Sam Castor, who founded Mannatech in 1993, also established EmSquared, a company from which Mannatech is now actively distancing itself. A recent report questioned whether EmSquared functioned as a charity spinoff, prompting Mannatech to issue a public denial of any affiliation. This statement arrived just hours after the initial report went live.

Mannatech issued a press release denying ties to EmSquared. The company stated it had "no affiliation" with the new health and wellness venture. Its statement also criticized "one site" that "incorrectly referred to EmSquared as a Mannatech spin-off." The headline for a recent report questioned if EmSquared was a Mannatech charity spinoff, citing Castor's role in both EmSquared and MannaRelief, the nonprofit Mannatech uses for its charitable work. EmSquared claims "100% transparency" but did not mention this connection.

Mannatech's promotional materials frequently cite Castor as a "founder and visionary." The company's press release stated he ended a "consulting relationship" voluntarily on March 4, 2014. This date holds significance. Castor served as Mannatech's CEO until regulatory actions led to his resignation and a five-year ban. The ban prohibited him from serving as a director, officer, or employee. It expired in February 2014. One month later, Castor launched EmSquared.

Mannatech maintains MannaRelief is "independent" and "not owned or operated by Mannatech, Incorporated." While accurate in a legal sense, the assertion of independence becomes difficult given that Castor founded both MannaRelief and the new health and wellness company now operating in Mannatech's market space. Castor built Mannatech from its inception.

The central issue remains disclosure. EmSquared promotes transparency while remaining silent about Castor's history with Mannatech and his continued role in founding the charity Mannatech promotes. Mannatech, for its part, has worked to explain why its founder departed and immediately started a competing business once his non-compete expired.

These details are not allegations of misconduct. They represent facts available in the public record, showing how both companies seek to avoid association despite their shared founder and charitable vehicle.