs which ingredients can be used, at what concentrations, and what testing has to happen before a specific protection claim can legally appear on a label. Worth knowing briefly: this monograph has an unusually long and unresolved regulatory history. A version was finalized back in 1999 but never actually took effect, stayed indefinitely while outstanding questions got worked through. A major proposed update came in 2019, and the rulemaking process around it has continued in stages since, with the FDA still working through public comments and phased orders rather than a single, final, settled rule. We mention this not to bury you in regulatory history, but because it's part of why you'll sometimes see conflicting summaries of "what's approved" online. The core facts relevant to this post, which ingredients are currently recognized as safe and effective and which require further data, have stayed consistent across that process even while the finer regulatory details continue to evolve. The SPF number itself comes from a standardized human test: applying the product at a fixed, defined amount, generally 2 milligrams per square centimeter of skin, comparing how long it takes unprotected skin to redden against how long it takes treated skin to redden, under controlled UV exposure from a calibrated light source. If unprotected skin starts to redden after roughly ten minutes and treated skin takes 300 minutes under the same exposure, that's an SPF of 30. That number isn't a formula calculated from the ingredient list, and it isn't estimated from how an ingredient behaves in a lab dish. It's measured, on real human skin, using a specific, standardized testing protocol, and it's the only thing that actually tells you what a product's real-world protection level is. This is worth sitting with for a moment, because it's the single most important idea in this whole post, the one everything else here is really building toward: an ingredient having a UV-related property in a lab setting is not the same thing as a finished product being tested and proven to protect skin at a specific, reliable level. Those are two entirely different claims, and the gap between them is exactly where a lot of "natural sunscreen" marketing, across the whole industry, gets into trouble. Mineral filters: zinc oxide and titanium dioxide Mineral, or physical, sunscreen filters work primarily by sitting on top of the skin and reflecting and scattering UV radiation, with some genuine absorption happening as well. Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are the only two ingredients in this category, and they're also the only two sunscreen active ingredients that the FDA currently recognizes as GRASE, generally recognized as safe and effective, without additional safety data required, at concentrations up to 25 percent. That's a meaningfully strong regulatory position, and it's part of why mineral sunscreens have become the default recommendation for children, pregnant people, and anyone with sensitive or reactive skin. Zinc oxide specifically provides strong, genuinely broad-spectrum coverage across both UVB, the shorter wavelength primarily responsible for sunburn, and UVA, the longer wavelength that penetrates deeper into skin and is more associated with premature aging and long-term skin damage. That broad coverage, combined with its long safety track record, is why it's the filter most frequently used in reef-conscious and sensitive-skin sunscreen formulations, and it's the category the FDA specifically points parents toward for children under six months old, alongside shade and protective clothing, since sunscreen generally isn't recommended for infants that young at all. A quick word on "reef-safe," since it tends to travel alongside mineral sunscreen marketing: it's a widely used term with no single regulated legal definition, similar in spirit to "natural" or "clean." What is genuinely well-supported is that certain chemical filters, oxybenzone and octinoxate specifically, have been linked to coral reef stress in research, which is why some destinations restrict them. That's a real, specific finding about two named ingredients, not a blanket scientific verdict that all mineral filters are reef-safe and all chemical filters aren't, and it's worth reading "reef-safe" on a label as a marketing shorthand rather than a certified claim. The tradeoff people notice most with mineral filters is the visible white or grayish cast some formulations leave behind, though non-nano and specially processed particle sizes have narrowed that gap considerably compared to older mineral sunscreen formulas. It's worth being precise about what "non-nano" actually means here, since it shows up on our own ingredient list and deserves an honest explanation rather than an assumed one. Zinc oxide particles can be manufactured at different sizes; non-nano simply means the particle size falls above the nanoscale threshold, generally understood as remaining on the skin's surface rather than being small enough to raise theoretical questions about deeper penetration. The FDA has specifically stated it isn't proposing different regulatory treatment for nano versus non-nano forms of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, since the available safety data hasn't shown a meaningful difference between them. Non-nano is often chosen for consumer reassurance and formulation preference rather than because regulators have flagged nano forms as unsafe. Chemical filters: how they work and where the science actually stands Chemical, or organic, sunscreen filters work differently: they absorb UV radiation and convert it into a