One product, one panel, one record.
CFUKING Probiotics for Men, 500 Billion CFU, 12 Strains, 60 ct (Amazon B0BWRR18XJ) — label audit
The front of the pack says "12 Strains". The panel carries at most nine unambiguously-identified, currently-named organisms and zero strain designators: one taxon is counted twice under two names across two organ blends (120 billion CFU, 24% of the headline number), a second pair cannot be distinguished as printed, and 50 billion CFU is assigned to a name the nomenclature authority marks "not recommended for medical use".
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
- No NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record is on file for this product in this teardown.
- 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.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
31.8 out of 100
Rank 116 of the 154 products in this audit the rubric can score. This rank is shared with 4 other products — 5 products sit on 31.8 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 12 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 0 / 12 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 12 of 12 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 12 / 12 = 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 | 0 of 12 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 / 12 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| 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 |
0.273333 — the last column added up — divided by 0.86, the weight this record could answer, is 0.3178. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 31.8 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 | 500 Billion CFU per 2-capsule serving |
| What that count is measured against | No basis stated |
| Strain designators | None — species only |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 12 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Marketed to men |
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 | 60 Billion CFU | No designator printed | ("Lactobacillus acidophilus"[tiab]) AND (lung[tiab] OR pulmonary[tiab] OR respiratory[tiab]) AND randomized controlled trial[pt] |
| Bifidobacterium lactis (correct name: Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis) | — none printed | 40 Billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis | — none printed | 80 Billion CFU | No designator printed | ("Bifidobacterium animalis"[tiab] OR "Bifidobacterium lactis"[tiab]) AND (liver[tiab] OR hepatic[tiab] OR NAFLD[tiab]) AND randomized controlled trial[pt] |
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus | — none printed | 10 Billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus casei | — none printed | 10 Billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus plantarum | — none printed | 40 Billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium longum | — none printed | 30 Billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium infantis (correct name: Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis) | — none printed | 30 Billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus paracasei | — none printed | 50 Billion CFU | No designator printed | ("Lacticaseibacillus paracasei"[All Fields] OR "Lactobacillus paracasei"[All Fields] OR "L. paracasei"[All Fields]) AND (prostate[All Fields] OR prostatitis[All Fields] OR "BPH"[All Fields] OR "lower urinary tract symptoms"[All Fields]) AND randomized controlled trial[pt] |
| Lactobacillus lactis (correct name: Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. lactis) | — none printed | 50 Billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium bifidum | — none printed | 50 Billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium breve | — none printed | 50 Billion CFU | 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 — 71Z7LfBLZ-L._AC_SL1500_.jpghttps://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71Z7LfBLZ-L._AC_SL1500_.jpg — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured The product's Supplement Facts, which exists only as this JPEG on Amazon's image CDN, transcribed by reading the image. There is no HTML, no PDF and no database transcription of this panel anywhere reachable. The CFU arithmetic in it is exact — 100 + 100 + 100 + 50 + 150 = 500 billion — so the headline number is not padded; the defects are in the names, not the sums.
- Dated capture of the brand’s own page — amazon-B0BWRR18XJ-2026-07-31https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BWRR18XJ — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured Live listing. Brand CFUKING, manufacturer CFUKING, MPN CK-JN-1P-WZH-1, UPC 726810257969, sold by CFUKING Health Store (A2N2CAO1MYPZTM) and fulfilled by Amazon, first available 12 August 2022, 4.5 stars from 597 ratings. Best Sellers Rank was volatile between two same-day fetches — #98,150 Health & Household / #784 Probiotic Nutritional Supplements via reader proxy, #80,929 / #671 direct — and both are recorded rather than one being chosen.
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
$0.84 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $25.20 USD
- What that buys
- 60-capsule bottle (30 servings, 2 capsules per serving). $22.68 on Subscribe & Save.
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BWRR18XJ — 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 |
|---|---|---|
| "3rd party tested" / "3rd-party tested strains" | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
| Certified Organic (USDA) | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
| "Proudly Made in USA", "Whole Food Ingredient", "Vegetarian", "Sugar Free" | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
"3rd party tested" / "3rd-party tested strains"
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
Claimed twice in the listing bullets. No laboratory is named, no certificate of analysis is linked, and no test scope is stated. There is no issuer, therefore no register. Brand-asserted, unverifiable in principle.
Certified Organic (USDA)
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
"Certified Organic" appears only in an Amazon structured attribute (Material Features: "Allergen Free, Certified Organic, GMO Free, Vegan"). The Supplement Facts calls three extracts and the amla "Organic". No certifying agent is named anywhere on the label, in the listing, or in the A+ content. USDA Organic INTEGRITY is a Blazor single-page app; four candidate API paths (/integrity/api/opSearch, /integrity/api/OperationSearch, /integrity/api/Operation/Search, /integrity/API/OPSearch) all returned the SPA shell rather than data, so the register is unreachable to automation. Recorded as brand-asserted, unverified — never "verified", and never "does not hold it".
"Proudly Made in USA", "Whole Food Ingredient", "Vegetarian", "Sugar Free"
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
Four A+ image badges, drawn as hexagons, naming no certifying body. There is nothing to look up. No NSF, no USP Verified, no Informed Choice, no cGMP certifier and no Non-GMO Project mark appears anywhere on the listing.
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 twelve-strains-with-zero-strain-designators
No ATCC, DSM, CNCM, NCIMB, CECT, BB-12 or any other designator appears anywhere on this panel. All twelve rows are species names. The listing claims "clinically proven 12 strains" and "12 multiple targets and 3rd-party tested strains". A species name does not identify a tested agent — whatever trials are being alluded to were run on named strains this label does not name.
