In early August of this year, Thorne announced that it had entered into an agreement to be acquired by The Procter & Gamble Company. The deal won’t likely be completed until later in 2026, but I observed that the announcement sparked lots of discussion, disappointment, and even some feelings of fear and loathing, in various forums and chats. While these feelings are absolutely valid, especially in the face of unanticipated news, polishing the lens through which we view such information often helps round out our perspective and process the details in a productive manner. Let’s use the Thorne deal, and some other fairly recent examples among familiar brands, to explore strategies you can use to do this.
What is Thorne’s History?
Thorne began operations in 1984, led by Al Czap. The company’s objectives were, “building a product portfolio, establishing a heritage of quality and purity, and earning recognition in the market.” (Thorne Content Team, 2024)
Thorne expanded in 2010, selling to an investment group and transitioning leadership from its founders to Paul Jacobson as CEO and Tom McKenna as COO. The company also focused its objectives more directly on science backed formulations, clinical studies, and third-party testing and quality controls that align with worldwide regulatory agencies. Additionally, it shifted its position as a practitioner-only brand to a consumer-focused platform.
 |
In 2021, Thorne made another change when it became a publicly traded company, offering shares of stock for purchase. (Thorne HealthTech, Inc, 2021)
Two years later, in 2023, Thorne was acquired by L Catterton, one of the largest consumer-focused private equity firms in the world, reverting back to private ownership. (L Catterton, 2023) Brands in the L Catterton’s portfolio have included Birkenstock, The Honest Company, and Peloton, and they have a partnership with LVMH (Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton). Colin Watts, former CEO of The Vitamin Shoppe, took over as CEO and has guided Thorne’s efforts toward exponential global retail expansion.
Why would a company that has taken such care to build a brand enter into a deal with a mega-corporation? Let’s take a step back and name some of the reasons why this kind of acquisition happens in the first place.
Why Do Companies Change Hands?
For those familiar with business the answers may seem obvious, but for context, there are a handful of common reasons why a company’s ownership might change.
Cash Out
It often takes years and countless hours to build a successful company; the process can be incredibly draining, and founders, even those who begin with the purest of intentions, may simply want some well-earned rest and space to enjoy the value they’ve created. Perhaps a founder is ready to retire and shift focus to personal priorities, or maybe they want to move on to another business venture. Selling the business can provide funds for one or more of these pursuits.
Roxanne Quimby, the self-made co-founder of Burt’s Bees, vividly illustrated this. She had a passion for land conservation from early on and began buying up land in Maine as the company grew. Eventually she sold her interest in Burt’s Bees, first to an investment group in 2003, and the remainder to Clorox in 2007 (Sharp, 2011). Quimby said, “I feel the fact that I was able to sell the company accelerated the process of land conservation in terms of what I could do.” (Story, 2008)
Under Pressure
Aside from being an awesome song by Queen and the amazing David Bowie, this concept can contribute to the burnout founders may feel to sell. Thorne’s pending acquisition is an example of this dynamic, as private equity funds like L. Catterton have an obligation to return capital (plus a profit) to investors. The two-staged deal by which Quimby exited Burt’s Bees, selling first to investors, then to a larger corporation, also involves elements of this kind of pressure or cycle. Selling the business frees up cash for those repayment obligations.
Fuel for Growth
A company with great products can only expand as quickly as it’s able to manage the components needed to make and sell those products. For example, if a local baker makes amazing gluten-free bagels for sale in her home city, but wants to get them into the hands of people across the country, she will likely need funding for all the costs associated with new locations, more ingredients, more bakers, other workers, and the many additional costs that come with this type of expansion. A bigger corporation may simply have the experience to make the process easier, providing not just an investment of cash but also established processes and connections to help make the end goal a reality.