small amount of heat, which is then released from the skin. Common examples include avobenzone, octinoxate, octisalate, octocrylene, and homosalate, each with its own slightly different absorption profile across the UV spectrum. These tend to be more cosmetically elegant than mineral filters, thinner, faster-absorbing, and less prone to leaving a visible cast, which is part of why they show up so often in daily-wear facial sunscreens and makeup with SPF included. Here's where we want to be precise rather than alarmist, because this is an area where a lot of "clean beauty" marketing overstates what's actually been established. In 2019, the FDA proposed updated rules reviewing all sixteen sunscreen active ingredients that had been marketed under an older monograph. It confirmed zinc oxide and titanium dioxide as GRASE. It found two rarely used ingredients, PABA and trolamine salicylate, not GRASE due to safety concerns. For the remaining twelve, including avobenzone, oxybenzone, octinoxate, and the others commonly found in chemical sunscreens, the FDA's actual position is that there isn't yet sufficient safety data to make a final determination either way. That's a meaningfully different statement than "found unsafe" or "banned," and it's worth being accurate about the distinction: it's an open question the agency is actively requesting more research to close, not a settled finding against these ingredients. Products containing them remain legal and widely sold, and they've been used for decades without evidence of the kind of serious harm that would justify pulling them from shelves outright. Separately from human safety, some individual chemical filters, oxybenzone and octinoxate specifically, have been restricted in certain locations, including parts of Hawaii and some Caribbean destinations, over concerns about coral reef impact rather than human health. That's a real, distinct issue worth knowing about if you're picking a sunscreen for a trip to a reef-sensitive destination, and it's a separate conversation from whether these ingredients are safe to use on your own skin. Why "contains zinc oxide" is not the same claim as "is a tested sunscreen" This is the part that connects directly to what we need to tell you about our own product, so we want to walk through it carefully. Zinc oxide is a real, legitimate, FDA-recognized sunscreen active ingredient. That much is true and well-established, and it's worth being clear that nothing in this post is meant to cast doubt on zinc oxide itself as a filter. But zinc oxide being present in a product's ingredient list is not, on its own, evidence of what level of protection that finished product actually provides. Several things have to be true beyond simple presence: the concentration has to be high enough to matter, generally in the range that's actually been tested to produce a specific SPF value, the ingredient has to be evenly and stably dispersed throughout the formula so there aren't gaps in coverage, and the finished product, as actually formulated, has to go through the standardized human testing described earlier to produce an actual, verified SPF number. A balm containing some amount of zinc oxide, without a disclosed concentration and without SPF testing on the finished formula, is in a fundamentally different category than a sunscreen that states "SPF 30, broad spectrum" on a Drug Facts label. The ingredient might be doing something. Nobody, including us, can currently tell you how much, because that's precisely the question SPF testing exists to answer, and it hasn't been asked of this specific product. The "natural SPF" myth, and why it matters here specifically This pattern shows up constantly across natural and DIY skincare content, and it's worth understanding because it's exactly the trap that untested "natural sunscreen" products fall into. Carrot seed oil is the clearest example. For years, blogs and social media posts have circulated a claim that carrot seed oil provides an SPF of 38 to 40, all tracing back to a single 2009 study. What that study actually tested was a multi-ingredient product that included carrot seed oil among other components, using an in-vitro method, meaning a lab measurement of how much light a sample absorbs in a dish, not a real human in-vivo SPF test on actual skin. The specific "38 to 40" figure was never measured for carrot seed oil on its own, and it has never been replicated using real sunscreen testing standards. A 2016 review by researchers Gause and Chauhan looked specifically at common fixed oils, including coconut, olive, canola, and soybean oil, and found their actual UV-blocking effect was negligible, landing around an SPF of 1, essentially no meaningful protection at all. The lesson here isn't that these oils are bad for skin. Several of them have real, legitimate roles as moisturizers or after-sun treatments, which is a genuinely different and much more modest claim than functioning as sun protection. The lesson is that a substance showing some UV-related property in a lab setting, or being anecdotally associated with sun protection online, is worlds apart from a finished, tested product with a verified SPF number. That gap is exactly where a lot of natural sunscreen marketing quietly oversells what it can actually prove, and it's the same gap we need to be honest with you about regarding our own Sun Balm. If you ever see a "natural SPF chart" listing specific numbers for oils or botanicals, treat it the same way: ask whether that number came from testing the finished product on human skin, or from a lab measurement of light absorption that never touched a real sunburn risk at