One product, one panel, one record.
BioGaia Protectis® KIDS Probiotic Chewables (30 chewable tablets, sold at the URL slug /products/protectis-chewable-tablets) — label audit
The brief that sent us here called this "Protectis Chewable Tablets". The product actually sold at that address is a children's supplement — Shopify product_type "Children & teenagers", government record "Protectis Kids Chewable Tablets", and an FAQ that recommends it from about age three. Anyone building a men's-probiotic roundup from URL slugs silently includes a preschooler's chewable, and this is the demonstration.
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 this site publishes and changes none of them.
- 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.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
82.9 out of 100
Rank 29 of the 154 products in this audit the rubric can score. This rank is shared with 6 other products — 7 products sit on 82.9 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 | 1 of 1 organism slot carries a printed strain designator. | 1 / 1 = 1.0000 | 0.2400 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 1 of 1 organism slot has an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 1 / 1 = 1.0000 | 0.2000 |
| 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 | 1 of 1 checked organism slot resolves 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. | 1 / 1 = 1.0000 | 0.2000 |
| Certification confirmed at the issuer’s own register | 0.14 | Every certification on this record is brand-asserted with the register unreachable, or not yet queried. An unreachable register is a fact about the verification infrastructure, not about this brand, so it may not move its position. | Not answered | — excluded from the divisor, not counted as nought |
0.713333 — the last column added up — divided by 0.86, the weight this record could answer, is 0.8295. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 82.9 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 | 100 million CFU |
| What that count is measured against | No basis stated |
| Strain designators | All organisms coded |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 1 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
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.
Every organism on the panel carries a printed strain designator. Whether those designators lead anywhere is a separate question, answered below.
| Organism as printed | Designator as printed | Quantity as printed | What the designator resolves to | The query we ran |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L. reuteri | DSM 17938 (L. reuteri Protectis®) | 100 million CFU | Human RCT | "DSM 17938" AND randomized controlled trial[pt] |
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.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 311016 (opens in a new tab) captured NIH's transcription of the physical label, on-market, version code 110268-005, country of origin Sweden, full product name "Protectis Kids Chewable Tablets". UPC cross-check passed digit for digit: the Shopify barcode 602359460056 equals the DSLD upcSku 6 02359 46005 6. Source for the servings per container the published panel image omits, the "Clinically proven" statement and the 150-clinical-trials claim.
- Photograph of the printed panel — ProtectisKIDSB_10-258.pnghttps://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0763/5261/8780/files/ProtectisKIDSB_10-258.png — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured The brand's own Supplement Facts image, transcribed by reading it and confirmed against DSLD 311016 — the two agree exactly on every value present. It is the only place on the brand's site where this product's CFU figure appears, it is a PNG rather than text, and it omits the Servings Per Container line.
- Dated capture of the brand’s own page — biogaia-protectis-kids-2026-07-31https://www.biogaia.com/products/protectis-chewable-tablets — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured The live brand page, HTTP 200 to a plain request, plus its Shopify product JSON (SKU 46005, barcode 602359460056, product_type "Children & teenagers"). Source for the price ladder, the claim set, the three different flavour descriptions, and the identity correction — the page sells Protectis KIDS under a slug that says only "protectis-chewable-tablets".
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, 1 organism slot carries 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
$0.90 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $26.99 USD
- What that buys
- 30 chewable tablets, one tablet daily (2-pack $37.50, 3-pack $55.47)
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://www.biogaia.com/products/protectis-chewable-tablets — 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.
| Programme | Status at the issuer | Checked |
|---|---|---|
| No third-party certification claimed | Not checked | 31 July 2026 |
| EvidenceBiotics® | Not checked | 31 July 2026 |
No third-party certification claimed
We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.
The product pages and the FAQ were scanned for NSF, USP Verified, Informed, ConsumerLab, BSCG, Non-GMO Project, cGMP, ISO and third-party, and no genuine hit was returned. The brand claims no certification, which is a different statement from not holding one, and both registers that would settle it are hard-blocked to automation — Cloudflare 403 at nsf.org with an empty Angular shell at listings.nsf.org, and Akamai 403 at quality-supplements.org and usp.org, two attempts each. Record as "none claimed, unverified either way".
EvidenceBiotics®
We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.
A BioGaia trademark rather than a certification — no issuer, no register, no audit. "Clinically proven" is likewise a label statement, transcribed by NIH from the physical label, and not a mark.
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.
Every finding on this page, with the record behind it
Finding 1 the-url-slug-hides-that-this-is-a-childrens-product
The address is /products/protectis-chewable-tablets. The product sold there is BioGaia Protectis® KIDS Probiotic Chewables — Shopify product_type "Children & teenagers", DSLD full name "Protectis Kids Chewable Tablets", and an FAQ that reads "BioGaia KIDS Chewables are safe for any child that can chew properly on their own. Typically, it's a preschooler around 3 years old." The slug retains the older, age-neutral name. Anyone building a men's-probiotic comparison from URL slugs — which is how a great many roundups are built — silently includes a children's supplement. That is a category finding in its own right, and this page exists partly to demonstrate it.