RXBAR grew from its beginnings in a home kitchen, into a multimillion dollar sale, largely for this reason. Co-founder Peter Rahal said that the sale of the company to Kellogg wasn’t cashing out, but rather would give RXBAR “a ton of muscle” and the ability to scale much faster than it would have done alone. Rahal continued as CEO saying, “I get to keep my job, and the whole company will remain intact. We’ll be a standalone company within Kellogg, so we’re excited to continue to grow and [move on to] the next chapter.” (Breuninger, 2017)
A Missing Piece
A large corporation may set its sights on a smaller company as part of a business strategy that involves more than just growth. Procter & Gamble did this in 2017 when it purchased Native Deodorant, adding to a portfolio that included Gillette, Secret and Old Spice. Acquiring a smaller brand with a loyal following can be faster and easier than creating a new brand and product line from the ground up. This strategy allows the corporation to plug a missing piece into its existing portfolio and may help to explain the increase in acquisitions within the health, wellness, and longevity space in recent years.
We could view P&G’s interest and financial commitment as affirmation of Thorne’s standards and reputation, but the brand is also a particularly attractive target because in addition to formulating quality supplements, it built a book of practitioner relationships that represent another asset in the acquisition, which is something that would be difficult for P&G to create through retail avenues. Thorne has also integrated various stages of its business – for example, from research and development, to its own supplement manufacturing facilities, and even test kits that inform supplement recommendations – which offers additional operational benefit to its list of assets (like reputation and practitioner network).
Eliminating Competition
A less-pleasant changeover situation is one in which a company (larger or not), seeks to buy and eliminate its competition. Sometimes this will involve purchase of the former company in order to gain access to its formulas, technology, supply chain, or other resources, and potentially retaining creative or other personnel for a period of time to prevent them from starting yet another competitor. Alternatively, it could also mean simply shutting the doors to remove products or services from the marketplace; deals of this nature have been discussed in academic literature and dubbed “killer acquisitions” particularly with regard to a small percentage of pharma deals. (Cunningham, et al. 2021)
Cunningham and her co-authors argue that, “acquired drug projects are less likely to be developed when they overlap with the acquirer’s existing product portfolio, especially when the acquirer’s market power is large due to weak competition or distant patent expiration.” For example, Questcor Pharmaceuticals acquired the US Development rights to Synacthen, a therapy that Novartis was developing as a competitor to Questcor’s pricey H.P. Acthar Gel, and simply shelved it. (Pollack, 2013)
This is only intended as a rudimentary overview. Each situation will involve nuances that add dimension to any of the basic scenarios described above, and often they can overlap.
Does Acquisition Always = Negative Impacts?
As practitioners, when we put our professional (and often personal) trust in a brand by recommending specific products to our clients, we’re also attaching our reputation and credibility to that brand. This connection can complicate our ability to process news of what feels like a ‘sell out’ to a large conglomerate, especially if that conglomerate does not appear to share the values of the founders, the pre-buy out team, and/or you as a practitioner. It’s natural to have these feelings rear up; if they do, give yourself a moment to experience them and then use your knowledge and research skills to do a fair audit of the impacts.
What do you know, or what can you learn about the parent company?
You may have a bias or preconceived notion based on past experience, comments from others, or some other secondary (or farther removed) source. Be honest with yourself and take the time to explore whether those are fair impressions, or if there are reasons to reconsider. The real picture may be more favorable than you (and/or your clients) anticipate, which would be a welcome surprise. If, however, your peek into the new parent company’s values or structure doesn’t comfort you, consider a few more factors.
Name your fears – what are your main areas of concern, and how likely are they in reality?
Quality and Consistency
When ownership at supplement companies changes, concerns often center on consistency in formulas, the quality of ingredients, and similar product-specific considerations. The truth is that if a larger company is buying a brand for its expertise, attention to quality, and similar standards, the buyer has reason to maintain those things, at least initially. This correlates with the “missing piece” reasoning above, which is very different from a situation where a competitor is acquiring a company to reduce competition.
Also consider that a large corporation will have multiple reporting requirements that inevitably increase transparency and likely heighten attention to quality control standards. At the corporate level, companies must report to a board, shareholders, and/or investors and in that context will be tasked with preserving the newly acquired business at pre-purchase levels of profit, or exceeding those levels through expansion fueled by the greater resources (not just financial, but also things like distribution, supply chain) of the new owner. Public companies will also be bound by public, quarterly disclosures.
