One product, one panel, one record.
1st Phorm Probiotic — label audit
The US government's label database transcribes this product's own label as carrying "8 billion CFUs of disease-preventing bacteria" — an explicit disease claim on a dietary supplement — from a 2021 entry. The phrase appears 0 times in current web copy, and this page reports it as what it is: a disease claim documented on this product's label in DSLD, not something 1st Phorm says today.
This page is an audit of a label. It records what this product’s panel discloses, what of that could be checked against a primary record, and what could not. The score below ranks this product on that disclosure and on nothing else.
The record this page rests on
- NIH label record
- Label read on
- The most recent dated artefact behind this page. Labels change; this is how old our reading of it is.
- Cohort
- Addendum — outside the founding denominators Torn down 2026-07-31, after the founding cohort of 27 was frozen. It sits outside every D27 denominator the site publishes.
- How deep this went
- Full forensic teardown Panel transcribed, every strain designator queried, every certification chased to its issuer’s own register, and the literature behind each marketing claim opened and read.
- What did not survive verification
- Part of this page was refuted or could not be reproduced Two things about this record are not quotable as they stand. (1) There is no UPC match between the current SKU and DSLD 242983, because the DSLD record carries no UPC at all; the correspondence rests on field-for-field agreement between the two panels, which is corroboration of formula continuity and not identity of package. (2) The observation that DSLD 242983 contains no FDA Disclaimer Statement entry is not evidence that the carton lacked one, the carton was never retrieved, and this site does not make that claim. The disease claim itself is verified in the government record and publishes only with its date and provenance attached — it is the 2021 label, not current web copy.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
8.5 out of 100
Rank 147 of the 154 products in this audit the rubric can score. This rank is shared with 4 other products — 5 products sit on 8.5 and are tied. They hold the position jointly; no tiebreaker is applied, because every tiebreaker available here would be a number the rubric deliberately refused to weigh, smuggled back in to make a list look tidier.
The score measures one thing: how much of what you are buying this company tells you, and how much of that survives being checked against a source that is not the company. It does not measure whether the product works — this site holds no efficacy data of its own, and 0 of 294 organism slots in the founding cohort carry a strain with a human randomised trial for any male-specific outcome, so nobody in this category has evidence that would support a ranking by effect.
Computed over 86% of the rubric by weight — the share of the five questions below this record could answer. The remaining question is unanswered, and unanswered is not nought: it leaves the divisor rather than dragging the score down. That share travels with the number and is never dropped — this score over 86% of the weight and the same score over all of it are different claims.
| Component | Weight | What was counted, and where | Fraction | Weight × fraction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain identity printed on the panel | 0.24 | 0 of 10 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 0 / 10 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 0 of 10 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 0 / 10 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| What the CFU count is measured against | 0.22 | Potency basis "none-stated": CFU figure printed yes, single basis stated no, basis reaches expiry no — 1 of 3. | 1 / 3 = 0.3333 | 0.073333 |
| Printed designators that lead to a human trial | 0.20 | 0 of 10 checked organism slots resolve to at least one human randomised trial under the designator exactly as printed. This counts whether the identity leads to a trial, never what the trial found. | 0 / 10 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| Certification confirmed at the issuer’s own register | 0.14 | No certifier register has been queried for this product. Not checked is not the same as holds nothing. | Not answered | — excluded from the divisor, not counted as nought |
0.073333 — the last column added up — divided by 0.86, the weight this record could answer, is 0.0853. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 8.5 above.
See this product’s row in the full ranking, alongside the other 153 scored products, or read what each of the five components asks and how to check it .
What this label discloses
Everything in this table is what the product itself states — on the printed panel, on the brand’s own page, or in the label record the manufacturer filed. Nothing in it is checked yet; checking is the next section.
| Disclosure | As recorded |
|---|---|
| CFU as printed | 8 Billion CFU‡ |
| What that count is measured against | No basis stated |
| Strain designators | None — species only |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 10 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
The panel prints "Probiotic Blend (8 Billion CFU‡)". The only footnote rendered on the panel is "† Daily Value not established" — a single dagger. The double-dagger ‡ attached to the CFU figure has no corresponding footnote text on the panel, and none anywhere on the page: the character ‡ and the entity ‡ both return 0 occurrences in the full page HTML, as do "at time of manufacture", "time of manufacture", "at manufacture", "expiration", "potency" and "guaranteed".
