Guide
Shilajit and heavy metals — what the testing shows
Shilajit has a documented contamination problem. How to read a certificate of analysis, what these documents leave out, and what to ask before buying.
Affiliate disclosure.We earn a commission if you buy through links on this page, at no extra cost to you. It does not change what we recommend, and we say so when we think you should not buy.
The question worth asking first
Before asking whether shilajit does anything, ask what is in the jar. This is one of the few supplement categories where that is a live question with a documented answer, and where the answer varies enormously between products.
Shilajit is a resinous material collected from rock in high mountain ranges. It is not manufactured in the ordinary sense — it is gathered, purified to varying standards, and sold. Material collected from geologically contaminated areas, or purified carelessly, can carry heavy metals. Independent testing organisations have reported contamination in commercially sold shilajit products.
That makes purity the first-order question, and conveniently it is a question that laboratory documents can actually answer — unlike most questions in the supplement aisle.
How to read a certificate of analysis
A certificate of analysis is a laboratory report of what was found in a sample. Most buyers never open one, and the brands that publish them know this.
Look at what was tested for. A COA reports only the analytes it was asked to measure. A document showing clean results for four heavy metals says nothing whatsoever about a fifth that was never on the list. In our view the omissions are usually more informative than the results.
Look for the four that matter. Lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury. If a report covers fewer than these four, ask why.
Check the sample identity. A useful COA names a specific batch or lot. A document with no lot number cannot be connected to the jar in your hand.
Check the date. A certificate from four years ago describes material sold four years ago.
Check who ran it. An accredited third-party laboratory and the manufacturer’s own quality department are different things. Both are better than nothing; they are not equivalent.
Check the limits used. A result reported as “passes” is only as meaningful as the threshold it passed. Reports that give measured values are far more useful than reports that give verdicts.
What good documentation looks like
The better brands in this category publish a batch-linked certificate from an accredited laboratory, covering at minimum the four heavy metals, with measured values rather than pass or fail, dated within the life of the product on sale.
That is not a high bar. Most of the category does not clear it.
What to ask before buying
- Where is the material sourced, specifically? A named region beats a continent.
- Is a certificate of analysis published, and is it linked to a batch?
- Which analytes were tested, and were measured values reported?
- Which laboratory ran it, and is it accredited?
- How recent is the most recent published document?
A brand that answers all five readily has done the work. A brand that answers with marketing copy about ancient traditions has told you something too.
Where we have got to
We are working through the published documentation across brands in this category and will publish the comparison when we have enough to make it fair. In the meantime the product review below covers one brand’s documentation in detail — including what its documents cover, and the significant gap in how it presents them.
We would rather publish one product properly examined than a ranked list assembled from marketing pages.
What we could not determine
Where each claim on this page comes from
Every factual statement above is listed here with its source. Rows marked “manufacturer claim” are the manufacturer’s description of its own product, reported without endorsement.
| Tier | Claim | Kind | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| E | Independent testing organisations have reported heavy-metal contamination in some commercially sold shilajit products. | External source | BSCG shilajit supplement safety and testing guidance
Population: Commercial shilajit products submitted for analysis. Product testing, not a clinical population. |
| E | Shilajit is a rock exudate, so its mineral content is inherited from the geology it came from rather than introduced during manufacture. | External source | BMC Chemistry 2025 analysis of crude shilajit and commercial supplements
Population: Crude shilajit samples from five regions and five commercial supplements; product analysis, not a clinical population |
| E | A 2008 analysis of Ayurvedic products purchased in 2005 found about a fifth contained detectable lead, mercury or arsenic, including one product sold as shilajit. | External source | Saper et al., JAMA 2008
Population: 193 commercial products purchased online in 2005; product analysis, not a clinical population |
| E | An independent testing programme examining eight shilajit products in 2024 found no heavy metal contamination concerns across the set. | External source | ConsumerLab shilajit review, September 2024
Population: Eight commercial products across formats; product analysis, not a clinical population |
| E | Federal dietary supplement manufacturing rules require a supplier certificate to state the method, the limits of the test and actual results. | External source | 21 CFR Part 111 |
| F | A certificate of analysis reports only the analytes it was asked to test for, so what a document omits matters as much as what it reports. | Our editorial view | Editorial reading of published certificates of analysis across shilajit brands Our view: the omissions in a certificate of analysis are usually more informative than the results. |
| F | Published testing results for this category disagree between programmes, and the disagreement is not resolvable from the public record. | Our editorial view | Our comparison of the published testing programmes Our view: the honest reading is that metal content here is variable and not well characterised, rather than uniformly safe or uniformly hazardous. |