Another relevant aspect of deals like this: the operations team from the acquired brand will often stay on for some predetermined period of time. This may help support continuity and consistency during the transition for both the new parent company and brand-loyal consumers.
While all of the points above are valid, the reality is that once the acquisition is complete, the new parent company is in control of decision making. If we acknowledge that the reputation, quality, and all the other things associated with a smaller brand are ‘sunk costs’ to the larger corporation, meaning they factor into the attractiveness and valuation of the brand in context of the acquisition, some changes are possible if expansion and scaling are the true goals moving forward.
Ethical Desire to Support Small or Privately Owned Businesses
Even if a new owner maintains standards, you or your clients may simply feel conflicted about supporting a large corporation. This is an individual, valid consideration, and if you’ve consciously prioritized it, there’s no easy solution other than to find an alternative from a brand that aligns with your values. Alternatively, if it’s a line you drew in the sand long ago and wish to revisit on a case by case basis, that’s ok too – we all have the option to review, adapt, and change or evolve.
Takeaways for Practitioners
How can you monitor brands and products after they’re brought into the fold of a large corporation?
Real Life Examples
Let’s look at three examples to help illustrate the potential pros and cons, and protective strategies you might use.
Pure Encapsulations
Pure Encapsulations was acquired by Nestle Health Science in 2017 after establishing itself as a brand with clean, trusted products for clinical dosing. Although it’s no longer independently owned and Nestle’s reach has introduced it into new channels (certain online partnerships with physicians internationally), it’s still perceived as a quality brand with virtually no evidence of compromises in ingredients or formulations. This is as close to a best case scenario as we might imagine.
Primal Kitchen
The company’s founder, Mark Sisson, stayed on to lead Primal Kitchen after its 2019 sale to Kraft Heinz and following notice of the pending sale Sisson posted publicly that, “the integrity of our ingredients won’t change” (Primal Kitchen, 2018). I don’t doubt that this was his intent, and it’s true that the ingredient lists have remained largely unchanged.
In order to meet a desire for greater distribution, the company is reported to have shifted to using co-packers (which inevitably results in less control over processes), higher-volume equipment (from a technical standpoint, this can change the emulsification process, impacting flavor and consistency), and different suppliers (thereby introducing potential for more variability in quality – specifically, the purity and quality of avocado oil, a key ingredient in many of their products, came into question).
It’s important to recognize that while these changes do add variables, they are all part of the normal operations of any consumer packaged goods company and in and of themselves are not reason for concern. It’s also very difficult to know objectively and specifically whether these shifts actually impacted the quality of the individual products. Many of the online discussions or reviews regarding perceived changes to Primal Kitchen’s products center around differences in quality, flavor and consistency, which by their nature are difficult to measure.
Siete Foods
Steve Williams, the CEO of Pepsico North America, stated that PepsiCo was, “dedicated to preserving [Siete’s] special attributes while making the brand more widely available and accessible on a broader scale” following the 2025 acquisition (PepsiCo 2025).
Within less than a year, PepsiCo began changing ingredients and manufacturing practices and consumers have shared photos online showing the ingredient label changes over time. For example, the ingredients in grain-free tortilla chips were changed from a whole root cassava flour to a cheaper, highly-refined cassava blend, stabilizers and thickening agents, including modified food starch were added to taco seasonings, and refined sugars were added to grain-free cookies – these are some of the products specifically available in mass distribution settings like warehouse stores.
Increases in customer complaints, although unverified, have tracked with these changes, suggesting a pattern of concerns around things like taste, consistency, and quality.
What Can We Glean From These Examples?
As a practitioner, and likely a consumer yourself, here are some indicators to watch if you’d like to monitor for potential changes:
Distribution Channels or Availability: Stay alert to whether and how quickly this changes. Are the brand’s products suddenly widely available, popping up in previously unexpected places? Are you seeing increased marketing across all channels?
Formulas and Ingredients: Review current ingredient lists for the products you recommend often, saving a photo or screenshot for clear reference. Set a reminder to check these at reasonable intervals, like every 6 months, unless another indicator pops up and prompts you to investigate them sooner.