all. Where our Sun Balm actually fits Our Sun Balm contains non-nano zinc oxide as one of its ingredients. What it does not have is a tested SPF value, a broad-spectrum designation earned through the standardized testing described above, or a Drug Facts panel confirming it meets the requirements to be marketed and relied upon as a sunscreen. That means we cannot honestly tell you what level of sun protection, if any, this specific product provides in real-world use, and neither can any product in a similar position, regardless of what ingredients are listed on it. We want to be direct about this because it's the most important correction in this entire post: if you've seen this product described elsewhere, including in our own marketing, as a "sunblock" or as offering "broad-spectrum protection," that language outran what we can actually stand behind, and we're walking it back here plainly rather than leaving it in place while writing carefully around it. This isn't a small wording issue to us. Sun protection is a genuine safety decision, and we'd rather lose the cleaner-sounding product description than let anyone rely on this balm the way they'd rely on an actual tested sunscreen. We know that's a harder thing to say about a product we sell than about a product we don't, and we thought about whether there was a softer way to phrase this that would still get the point across. There wasn't, not honestly. The whole reason we spent this month showing you real lab reports, real batch numbers, and real evidence grades is that we'd rather you trust the specific claims we make than trust us in general. This is exactly the moment that trust gets tested, on the one product in our entire catalog where the claim genuinely outran the paperwork, and the right response is to say so plainly rather than hope the topic doesn't come up. What we think this product is honestly good for is what we've written about elsewhere this month: a tallow-based balm with a fatty acid profile that has a real, plausible, if still under-researched, compatibility with skin's own lipid barrier, reasonably positioned as a moisturizing and barrier-support product, including as an after-sun balm once you're already out of direct sun exposure. Some customers have told us they like it for exactly that kind of soothing, hydrating use. That's a legitimate, honest role for this product to play. It is not the same role as sun protection, and we're not going to let the presence of zinc oxide in the ingredient list imply otherwise. What to actually look for in a real sunscreen If you need sun protection, and for any meaningful outdoor exposure, you do, here's what's actually worth checking on a label. Look for the Drug Facts panel itself. Its presence is the clearest signal that a product has gone through the actual regulatory process required to make a protection claim, and it will list the specific active ingredients and their exact concentrations, not just an ingredient somewhere further down a cosmetic-style list. Look for "broad spectrum" stated explicitly, which confirms the product has been tested against both UVA and UVB, not just UVB. For daily use, SPF 30 or higher is the standard dermatological recommendation, and higher SPF numbers provide only incrementally more protection past a certain point, so chasing an extremely high number matters less than applying enough of what you have and reapplying it consistently. Application amount is the detail almost everyone gets wrong, mineral, chemical, or otherwise. SPF testing is done at a specific, fairly generous application rate, and most people apply meaningfully less than that in real life, sometimes as little as a quarter to half of the tested amount, which quietly reduces the actual protection achieved well below the number on the bottle even when the product itself is perfectly legitimate. For full body coverage, that generally works out to roughly a shot glass, about an ounce, and for the face alone, more than most people assume, closer to a quarter to half teaspoon. Reapply every two hours, and immediately after swimming, heavy sweating, or towel drying, regardless of what the water-resistance claim says. Water resistance itself is always tested and stated for a specific duration, 40 or 80 minutes, and "waterproof" isn't a claim the FDA allows on any sunscreen label, because no formula holds up in water indefinitely, and implying otherwise would be its own kind of overstated claim. The honest bottom line Zinc oxide is a real, well-supported, FDA-recognized sunscreen ingredient, and mineral sunscreens built and tested around it are a genuinely excellent choice for a huge range of people, including exactly the sensitive-skin and family use cases our own audience cares most about. Chemical filters remain legal, widely used, and not established as unsafe, even though some of them are still working through an open regulatory data review rather than a fully closed one. And an ingredient's presence in a product, on its own, tells you nothing about that finished product's actual, tested level of protection, which is exactly the gap our own Sun Balm currently sits inside. We'd rather tell you that clearly, in a post specifically about getting this right, than let ambiguous language keep doing work it was never tested to do. If you need sun protection today, reach for a tested, labeled sunscreen, mineral or chemical, whichever suits your skin, and use it generously and often. If you want a good moisturizing balm for after you've already been out in it, that's a conversation we're happy to keep having honestly, on this product and on everything else we make.
Learn more