Unmasking Unfair Competition
A Personal Message from Mariusz, Founder of Mother Nature Supplements
To our customers,
I don't normally write posts like this.
I'd much rather spend my time developing new products, improving what we already make and running Mother Nature. But sometimes staying silent can leave people with only one side of a story, and I feel that our customers deserve to hear directly from me.
Over the past few years, my family and I have worked incredibly hard to build Mother Nature Supplements from the ground up.
We are not a huge corporation. We are an independent UK business. Real people come to work every day, prepare and pack our products, answer your emails and send your orders.
That's why it is difficult to watch false and damaging claims being made publicly about a business we have put so much into building.
Some of our customers recently contacted us after seeing comments made by Chris Boyle of British Supplements concerning our company.
First of all — thank you.
The fact that customers took the time to contact us and ask us directly rather than simply believing something they had read online genuinely means a lot to me.
So let me tell you who we actually are.
Mother Nature Supplements is owned and operated by Healthy Life Supplements Ltd, a registered Northern Ireland company.
We operate from our premises in Dungannon, Northern Ireland.
We're not hiding behind anonymous websites or pretending to be something we're not. Our company details, our address and information about our business are publicly available.
Our food business is registered with the relevant local authority, we operate food-safety procedures including HACCP, and our premises have received a 5-star Food Hygiene Rating.
We've always believed that the best answer to accusations isn't shouting louder.
It's being transparent.
There is something else I want to make absolutely clear.
Healthy Life Supplements Ltd and Mother Nature Supplements have no connection or affiliation with Krzysztof Jankowski or his businesses.
I wouldn't normally need to make a statement like that.
However, when customers begin contacting us because of things they have read elsewhere, I believe they deserve a straightforward answer from the person who actually owns the company.
That's me.
I could respond by attacking another company. I'm not going to do that.
There are plenty of things I could say.
But that's not why I started Mother Nature, and it's not how I want to run this business.
I believe competition should be simple:
Make a better product.
Offer better value.
Treat customers better.
And let customers decide.
That's how I want Mother Nature to compete.
If another company believes we're doing something wrong, there are proper regulatory and legal channels available to them. We have no problem answering legitimate questions from the appropriate authorities.
What I don't believe helps anybody is turning business competition into personal attacks and public accusations.
Mother Nature will carry on.
This is probably the most important thing I want our customers to know.
We're still here.
We're still packing orders.
We're still developing products.
We're still answering your messages.
And we're going to continue building Mother Nature the same way we have from the beginning.
One customer at a time.
For every person who has ordered from us, recommended us to a friend, left us a review, sent us an encouraging message or simply chosen an independent business instead of a huge corporation:
thank you.
You probably don't realise how much that support matters to a business like ours.
If you ever read something about Mother Nature that concerns you, don't be afraid to ask us directly.
My team and I will always do our best to give you a straight answer.
Thank you for supporting Mother Nature.
Mariusz
Founder
Mother Nature Supplements
I have looked at several listings and noticed a few points that I think customers are entitled to ask about.
Your CDP Choline / Citicoline 500 mg listing states 500 mg per capsule and suggests 1–2 capsules daily. The GB authorised novel-food entry for citicoline gives a maximum level of 500 mg per day in food supplements. Could you explain the regulatory basis for recommending up to 1,000 mg per day to customers purchasing in Great Britain?
Your Spermidine product is also worth clarifying. The GB authorisation for spermidine-rich wheat germ extract specifies the equivalent of a maximum 6 mg spermidine per day for adult food supplements. If your product provides 6 mg per capsule and customers are instructed that they may take two capsules, perhaps you could explain how that daily serving is aligned with the applicable authorisation.
You also sell Vitamin D3 10,000 IU products with a suggested use of one capsule daily. I appreciate that NHS guidance is not the same thing as a statutory maximum, but the NHS advises adults not to take more than 4,000 IU / 100 micrograms per day unless advised otherwise. A 10,000 IU daily serving is therefore considerably above that general public-health guidance, so it would be useful to explain the safety rationale and intended consumer group.
