P&G is acquiring Thorne for $3.8 billion. We looked past the manufacturing reputation into recalls, Prop 65 settlements, customer complaints, and what the sale actually means for the formulas on your shelf.

Thorne built its reputation on manufacturing infrastructure and nutrient form quality. But a look at its FDA history, Prop 65 settlements, and customer service record tells a more complicated story, one that matters now that P&G is buying the company for $3.8 billion.

What we found when we looked beyond one of the most trusted names in supplements.

Thorne has been one of the most trusted names in professional supplements for decades, and there are legitimate reasons for that. We have spent years formulating supplements and analyzing nutrient forms, dosages, excipients, sourcing, and manufacturing quality across brands, and Thorne has consistently stood out. Their formulations have historically been cleaner than much of the industry, they have used well-absorbed nutrient forms, and they built a strong reputation among practitioners who pay attention to the details most consumers never see on the front of a bottle. That reputation is exactly why the announcement that Procter & Gamble plans to acquire Thorne for approximately $3.8 billion caught our attention.

The reaction across the supplement world was immediate. Practitioners questioned whether they would keep recommending Thorne. Consumers said they were finished with the brand before P&G had changed anything at all. We understand the concern, since smaller health companies repeatedly become assets inside large corporations. But the question we wanted answered went further than who is buying Thorne. We wanted to know who owned the company before P&G, who actually manufactures the products, where the raw ingredients originate, how much testing really happens, whether everything carrying the Thorne name is made in the same place, what regulatory issues the company has faced, and what happens when a customer has a problem.

That last question matters because supplement reviews almost always stop at the capsule. Nutrient forms, fillers, and third-party testing get analyzed constantly, but what happens after the sale rarely does. A company can run an excellent manufacturing facility and still create a difficult experience for the person buying the product. Once we looked at Thorne from both sides, the picture became more complicated.

A Reputation Built on Manufacturing Control

Thorne was founded in 1984 and built its name inside the practitioner supplement world, where the details mattered more than the front label. Practitioners cared whether magnesium was oxide, citrate, or glycinate. They looked at methylfolate versus folic acid, the form of B12, botanical standardization, and whether a dose made physiological sense. Thorne understood that market well, and much of the trust it earned was deserved.

The company invested heavily in manufacturing. Today Thorne operates a large campus in Summerville, South Carolina, where manufacturing, laboratories, research, quality operations, and warehousing sit under one roof. This sets Thorne apart from brands that formulate and market a product while another company physically manufactures it. Outsourcing itself does not make a supplement lower quality, but it adds distance between the name on the label and the facility producing what you swallow.

Thorne has previously stated that around 95 percent of its products are manufactured at its own South Carolina facility, meaning a portion of the line has historically been made under contract elsewhere. There can be legitimate reasons for this, since certain dosage forms require equipment Thorne does not operate internally. Consumers deserve to know the distinction, even when the majority of production stays in-house.

The Raw Material Supply Chain

Manufacturing in South Carolina does not mean the nutrients inside a Thorne product originated there, or even in the United States. Vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and botanical compounds move through an international supply chain. Depending on the nutrient, raw materials may come from Europe, Asia, or North America, and may be plant-extracted, fermentation-derived, mineral-based, or synthesized. Thorne is not manufacturing every molecule from scratch. Like every major supplement company, it relies on outside raw material suppliers.

This is where quality control philosophy matters. Thorne has stated that it does not simply accept a supplier's Certificate of Analysis as proof an ingredient meets specification. Incoming materials are independently tested and verified. That is exactly the kind of quality control we want from a company selling premium supplements, and it is one of the more reassuring details in this investigation.

Thorne has also worked with established specialty suppliers, including Indena, an Italian company known for botanical extracts and phytosome technology. This matters because two supplements can list the same botanical on the label while containing materials that differ substantially in standardization and absorption. A clinically studied standardized extract is not equivalent to an inexpensive commodity powder, even when the front label looks nearly identical.

The same nuance applies to natural versus synthetic nutrients. Thorne uses ingredients that are naturally derived, fermented, or synthesized, and that alone is not a concern. What matters is molecular form, purity, dose, and physiological behavior. A poorly absorbed nutrient does not become superior because the marketing sounds more natural.

Testing Infrastructure

Thorne's laboratory infrastructure is a genuine strength. The company describes multiple rounds of testing across manufacturing, starting with incoming raw materials and continuing through production and finished product testing. Stability testing matters too, since a supplement needs to hold its specifications throughout its full shelf life, not only on the day it leaves the line. Thorne also carries numerous NSF Certified for Sport products, adding independent screening for substances prohibited in competitive athletics, a real safeguard for athletes where contamination can end a career.

The Regulatory History

In 2014, the FDA warned consumers about two Thorne products, Captomer and Captomer-250, both containing DMSA, a chelating compound also used in an FDA-approved prescription medication for lead poisoning. The FDA's position was that no over-the-counter chelation products are FDA-approved, and it advised against using these products. Thorne voluntarily recalled them. The FDA also reported several adverse event reports connected to the products. An adverse event report does not establish that a product caused a reaction, but it remains part of the documented history.

A California Proposition 65 case involving alleged lead exposure from Thorne supplements resulted in a settlement of approximately $250,000, including civil penalties, attorney fees, and provisions for testing, warnings, and reformulation. Proposition 65 thresholds are conservative, and botanical and mineral ingredients can naturally carry trace heavy metals from soil. A settlement does not automatically mean consumers were being poisoned or that manufacturing was unsafe. At the same time, heavy metal purity is one of the reasons people pay premium prices for professional supplements, so this history belongs in the full picture.