The record: biogaia.com/products/protectis-chewable-tablets Shopify product_type "Children & teenagers"; DSLD 311016 full product name; biogaia.com/pages/faq, all 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://www.biogaia.com/products/protectis-chewable-tablets — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 2 no-potency-basis-and-no-cfu-figure-in-the-page-text
"100 million CFU" appears only inside the panel PNG. The page body, the bullets and the meta description contain no CFU figure at all. And the number carries no temporal basis anywhere: not on the label, not on the product page, not in a FAQ that runs to more than twenty questions with three of them on storage. The nearest thing on any BioGaia property is a brand-story sentence about delivering the labelled count "from the first dose to the last", which is an assertion about an opened package rather than a through-expiry guarantee, and the only explicit expiry guarantee anywhere sits on a Malaysian distributor's website rather than a BioGaia one.
The record: DSLD 311016 and the panel image ProtectisKIDSB_10-258.png against the full text of the product page, the FAQ and /pages/evidence-biotics, 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://www.biogaia.com/pages/evidence-biotics — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 3 the-published-panel-image-is-missing-a-line
The Supplement Facts image published on this page omits the Servings Per Container line, which the sibling Osfortis panel image carries. The government record lists 30 servings and net contents of 30 chewable tablets, so the physical label almost certainly has it and the web asset is a crop — but as published, the panel a buyer can see is incomplete. It is also a PNG rather than text, so a screen reader cannot read any of it.
The record: cdn.shopify.com panel image ProtectisKIDSB_10-258.png against DSLD 311016, 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0763/5261/8780/files/ProtectisKIDSB_10-258.png — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 4 the-flavour-is-described-three-different-ways-on-one-page
The ingredients text says "natural lemon flavoring". A current product-image badge on the same page reads "Sweet Lemon-Lime flavor". The meta description says "lemon-fresh". An earlier BioGaia record in the government database (DSLD 239644) is "Protectis Tabs Lemon Flavored". Minor on its own, and worth recording because it means the page is not internally consistent about what is in the tablet.
The record: biogaia.com/products/protectis-chewable-tablets ingredient text, product image badge and meta description, plus DSLD 239644, all 2026-07-31
Finding 5 four-mutually-inconsistent-research-totals-across-the-brands-own-properties
"Over 200 studies involving more than 19,000 people" on the product page. "More than 150 clinical trials" on this product's own label. "Over 250 clinical trials involving over 20,000 individuals" in the FAQ. "Over 270 published clinical studies involving more than 23,000 people" on the EvidenceBiotics page. All four are live at once, two carry a "(July 2021)" footnote, and none says which strains are counted — which is what makes all four unfalsifiable rather than merely inconsistent. The underlying direction is credible: this designator alone returns 309 to 327 PubMed records.
The record: Four BioGaia properties compared on 2026-07-31 — the product page, the DSLD 311016 label transcription, /pages/faq and /pages/evidence-biotics — open ithttps://www.biogaia.com/pages/faq — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 6 a-ten-year-follow-up-with-an-eighty-percent-placebo-arm-rate-will-be-misquoted
PMID 41754204 (Nutrients, 2026) is a ten-year follow-up of an infant DSM 17938 trial, n=200, reporting functional abdominal pain at age ten of 13.1% against 80.2%. The authors themselves flag a 57.2% attrition rate and state the finding is "an association rather than proof of causality". An 80% placebo-arm prevalence of functional abdominal pain is implausibly high and should be treated with suspicion. Somebody will quote this as a 67-point risk reduction; anyone who does must carry the authors' own disclaimer with it.
The record: PMID 41754204 (Nutrients 2026), attrition rate and causality disclaimer quoted from the paper — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 7 the-adult-tablet-costs-more-for-the-same-dose-of-the-same-strain
If the Gastrus split really is 100 million of each strain — which its label no longer prints — then this children's tablet at $0.62 to $0.90 a day delivers the same 1 x 10^8 CFU of DSM 17938 as an adult Gastrus tablet at $0.70 to $0.97 a day, and the adult tablet's extra spend buys the second strain, ATCC PTA 6475, and nothing else. Recorded with the same caveat that governs the Gastrus page: the split is likely but not label-confirmed. The comparison is only possible at all because the government publishes both panels; the brand's own site does not let a buyer make it.
The record: DSLD 311016 (100 million CFU DSM 17938) against DSLD 311007 (200 million CFU blend total, per-strain quantities absent), with prices from biogaia.com, 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 8 clinically-proven-printed-on-the-label-as-an-unqualified-absolute
The label statement, transcribed by NIH, reads "L. reuteri Protectis has been tested in more than 150 clinical trials and proven effective and safe for children & adults", alongside a bare "Clinically proven". The dose match here is genuinely good — 1 x 10^8 CFU a day is the dose used across the paediatric literature, and PMID 27906800 found significantly more pain-free days in children aged 4 to 18 at exactly that dose — so this is the mildest instance of the phrase in the batch. It is still an unqualified absolute on a label, and the trial count beside it is one of four different numbers the brand publishes.