The panel’s own words on potency, verbatim.
A CFU number appears with no temporal basis of any kind. A count with no basis is not a quantity; there is no date at which it is claimed to be true.
The panel names species only, with no strain designator anywhere. A species name is not a claim: the trials in this field are of strains, and a species can contain thousands.
| Organism as printed | Designator as printed | Quantity as printed | What the designator resolves to | The query we ran |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus casei | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus salivarius | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus plantarum | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus brevis | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium bifidum | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Streptococcus thermophilus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium lactis (correct name: Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis) | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium longum | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
What of that is verifiable
A disclosure is verifiable when a reader can open a record that neither we nor the brand controls and see the same thing. Below is every dated artefact this page rests on. What is absent from this list is not verified, however reasonable it sounds.
- Photograph of the printed panel — probiotic-SFP_dd27b594-bf9f-4f77-b387-b0c144d42099https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0072/7754/3493/files/probiotic-SFP_dd27b594-bf9f-4f77-b387-b0c144d42099.png — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured The brand's own high-resolution Supplement Facts PNG, transcribed by hand. The panel is not present as text anywhere in the page HTML.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 242983 (opens in a new tab) captured Entered 2021-01-22, on-market. Source of the "8 billion CFUs of disease-preventing bacteria" statement. The record carries no upcSku value, so it cannot be UPC-matched to the current SKU; it agrees with the current panel field for field.
- Dated capture of the brand’s own page — 1stphorm-probiotic-pdp-2026-07-31https://1stphorm.com/products/probiotic — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured Live page and Shopify JSON, HTTP 200. $36.99 one-time, $34.99 subscribed, SKU 91037, Shopify barcode 850036648444. All claim quotations and all string counts were taken here.
How many of its strains have a human trial for what it is sold for
Across the frozen founding cohort, 0 of 294 organism slots (0.0%) carry an organism with a human randomised controlled trial for any male-specific outcome. Not for this product — for all 27 of the founding teardowns, taken together. That is the number to hold against any men’s probiotic, including this one.
Two further founding-cohort figures for context: only 43 of 294 organism slots carry a strain with any human RCT at all under the exact code printed on the label, and only 2 of 27 products have a published human trial of the finished formula — the thing actually in the bottle. All three figures divide by the frozen cohort of 27 teardowns and 294 organism slots, never by every teardown on this site.
For this product specifically, 0 organism slots carry a strain with a human RCT under the exact designator printed on the label.
A word on what a designator has to clear before it counts here. The organism must be named with the exact strain code that appears in the trial, the trial must be in humans, and the code must return that trial when a reader searches it. A species name does not qualify: the trials in this field are of strains, and a species contains thousands of them.
What it costs per day
$0.62 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $36.99 USD
- What that buys
- 60-capsule bottle (60 servings, 1 capsule daily)
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://1stphorm.com/products/probiotic — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
What certification it holds, checked at the issuer’s own register
A badge on a bottle is a claim like any other. Every row below was checked — or not checked — at the certifier’s own public register, never at the badge. Across the frozen founding cohort, 2 of 27 products hold a certification we could confirm at the issuer — a founding-cohort figure, not a count over every teardown on this site.
How it differs from the same brand’s women’s version
Across the fourteen same-brand men’s-versus-women’s label diffs run inside the frozen founding cohort, zero men’s or default formulas contain a probiotic strain, identified by designator, that was selected on male-specific evidence. In eight of the fourteen the sex-specific differentiator is a botanical or a mineral, and in five of the fourteen the women’s SKU is better-specified, cheaper, or both — “better-specified” meaning the panel that discloses more, never the panel with more in it. The rule behind each of those counts, and all fourteen pairs classified against it , are published in full. Diffs run on teardowns added since sit outside this fourteen, and outside the sentence above.
This brand sells no women’s counterpart to this product, so there is no diff to run.
Every finding on this page, with the record behind it
Finding 1 disease-preventing-bacteria-on-the-dsld-recorded-label
DSLD record 242983 transcribes this product's own "Formula re: Contains" statement, verbatim, as "8 billion CFUs of disease-preventing bacteria". A claim that a dietary supplement prevents disease is a drug claim under FDCA §201(g)(1)(B); DSHEA authorises structure/function claims only. This is not borderline wording. The same record carries the label statements "Promote healthy metabolism / Strengthen immune system / Improve digestive health", "Foundation Series" and "Nothing compares".