Manufacturing-related Changes: Per FDA labeling requirements, the product label should provide some basic manufacturing information. Look for a statement such as, ‘manufactured by’, ‘manufactured for’, ‘distributed by’ xxx company, or some other factual statement that provides this information. (21 C.F.R. § 101.5, 2026) City, state and zip code of the manufacturing facility may also be included.
If these details change, that’s a clue that manufacturing procedures may have changed.1
Certifications: A certification like NSF Certified for Sport is information you can fact-check, and non-renewal is its own kind of information, separate from random, unverified internet complaints.
Testing: Similar to certifications, voluntary third-party testing is another source of information that you could verify. The product page for Methyl-Guard Plus states that:
This product has been third-party tested and certified to verify what’s in the package matches what’s on the label and to confirm it contains no unsafe levels of contaminants, such as heavy metals, pesticides, and microorganisms.
The fact that this statement is posted doesn’t confirm its truth, but its absence in the future might signal the need for further investigation into potential changes.
Changes to Key Members of the Team: While changes in leadership are more likely to grab attention, loss of members of the scientific or technical teams – like researchers and formulators – are noteworthy.
Practitioner Feedback: What are you hearing in your practitioner communities? While individual complaints or concerns should be verified and considered in context, firsthand reports of changes observed in real-time can be helpful in raising awareness so that we can each evaluate potential issues. As with everything here, be sure to do your own diligence to confirm whatever is being reported.
Staying informed and level-headed in our research can help us serve our clients well even as market changes take place around us. We can help calm client fears over changes in products, or offer alternatives if valid concerns exist, helping to smooth the process so that they can focus on their health. In either case, we’re modeling another way to manage a potential stressor with minimal impacts and a problem-solving mindset.
FAQ
These frequently asked questions expand on the article’s key considerations for practitioners evaluating supplement brands before and after an acquisition.
Why are supplement company acquisitions important for practitioners?
Supplement company acquisitions matter because practitioners may be professionally recommending products from the acquired brand and attaching their own credibility to those recommendations. A change in ownership can affect decision-making, distribution, manufacturing, ingredients, personnel, or other aspects of the business, making ongoing evaluation important.
Why do supplement and wellness companies get acquired?
Companies may be acquired because founders or investors want to cash out, the business needs resources to grow, the buyer wants to fill a gap in its portfolio, or the acquisition serves a competitive strategy. More than one motivation can be present in the same transaction.
Why would a successful supplement company sell to a larger corporation?
A successful company may sell because a larger corporation can provide capital, distribution, supply-chain resources, established processes, and other infrastructure needed for expansion. In other situations, founders may want to exit or investors may need to return capital and profits to their investors.
Does an acquisition mean supplement quality will decline?
No, an acquisition does not automatically mean supplement quality will decline. A buyer acquiring a company for its expertise, quality standards, reputation, or loyal customer base may have strong reasons to preserve those assets, although the new parent company ultimately controls future decisions.
What should practitioners evaluate when a supplement company is acquired?
Practitioners should evaluate the parent company, identify their specific concerns, and then monitor objective indicators that could reveal meaningful changes. These include formulas and ingredients, manufacturing information, certifications, third-party testing, distribution, and changes in scientific or technical personnel.
How can practitioners tell if a supplement formula has changed after an acquisition?
Practitioners can compare current ingredient lists with earlier versions of products they routinely recommend. Saving a photo or screenshot of the current label creates a reference point, and the article suggests rechecking at reasonable intervals such as every six months unless another change prompts an earlier review.
What manufacturing changes should practitioners watch for after an acquisition?
Practitioners should watch for changes in label information identifying who manufactures, distributes, or is otherwise responsible for the product. Changes in these details can provide a clue that manufacturing procedures may also have changed.
Can expanded distribution indicate changes to a supplement or wellness brand?
Expanded distribution can be an early signal that a brand is scaling after an acquisition, although it does not by itself demonstrate a decline in quality. Practitioners can watch for products appearing in new retail channels or substantially increased marketing and then determine whether other indicators have changed as well.
Why should practitioners monitor third-party testing and certifications after an acquisition?