The record: DSLD 311016 label statements against PMID 27906800 (JPGN 2018, children 4-18, 10^8 CFU/day) — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 9 no-mens-outcome-evidence-exists-for-this-strain
Double-queried per project rule. "DSM 17938" AND (men[ti] OR male[ti] OR prostate OR testosterone) returns 0. The broadened alternative-spelling query returns 126 records, all incidental — mixed-sex cohorts and male mice — with none carrying a men's-specific outcome. This is a children's product and the brand claims nothing of the kind; the zero is recorded because the URL slug puts this SKU within reach of men's-probiotic roundups that never open the page.
The record: PubMed E-utilities, two query formulations, run 2026-07-31 and printed verbatim in the teardown
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.
- No third-party certification claimed status
- The product pages and the FAQ were scanned for NSF, USP Verified, Informed, ConsumerLab, BSCG, Non-GMO Project, cGMP, ISO and third-party, and no genuine hit was returned. The brand claims no certification, which is a different statement from not holding one, and both registers that would settle it are hard-blocked to automation — Cloudflare 403 at nsf.org with an empty Angular shell at listings.nsf.org, and Akamai 403 at quality-supplements.org and usp.org, two attempts each. Record as "none claimed, unverified either way".
- EvidenceBiotics® status
- A BioGaia trademark rather than a certification — no issuer, no register, no audit. "Clinically proven" is likewise a label statement, transcribed by NIH from the physical label, and not a mark.
- A men’s-versus-women’s label diff
- The same brand’s women’s SKU has not been compared against this panel.
- A men's-versus-women's diff for this product
- Two reasons, and the first is the more important. This is a children's product: Shopify product_type "Children & teenagers", marketed from roughly age three to the teens. And BioGaia's US catalogue contains no men's SKU at all — confirmed three ways on 2026-07-31 by a full products.json enumeration (23 products, none men's), by three men's collection URLs all returning HTTP 404, and by an on-site search for "men's" returning verbatim "Search: 0 results found for "men's"". The brand does sell a maternal counterpart in the same line, Protectis® MUM, whose panel was not pulled this pass, so no diff is published here.
- Whether the physical label carries a Servings Per Container line
- The panel image published on the product page omits it, while the sibling Osfortis panel image includes one. The government record lists 30 servings and net contents of 30 chewable tablets, so the physical label almost certainly carries the line and the web asset is a crop — but that is an inference, and as published on the product page the panel is incomplete.
- The government's own scanned label documents
- DSLD's label-scan PDFs did not serve on this pass — the s3 path returns HTTP 403 and the v9 path returns the single-page-application HTML shell. The panel here rests on DSLD's structured transcription plus the brand's own image, which agree exactly.
- Which of the brand's four different research totals is the true one
- Four mutually inconsistent figures are live simultaneously across BioGaia's own properties: "over 200 studies involving more than 19,000 people" on this product page, "more than 150 clinical trials" on this product's label, "over 250 clinical trials involving over 20,000 individuals" in the FAQ, and "over 270 published clinical studies involving more than 23,000 people" on the EvidenceBiotics page — two of them carrying a "(July 2021)" footnote. None is falsifiable as stated, because none says which strains are being counted.
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.
This page exists to make one mechanism visible.
The URL says protectis-chewable-tablets. The product sold there is BioGaia Protectis® KIDS — the
Shopify product_type is Children & teenagers, the government record’s full name is “Protectis Kids
Chewable Tablets”, and the brand’s own FAQ says “BioGaia KIDS Chewables are safe for any child that can
chew properly on their own. Typically, it’s a preschooler around 3 years old.” The slug retains an older,
age-neutral name that the product no longer has.
A very large share of “best probiotic for men” content is assembled from URLs and product titles rather than from labels. Feed this address into that process and a preschooler’s chewable lands in a men’s roundup, with nothing on the surface to catch it. That is the finding, and it is checkable in one click.
The label itself is good. One organism, one full DSMZ designator — L. reuteri DSM 17938 — one CFU figure against it, and the brand’s own panel image and the NIH transcription agreeing exactly. The designator returns 309 PubMed records under its exact code, 105 of them RCT-tagged, which is the deepest single-strain evidence base in the consumer probiotic market. And the dose matches: 1 × 10⁸ CFU a day is the dose used across the paediatric literature, including PMID 27906800, where children aged 4 to 18 with functional abdominal pain had significantly more pain-free days at exactly that amount. A product dosed at its trial’s dose is rare enough in this audit to be worth saying out loud.
Two things are missing from the page rather than from the product. The CFU number appears nowhere in the text — not in the description, not in the bullets, not in the meta description — only inside a PNG. And it carries no basis at all: no “at manufacture”, no “through expiration”, no guarantee of any kind, on the label, on the page, or in a twenty-question FAQ. The published panel image also has the Servings Per Container line cropped off it.
One more comparison the brand’s own site does not let you make. If the sibling Gastrus tablet really is 100 million CFU of each of its two strains — a split its current label no longer prints — then this children’s tablet delivers the same 1 × 10⁸ CFU of DSM 17938 for less money, and the adult tablet’s premium buys the second strain and nothing else. That arithmetic is only available because the National Institutes of Health publishes both panels.