The record: DSLD 242983, entered 2021-01-22, on-market — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 2 dangling-double-dagger-on-the-cfu-figure
The panel prints "Probiotic Blend (8 Billion CFU‡)" and the ‡ resolves to nothing. The panel's only footnote is a single dagger reading "† Daily Value not established". The double dagger has no footnote text on the panel and none on the page: ‡ and ‡ each return 0 occurrences in the full page HTML, as do "time of manufacture", "expiration", "potency" and "guaranteed". The one typographic marker on the label that exists specifically to qualify the 8 billion figure leads nowhere at all.
The record: Brand Supplement Facts PNG plus full-page HTML string counts, 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0072/7754/3493/files/probiotic-SFP_dd27b594-bf9f-4f77-b387-b0c144d42099.png — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 3 no-weight-declared-for-the-blend-at-all
The panel gives an "Amount Per Serving" column and leaves the Probiotic Blend row empty in it, carrying only the parenthetical CFU. This is worse than a conventional proprietary blend, which at least discloses a total milligram figure. Here neither the blend mass nor any component mass is knowable.
The record: Brand Supplement Facts PNG, transcribed 2026-07-31
Finding 4 prebiotic-fibre-counted-inside-the-probiotic-blend
Fructooligosaccharides sit as a line item inside the "Probiotic Blend" alongside the ten organisms. A fibre is being counted as a component of a probiotic blend, and because no weights are given anywhere, FOS could be the overwhelming majority of the capsule contents.
The record: Brand Supplement Facts PNG, transcribed 2026-07-31; corroborated by DSLD 242983
Finding 5 zero-strain-designators-across-ten-species
No ATCC, DSM, NCFM, La-14 or any other designator appears on the panel. All ten organisms are species-only, so no organism in this product can be matched to any tested agent. The tested unit in probiotic science is the strain — McFarland LV et al., Front Med 2018;5:124, across 228 trials: "the efficacy of probiotics is both strain-specific and disease-specific."
The record: PMID 29868585; brand Supplement Facts PNG
Finding 6 a-species-presented-as-a-strain-in-the-substantiating-sentence
Verbatim from the product page: "It features Lactobacillus acidophilus, one of the most well-researched probiotic strains. It's also the most common strain found in the human digestive tract." The word doing the substantiation work is "strain", and the thing named is a species.
The record: 1stphorm.com/products/probiotic, quoted verbatim 2026-07-31
Finding 7 no-certification-and-no-quality-assurance-of-any-kind
Searched against the full product page HTML: NSF 0 occurrences (the 45 raw matches are all CSS font-weight and font-style tokens in the review widget), Informed / Informed-Choice 0, "third-party" / "third party" / "3rd party" 0, GMP / cGMP 0, Non-GMO 0. No purity, potency, identity or heavy-metals assurance is offered to the buyer at all.
The record: Full-page HTML string counts, 1stphorm.com/products/probiotic, 2026-07-31
Finding 8 cfu-basis-unstated-with-shelf-stable-standing-in
The closest the brand comes to a potency statement is the FAQ, verbatim: "Our Probiotic supplement contains shelf-stable CFUs, meaning the live bacterial cultures remain safe at room temperature." Shelf-stable is a storage property, not a potency-at-expiry guarantee. Nothing on this label or page says what the 8 billion figure is measured against.
The record: 1stphorm.com/products/probiotic FAQ, quoted verbatim 2026-07-31
Finding 9 supplement-facts-published-only-as-an-image
The panel exists only inside a PNG and appears nowhere as text in the page HTML. A screen reader, a price-comparison tool or any automated checker cannot read this product's composition.
The record: Full-page HTML, 2026-07-31
Finding 10 schema-org-brand-name-is-wrong
The product page emits schema.org Brand.name as "Health & Wellness" rather than "1st Phorm" — the Shopify vendor field is being published as the brand in structured data. Cosmetic, but it is the brand's own machine-readable self-description and it is wrong.
The record: 1stphorm.com/products/probiotic structured data, read 2026-07-31
Finding 11 uncited-dosing-assertion
Verbatim from the page: "For optimal absorption, we recommend taking your probiotic supplement on an empty stomach." No source is given.