More recent Proposition 65 notices have named individual Thorne products in lead exposure allegations. A notice is an allegation, not a final determination. What matters more is what happens after: independent lot testing, measured levels, supplier investigation, and whether the formula changed. These are the details supplement companies should make easier for consumers to access.

Testing Transparency

Thorne talks extensively about its testing systems, but some consumers have publicly reported requesting Certificates of Analysis or detailed testing results without receiving them. That does not mean testing is not happening. Everything about Thorne's manufacturing infrastructure suggests it takes testing seriously. The open question is whether consumers should simply be told testing occurred, or whether they should be able to see the results themselves.

We would like to see more lot-specific transparency from premium supplement companies across the industry. If a company charges more because of extensive purity testing, showing the actual heavy metal, potency, identity, and microbial results builds far more trust than a general claim.

How Thorne Treats Customers

This is the part of the investigation that stood out most. Thorne currently carries a C rating with the Better Business Bureau, with 25 reported complaints, two listed as unresolved. On Trustpilot, Thorne sits around 1.9 out of 5 from 77 reviews, with roughly 70 percent rated one star.

These numbers need context. Thorne has an enormous customer base, and 77 Trustpilot reviews are not representative of millions of consumer experiences. People whose orders arrive without issue rarely feel compelled to write a review. Unhappy customers are far more motivated to post publicly. We would not interpret these numbers to mean 70 percent of Thorne customers are unhappy.

What stood out was the pattern inside the complaints: difficulty reaching customer service, long phone waits, unanswered emails, shipping problems, refund frustration, and subscription issues. Some complaints were eventually resolved, so this is not a company refusing to help. It is a pattern of customers needing to put in real effort for ordinary problems.

There is also a disconnect worth naming. Some customers criticize the customer service while still saying they trust the supplements themselves. For at least part of Thorne's customer base, the product reputation remains stronger than the experience of dealing with the company behind it.

Rapid growth affects every part of a company. More revenue means more customers, more packages, more subscriptions, and more opportunities for something to go wrong. Manufacturing can scale faster than customer support. A company that once served a smaller practitioner base can find itself managing millions of direct-to-consumer transactions, where the laboratory stays excellent while the person waiting for a refund does not feel it.

Subscriptions and Practitioner Relationships

Subscriptions carry real value in the supplement industry. A customer receiving the same order automatically every month for years has a very different lifetime value than a one-time buyer, which is part of why recurring purchasing has become standard across health and wellness. There is nothing wrong with auto-ship on its own. Our standard is simple: if joining a subscription is easy, cancelling it should be equally easy.

Thorne has also built strong relationships with healthcare practitioners, including systems where practitioners recommend products and may receive financial rebates on qualifying purchases. This model is common across the supplement industry and is not inherently unethical, but consumers deserve transparency about the financial relationships behind a recommendation.

The Acquisition Timeline

Thorne went public in 2021. In 2023, private equity firm L Catterton acquired the company and took it private in a deal valued at approximately $680 million. Roughly three years later, Procter & Gamble announced plans to acquire Thorne for approximately $3.8 billion.

That difference is significant. A company valued at approximately $680 million in 2023 is now part of a proposed transaction valued at approximately $3.8 billion, alongside dramatic sales growth over the same period. The supplement consumer has become an extremely valuable asset, and Thorne's transformation did not begin with P&G. It began with going public, moving through private equity, and expanding rapidly as a direct-to-consumer health business. P&G is simply the newest chapter.

P&G is not paying $3.8 billion for bottles of magnesium and vitamin D. It is acquiring manufacturing infrastructure, laboratories, research capability, supply chain relationships, practitioner credibility, sports relationships, recurring customers, distribution, and years of accumulated consumer trust. That trust may be the most valuable asset in the entire transaction.

What We Will Be Watching

Large scale manufacturing creates financial realities most consumers never think about. A two cent reduction per capsule is meaningless across a few thousand units and becomes millions of dollars across a hundred million units. Apply that logic across raw materials, packaging, and hundreds of products, and small decisions become significant ones.

There is currently no evidence that P&G has cheapened any Thorne formulation, and it would be irresponsible to claim otherwise. What we will watch for going forward: whether a magnesium form changes, whether a branded botanical gets replaced, whether a 500 milligram dose becomes 400 milligrams, whether new excipients appear, whether more products move to contract manufacturing, and whether prices rise while doses fall. Those details will tell us far more than speculation about ownership. If P&G maintains the formulations, strengthens testing, and improves the customer experience, that deserves to be said too.

Where This Leaves Us

After looking closely at Thorne, we came away with real respect for parts of the company. The manufacturing infrastructure is substantial. The raw material verification philosophy is strong. The laboratory capabilities appear serious. The cleaner formulations and thoughtful nutrient forms built a practitioner reputation that was largely earned.

We also came away with open questions. Why does a company with this much manufacturing sophistication have consumers reporting so much difficulty reaching support? Why can consumers not easily access more of the testing data behind products whose premium price is partly justified by that testing? Will the proportion of in-house manufacturing hold steady after the acquisition? Will raw material suppliers stay the same? Will formulations remain intact?

Those questions matter more to us than who owns the parent company. We do not judge a magnesium capsule based on what else the acquiring company sells. We judge magnesium based on magnesium: molecular form, dose, excipients, purity, testing, and whether the formulation makes physiological sense. Brand loyalty can become its own kind of blind spot, and that is exactly why we keep looking past the label.

Order your personalized genetic report!