Why “75% Fulvic Acid” Claims in Shilajit Are a Red Flag

The Rise of Inflated Fulvic Acid Claims

“Contains 75% fulvic acid.” On the surface that sounds powerful. In practice, it’s usually marketing. Independent Certificates of Analysis (COAs) routinely show authentic Shilajit in the ~5–15% fulvic range. Anything far higher deserves scrutiny.

Why Percentages Can Be Misleading

Fulvic acid lacks a single universal test standard. Unlike heavy metals—where expectations are clearly defined—fulvic content can be measured by different methods with wildly different outcomes. That opens the door to exaggeration.

LAMAR method: Considered the most advanced research approach for distinguishing humic/fulvic fractions; accurate but uncommon in commercial testing.
Outdated/loose methods: Can misread other organic fractions as “fulvic,” inflating the headline %.

If a label shouts “75% fulvic” but doesn’t disclose how it was measured, treat the number as a claim, not a fact.

A Real-World Example

We’ve seen brands market numbers that don’t survive independent testing. In one widely shared case, a product claiming “75% fulvic” tested just over 6% on an accredited COA—less than one-tenth of the promise. When the method isn’t disclosed (or isn’t credible), inflated stats are easy to publish and hard for buyers to verify.

When High Numbers Are Real (But Not Natural)

Some products—such as standardized extracts like PrimaVe®—can legitimately show very high fulvic percentages (e.g., 75–90%). The key distinction:

They are standardized concentrates made by controlled processing to boost fulvic levels.
They are not raw Shilajit resins and shouldn’t be marketed as such.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with standardized extracts, but the label must be clear. Comparing a concentrated fulvic extract to natural Shilajit is like comparing vitamin C isolate to an orange: one is engineered for potency; the other is a whole-matrix resin.

Why Inflated Claims Are a Red Flag

Method mystery: Without a named method, a percentage is just marketing.
Science vs. spin: Big numbers sell, but they rarely track with credible COAs.
Value risk: Paying “premium” pricing for 75% on the label and 6–10% in reality is a waste.
Adulteration risk: Some sellers may mix additives that mimic “fulvic-like” signals on loose tests.

Pro Tip: If a product claims 50–75% fulvic acid and says it’s raw “Himalayan Shilajit,” demand the COA and the method. If it’s a true standardized extract (e.g., PrimaVe®), the label should say so explicitly.

The Bigger Issue: Testing Corruption

Because fulvic testing isn’t standardized, some brands exploit the gap:

Cherry-picking labs or methods that yield bigger numbers.
Vague reports that omit the test method and detection limits.
Percentage gymnastics (reporting % relative to a fraction, not the whole sample).

How to Protect Yourself

Demand batch-matched COAs. The COA must match the lot number on your jar.
Check methods. If the fulvic method isn’t disclosed (e.g., LAMAR vs. unspecified colorimetry), assume the % is unreliable.
Look beyond potency. A proper COA also shows heavy metals (Pb/As/Cd/Hg), microbial results, and ideally ash content.
Expect consistency. Trust brands that publish COAs for every batch, not a one-off.

For broader expectations around quality and safety, review the WHO Guidelines for Quality Control of Herbal Materials and the USP resources on elemental impurities.

Proof Over Promises (American Grit)

American Grit doesn’t rely on inflated percentages or vague origin stories. Every batch is U.S.-sourced, extracted with water + fermentation (no harsh solvents), and shipped with a full, batch-matched COA covering fulvic %, heavy metals, and microbial safety.