There are also products containing ingredients such as NMN, Fadogia agrestis and concentrated Tongkat Ali extracts where the novel-food position appears to deserve clarification. For example, the FSA currently lists an application for β-Nicotinamide Mononucleotide as in progress, while an EU Article 4 determination has classified a 10:1 Fadogia agrestis extract as a novel food. European Commission material also treats Tongkat Ali root extract as a novel-food ingredient requiring authorisation.
I am not making a legal finding about any of these products, because the exact position can depend on the precise ingredient specification, extraction method, market of sale and supporting documentation.
But as a customer, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask for the relevant authorisations, specifications or regulatory justification for these products and their stated daily doses.
You have said publicly that customers should ask you directly and that transparency matters. This seems like a good opportunity to provide those documents and clear answers.
No personal attacks are necessary. Just the regulatory basis and the supporting paperwork would be enough.
Mariusz, since your statement places such emphasis on transparency and on being happy to answer legitimate questions, perhaps this is also a good opportunity to clarify the regulatory position of some of the products currently being offered by Mother Nature.
For example, your website currently lists products containing NMN, Fadogia agrestis and concentrated Tongkat Ali extracts, among others. These are not ordinary ingredients from a regulatory perspective. The FSA currently shows β-Nicotinamide Mononucleotide (NMN) as the subject of an in-progress novel food application, rather than an authorised entry.
The European Commission has also published a formal determination stating that a Fadogia agrestis extract is considered a novel food because sufficient evidence of significant EU consumption before 15 May 1997 was not established.
Your own website currently offers products containing Fadogia and Tongkat Ali, including combination formulas.
This is not an accusation and I am not making a legal finding about your products. The exact regulatory position can depend on the precise ingredient specification, botanical part, extraction method, intended market and any authorisation or supporting documentation you hold.
But since you have publicly invited customers to ask questions and said that you are happy to answer legitimate regulatory concerns, perhaps you could publish the relevant documentation showing the basis on which these products are being placed on the UK and Northern Ireland markets.
That would be genuine transparency and would allow customers to make up their own minds based on documents rather than competing claims online.
Nobody needs personal attacks. A simple answer supported by the relevant authorisations, specifications or regulator correspondence would settle the matter far better.
And just to correct one more part of the story — the accusations about copying, stealing ideas and “faking” another brand were not coming from our side. Those accusations were being made publicly by British Supplements, including the material shown on the website above that you mentioned.
We have no interest in being associated with you either. In fact, for quite some time we have had to deal with repeated suggestions that we were somehow copying British Supplements, while at the same time the history of how people entered this industry and where certain business ideas and naming concepts came from is conveniently left out.
From our perspective, the reality is much less dramatic than the version being presented online. There was a prior business relationship, knowledge was shared, and people went their separate ways.
So rather than rewriting the history and acting as though there was never any connection at all, perhaps a small acknowledgement of the people who helped you get started in this industry would have been more appropriate.
Even a simple “thank you” would probably have sounded more credible than pretending the history never existed. 🙂
Nobody is asking for a medal — just a little accuracy when telling the story publicly.
Also, while we’re talking about originality and transparency, it’s quite amusing that Nutri Nature somehow became Mother Nature Supplements.
I’m sure that similarity is completely accidental.
Just another one of those extraordinary coincidences in business. chin chin :)
Mariusz, thank you for the statement. Transparency is always a good thing — although it works best when the full story is included.
You say Mother Nature Supplements has “no connection or affiliation with Krzysztof Jankowski or his businesses”.
No current affiliation? Fair enough.
No connection? That is a very different claim.
You knew Krzysztof personally, worked alongside him, had a business relationship with him and were introduced to this industry through that relationship. That history does not disappear simply because it is inconvenient to mention now.
You also seem to have skipped over the fact that, after going your separate way commercially, you set up practically next door rather than somewhere completely unrelated.
So perhaps the more accurate wording would have been:
“We are no longer affiliated.”
That would be clear, fair and honest.
But presenting the situation as if there was never any relationship or history at all is rather difficult to reconcile with what actually happened.
And if the message is supposed to be about honesty and transparency, then surely the history of how the business developed is part of that too.
Nobody has an issue with competition. Build your brand, sell your products and let customers decide.
But if you are going to publish a long statement about “the truth”, it would probably help to include the parts of the truth that came before Mother Nature as well.
That is all. :) Best Wishes muwahh xx
Leave a comment