Joint Supplement Failures Do Not Establish an MSM Failure Rate

ConsumerLab’s joint supplement test failures do not establish an MSM failure rate. Its public review headlines an 18% failure rate among selected joint health supplements, while its summary says about 12% were “Not Approved” and one was “Partially Approved.” The publicly described shortfalls involved Boswellia compounds and, in one product, turmeric compounds—not a demonstrated pattern of under-strength MSM.

Choose the claim you want to interpret; the result shows what the public findings support.

The review carries an August 27, 2026 revision date but labels its products “tested in 2025.” A revised review is not necessarily a new round of laboratory testing. These are findings available in 2026, not evidence of a separate 2026 test batch.

The 18% and 12% Figures Describe Different Labels

ConsumerLab’s public pages report several figures that need to stay attached to their original descriptions:

Public Statement	What It Describes
“18% … Failed to Pass Our Tests”	The headline on the review and joint-health hub
Three of 17 selected products fell short	The February 6, 2025 release; three divided by 17 is approximately 18%
About 12% were “Not Approved”	The current review summary, which also reports one “Partially Approved” product
Seventeen products were “Approved”	The current summary’s approved count; the review also includes five products that passed voluntary certification testing, outside the original selected sample

Sources: the public review linked above, ConsumerLab’s joint-health hub and its February 2025 release.

The public text does not fully explain how the headline’s failure count maps to the current approval categories. Neither percentage should be presented as the share of all joint supplements—or all MSM products—that are defective.

ConsumerLab’s selection policy says it chooses popular brands and a cross-section of product types. That method does not establish a market-wide failure rate. Products added through certification are also separate from the original selected sample, so the current approved count should not be used to reconstruct that sample’s results.

The Reported Shortfalls Were in Boswellia and Turmeric

The February 2025 announcement describes three products with less Boswellia content than expected from their labels:

Product Described	Boswellic Acids Found	Curcuminoids Found
One product	Less than 4% of label claim	2.3% of label claim
Another product	57% of expected amount	Not reported in the announcement
A third product	83.6% of expected amount	Not reported in the announcement

The current review separately summarizes the “Not Approved” products as containing 2.3% to 57.3% of listed ingredient amounts. That range should not replace every shortfall described in the earlier release: the release also reports a Boswellia result of 83.6%.

These percentages refer to particular ingredient measurements. They do not mean a bottle contained only 2.3% of its total advertised supplement weight, nor that its MSM content was 2.3% of the label claim.

The announcement also says the contamination-prone products tested did not exceed the specified heavy-metal limits. That finding applies to those products and tests; it does not establish that every product was screened for every possible contaminant. The main failures publicly described were ingredient-content problems, not heavy-metal failures.

The Public Summary Does Not Name the Failed Products

The public review lists products tested, but inclusion in that list is not a failure designation. Brand-level results and Top Picks are in the member report. A Boswellia or turmeric ingredient description is not enough to identify a failing brand.

For a purchase decision, the missing public information is consequential: you need the exact product’s result, not simply confirmation that its brand appears in the review.

MSM Content Testing Is Separate From the Reported Failures

ConsumerLab tested MSM content where products listed an amount. Its published methods use gas chromatography for MSM and specify an approval range of 100%–130% of the labeled MSM amount, alongside other applicable quality requirements.

That tells you how ConsumerLab evaluates a labeled MSM amount. It does not supply an MSM-specific failure rate: the public failure announcement does not provide one.

A blend can fall short on Boswellia or turmeric without establishing whether its MSM matched the label. Conversely, an MSM content result alone cannot establish that every other ingredient in a blend met its criteria. Read the ingredient-level findings and the reason for any partial approval rather than treating the whole product’s status as an MSM measurement.

A quality pass also does not establish pain relief. ConsumerLab’s review calls MSM evidence “very limited.” NCCIH’s public summary, last revised in September 2017, says too little research exists to conclude whether MSM helps osteoarthritis. For that separate clinical question, see what MSM trials actually support.

Match the Test Result to the Exact Formula

Match the product name, ingredient forms and serving size against the reported result—not just the brand. Human and pet products have separate reviews. For a combination product, check which ingredient passed or fell short and why the product received partial approval.

The testing route also matters when interpreting the counts. ConsumerLab’s voluntary Quality Certification Program charges manufacturers a testing fee and uses the same testing approach, with samples not accepted directly from manufacturers. Passing products may be added to reviews, but those additions are not the original selected sample.

For MSM, compare the amount per serving rather than the total blend weight. A total blend amount does not tell you how much MSM it supplies. A single-ingredient formula makes that comparison simpler, but is not automatically purer or more effective. See MSM alone versus combination products.

Use the test report to establish whether the exact product meets the stated quality criteria. Use clinical evidence—and a discussion with your health care provider—to decide whether it is worth trying for joint symptoms. ConsumerLab’s public failure percentages cannot answer that second question.