Third-party testing and certifications provide information practitioners can verify rather than relying solely on anecdotal reports. If an established certification is not renewed or a previously stated testing claim disappears, that change may warrant further investigation.
Should practitioners pay attention to leadership or scientific-team changes after an acquisition?
Yes, changes involving scientific and technical personnel can be meaningful indicators to monitor. Leadership departures may receive more attention publicly, but the loss of researchers, formulators, or other technical team members can also be noteworthy.
How much weight should practitioners give online complaints after a brand is acquired?
Individual online complaints should be treated as signals to investigate rather than proof that a product has changed or declined in quality. Practitioner reports and consumer observations can raise useful questions, but the article recommends verifying concerns and considering them alongside more objective evidence.
How often should practitioners review supplement products they routinely recommend?
The article suggests reviewing ingredient lists at reasonable intervals, such as every six months, unless another indicator prompts an earlier investigation. Keeping screenshots or photos of product labels makes it easier to identify changes over time.
Should practitioners stop recommending a supplement brand after it is acquired?
An acquisition alone does not establish that a practitioner should stop recommending a brand. The article recommends evaluating actual changes in quality, formulas, manufacturing, testing, certifications, personnel, and other relevant evidence while also recognizing that practitioners may choose brands partly according to their own values around corporate or independent ownership.
References
21 CFR 101.5. (2026). Food; Name and Place of Business of Manufacturer, Packer, or Distributor. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101/subpart-A/section-101.5
Breuninger, K. (2017, October 11). RXBar CEO after $600 million buyout: ‘I have financial freedom’. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/11/rxbar-ceo-after-600-million-buyout-i-have-financial-freedom.html
Cunningham, C., Ederer, F., & Ma, S. (2021). Killer Acquisitions. Journal of Political Economy, 129(3), 649-702. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3241707
L Catterton. (2023, October 16). L Catterton completes acquisition of Thorne HealthTech, Inc. PR Newswire. https://share.google/I0ZAFgZI7fjfCznRz
PepsiCo. (2025, January 20). PepsiCo completes acquisition of Siete Foods. PepsiCo.com. https://www.pepsico.com/newsroom/press-releases/2025/pepsico-completes-acquisition-of-siete-foods
Pollack, Andrew. (2013, June 14). Questcor Pays $135 Million to Acquire Rights to a Competitor’s Drug. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/business/questcor-pays-135-million-for-rights-to-competitors-drug.html
Primal Kitchen. (2018, November 30). A Message From Our Founder, Mark Sisson. Primal Kitchen. https://www.primalkitchen.com/blogs/recipes/a-message-from-our-founder-mark-sisson
Sharp, David. (2011, March 27). Burt’s Bees founder wants to donate national park. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42295096
Story, Louise. (2008, January 6). Can Burt’s Bees Turn Clorox Green? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/business/06bees.html
Thorne Content Team. (2024, April 29). How we built the most trusted name in health supplements. Thorne. https://www.thorne.com/take-5-daily/article/how-we-built-the-most-trusted-name-in-health-supplements
Thorne HealthTech, Inc. (2021, September 13). Thorne HealthTech announces launch of Initial Public Offering. PR Newswire. https://share.google/IyO84xRaavr8c5so2
1 In preparing this blog I checked a bottle of Methyl-Guard Plus that I had on hand and discovered that it did not include Thorne’s address. The statute could be interpreted to allow a company that manufactures its own products to omit the address information if one could easily find the company’s location, but I reached out to ask Thorne to confirm the manufacturing information and they replied, ‘Thorne is currently working through these labeling updates across our product portfolio, and SF789 [MGP] is still in queue to receive this update. This is why you do not currently see the address on either your bottle or the product label shown on our website. We appreciate you bringing this to our attention and your patience as we work through these updates.’
Note: A statement like “Manufactured in the USA” is a separate marketing claim and not enough to meet labeling laws.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Courtenay Fisher, Director of HR & Instructor
MRHP, FNTP, Board Certified in Holistic Nutrition©
Courtenay is an FNTP, Master RHP and reformed lawyer who felt called to this work (and compelled to help others) after years of seeking answers to her own health challenges, finding resolution and real quality of life through functional nutrition and lifestyle changes.
