Supplements aimed at perimenopausal and menopausal women are in the spotlight after a Which? investigation, published yesterday, and a separate study by University College London (UCL) raised concerns over product formulation and pricing. 

The Which? investigation into the category reviewed 26 supplements aimed at women going through the perimenopause, menopause or over the age of 45, from leading retailers including Holland & Barrett, Boots and Amazon, analysing, the consumer organisation said, the “latest scientific evidence behind over 78 active ingredients”.

Which? claimed that none of the products reviewed qualified for a ‘Best Buy’ because, it said, “not one of the supplements contained the right combination of nutrients at appropriate doses to support their use specifically for menopause”. 

In a statement, Which? said: “Many supplements marketed at perimenopausal and menopausal women are overpriced and lack meaningful doses of key nutrients while costing 20 times more than a standard multivitamin”

Which? added that buying a high-quality multivitamin and adding targeted supplements where needed could be cheaper than one marketed as an all-in-one menopause blend “and potentially more effective”.

Beyond price, Which? claimed that many of the menopause supplements it reviewed also contain key nutrients in doses too low to be beneficial, a practice known pejoratively as ‘fairy-dusting’. Others, it said, entirely omit vitamins and minerals that menopause charities and associations say are important. 

Which? notes that many specialist menopause supplements combine vitamins and minerals with botanical ingredients such as black cohosh, soy, and red clover/ But it says that these are often included “at doses far below those used in clinical trials”

A study carried out by researchers at UCL looked more systematically at the menopause supplements category, and examined in detail the ingredients, doses and costs of 201 menopause supplements. 

The UCL researchers also highlighted a lack of commonality of ingredients, observing that no single ingredient, or even category of ingredient, was present across all products. They also noted large discrepancy in the cost of products, with prices ranging from £1.50 to £95 per month, adding that there was “little empirical evidence as to the effectiveness of even the most expensive product”. 

In their conclusion, the reports authors write: “Greater scientific rigour is needed. Evidence on these supplements must be made accessible and understandable. More RCTs should be carried out, both on individual ingredients and on whole menopause supplements, to assess efficacy and safety. Research into how many women use these products, and why, would also be valuable. Further research could also be completed into menopause supplement markets in other countries as what is available and their regulations could differ from the UK”.

Responding to coverage of the Which? Investigation, the Martin Last, director general at the Health Food Manufacturers’ Association (HFMA), said: “We encourage industry manufacturers to formulate and recommend supplements as required by the many food regulations that apply to food supplements. Many life stages, including the menopause, may create increased nutritional demands on an individual and these may be met by supplementation as an addition to a healthy diet.”

Holland & Barrett told The Guardian that its own-brand menopause products were “specifically formulated for the nutritional needs associated with this life stage” and that “they contain meaningful, evidence-based levels of key vitamins and minerals and are not simply standard multivitamins with menopause branding”.

• Natural Newsdesk welcomes industry response and reaction to the substantive points and claims made by Which? and UCL