The record: 1stphorm.com/products/probiotic, quoted verbatim 2026-07-31
What we could not verify
Every gap below is published rather than deleted. Most are derived automatically from the empty fields in this page’s own record, so a gap cannot be hidden by leaving a box blank.
- Third-party certification
- No certifier register has been queried for this product. An empty certification list on this page means not checked — it does not mean the product holds nothing.
- A UPC cross-check between the current label and DSLD 242983
- The DSLD record carries no upcSku value at all, so no UPC match is possible. The correspondence between the government record and the current label rests instead on brand plus product name plus field-for-field agreement — same 1-capsule serving, same 60 servings, same 8 billion CFU, same ten species in the same panel order, same FOS line, same four other-ingredients. That is strong corroboration of formula continuity. It is not a UPC match, and this page does not call it one.
- Whether the physical carton carries the FDA disclaimer
- DSLD record 242983 contains no FDA Disclaimer Statement entry, whereas the Swolverine record (242072) in the same database does. That asymmetry is suggestive and nothing more. DSLD transcription completeness varies, and absence from a transcription is not proof of absence from the package. The carton was not retrieved. This site does not state that the carton lacked the disclaimer. The current website carries it correctly.
- The weight of the Probiotic Blend, and of anything inside it
- The panel has an "Amount Per Serving" column and the Probiotic Blend row carries no value in it — only the parenthetical CFU figure. Neither the blend mass nor any component mass is knowable from this label.
- What share of the capsule is fructooligosaccharides
- FOS is listed as a line item inside the "Probiotic Blend" itself. Because no weights are declared anywhere on the panel, the fibre could be the overwhelming majority of the capsule contents and nothing on the label would say so.
How to check every line of this page yourself
Nothing on this page requires trusting us. Every claim above resolves to a record you can open:
- Open the NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record linked at the top of this page. It is the label the manufacturer filed, not our transcription of it.
- Compare the CFU line and the suggested-use line against the disclosure table above. If they disagree with us, we are wrong and we want to know.
- Take any strain designator from the panel and run the query printed beside it. The query is published precisely so you can get a different answer than we did.
- Divide the price by the number of days the label’s own dose instructions make the container last. That arithmetic is the whole of the cost-per-day row.
- Search the certifier’s own register for this product, not for the brand. A company can participate in a programme without this product being on its list.
Follow the double dagger.
The panel prints “Probiotic Blend (8 Billion CFU‡)”. That symbol exists for exactly one purpose: to qualify the number in front of it. On this label it resolves to nothing. The panel’s only footnote is a single dagger — ”† Daily Value not established” — and the double dagger has no matching text anywhere on the panel or anywhere on the page. Searching the full page HTML: ‡ zero, ‡ zero, “time of manufacture” zero, “expiration” zero, “potency” zero, “guaranteed” zero.
In a category where a guarantee at expiry is the one disclosure that matters, the marker that would have carried it points into empty space.
The panel has a second, quieter problem. There is an “Amount Per Serving” column, and the Probiotic Blend row is blank in it. Not a proprietary blend that hides the split while declaring a total — no total either. Neither the blend mass nor any component mass is knowable. And fructooligosaccharides — a fibre — is a line item inside the “Probiotic Blend”, which means the prebiotic could be most of what is in the capsule and nothing on the label would tell you.
The finding this page leads with comes from the government’s own files. DSLD record 242983 transcribes this product’s label as containing “8 billion CFUs of disease-preventing bacteria.” Disease prevention is a drug claim; DSHEA permits structure/function claims only. Read the caveat with it, in the same breath, because the claim does not survive without it: that is the label as entered in January 2021, the phrase appears zero times on the live page today, and the current site carries the FDA disclaimer correctly worded. What is documented is a disease claim on this product’s label in the US government’s label database. Not a sentence 1st Phorm publishes now.
One more thing, and it genuinely cuts both ways. Searched end to end, this page claims no certifications at all — no NSF, no Informed-Choice, no third-party testing, no GMP, not even Non-GMO. Of the products torn down alongside it, this is the only one making zero quality assertions. That is honest, and honesty about the absence of a seal is rarer here than the seal itself. It is also thin: the buyer is offered no purity, potency, identity or heavy-metals assurance of any kind. At $0.58–$0.62 a day it is also by a wide margin the cheapest of its batch, with a plain $2-off subscription and no dark patterns anywhere on the page.