The record: Panel JPEG 71Z7LfBLZ-L._AC_SL1500_.jpg, transcribed 2026-07-31 · anchor: PMID 29868585 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 2 one-organism-counted-twice-under-two-names-across-two-organ-blends
"Bifidobacterium lactis" (40 billion, Lung Care Blend) and "Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis" (80 billion, Liver Care Blend) are homotypic synonyms — the same taxon — per LPSN, the ICSP-linked nomenclature authority, fetched live this pass. The label splits one organism across two organ-branded blends under two different names and counts it twice toward "12 strains". 120 billion of the 500 billion CFU, 24% of the headline number, is one organism wearing two names.
The record: LPSN (DSMZ) record for Bifidobacterium lactis, fetched 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://lpsn.dsmz.de/species/bifidobacterium-lactis — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 3 fifty-billion-cfu-of-a-name-the-nomenclature-authority-deprecates
The Immune Care Blend lists "Lactobacillus lactis" at 50 billion CFU, 10% of the product. LPSN record 777339 (permanent DOI 10.83108/rn.777339) gives its taxonomic status as "synonym (and not recommended for medical use)", correct name Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. lactis — obsolete since 1984. It is not Lactococcus lactis, which is a different genus. No claim is made about which organism is in the capsule and no typo is asserted: the finding is that 50 billion CFU is attributed to a name a reader cannot resolve to a defined organism.
The record: LPSN (DSMZ) record 777339, fetched 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://lpsn.dsmz.de/species/lactobacillus-lactis — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 4 b-infantis-and-b-longum-are-not-distinguishable-as-printed
The Digestive Care Blend lists Bifidobacterium longum (30 billion) and Bifidobacterium infantis (30 billion) as two of the twelve. LPSN gives B. infantis as a synonym whose correct name is B. longum subsp. infantis. The B. longum row carries no subspecies, so on the face of the label the two rows cannot be told apart. Weaker than the B. lactis finding — subsp. longum and subsp. infantis are genuinely different organisms and are legitimately sold separately — but still a real disclosure failure.
The record: LPSN (DSMZ) record for Bifidobacterium infantis, fetched 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://lpsn.dsmz.de/species/bifidobacterium-infantis — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 5 cfu-basis-entirely-unstated
500 Billion CFU appears front-of-pack, in the title, in the bullets and in a dedicated A+ image reading "500 Billion CFU / Beyond 98% Leading Brand". No basis appears anywhere: not at manufacture, not at expiry, no guarantee, on ten separate search terms across the whole listing and the panel. A consumer cannot tell whether the 500 billion is what goes into the capsule, what is there at the printed date, or what was there in a lab once. A CFU number without a basis is not a bigger number than a CFU number with one — it is a different kind of statement.
The record: Ten basis-term searches across the full rendered listing and the panel JPEG, all zero, 2026-07-31
Finding 6 delayed-release-claim-contradicted-by-the-labels-own-other-ingredients
The listing bullet reads: "Shelf Stable Mens Probiotic: CFUKING Men Probiotics have been designed to withstand and survive, delayed-release capsule ensures the probiotic reaches your gut alive." The panel's Other Ingredients, verbatim and in full: "Organic Amla Powder, Vegetable Cellulose (Capsule)." Plain vegetable cellulose is an immediate-release shell. No enteric or delayed-release polymer is declared — no HPMC-phthalate, no HPMC-acetate-succinate, no shellac, no gellan gum, no methacrylate, no branded DR shell — and any such material would have to appear in Other Ingredients. The marketing claims a delivery technology the label says is not in the product.
The record: Amazon B0BWRR18XJ bullet copy versus panel JPEG 71Z7LfBLZ-L._AC_SL1500_.jpg, same page, 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BWRR18XJ — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 7 prostate-care-blend-evidence-is-zero-and-the-one-trial-is-on-a-strain-not-claimed
The blend's only organism is Lactobacillus paracasei, no designator. Prostate RCTs for it: zero, on two query spellings. Drop the RCT filter and exactly one human study appears — PMID 33442769, Cai T et al., World J Urol 2021, a phase IV study whose abstract reads "To evaluate the efficacy of Lactobacillus paracasei CNCM I-1572 (L. casei DG®) ... in patients with chronic bacterial prostatitis". There is a human prostatitis study on this species, and it is on a strain with a public deposit number that this panel does not claim. No reader can tell whether the capsule contains CNCM I-1572 or an unrelated paracasei isolate.
The record: PMID 33442769 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 8 cranberry-is-the-wrong-material-below-both-trialled-doses
Cranberry is the one ingredient in the Prostate Care Blend with real human male-LUTS RCTs, and both the dose and the material fail to match. PMID 26049866 (World J Urol 2016) tested "250 or 500 mg cranberry powder (Flowens™)" with a dose-response effect on IPSS; PMID 20804630 (Br J Nutr 2010) tested "1500 mg of the dried powdered cranberries" per day for six months. Both used whole cranberry fruit POWDER. This product contains 200 mg of cranberry EXTRACT — a different material, below the lowest effective Flowens arm, and 13% of the dried-powder dose.
The record: PMID 26049866 · PMID 20804630 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 9 four-prebiotics-none-of-which-is-a-prebiotic
The title claims "12 Strains + 4 Prebiotics"; a bullet claims a "15-in-1 Premium Organic Fiber Formula". Three of the four are polyphenol/botanical extracts in the panel — cranberry 200 mg, turmeric 200 mg, goji 100 mg — and the fourth, organic amla powder, is declared in Other Ingredients with no quantity at all. None is inulin, FOS, GOS, resistant starch, or any substrate with recognised prebiotic characterisation, and extracts are not fibre. The counts also disagree with each other: 12 + 4 = 16 in the title, "15-in-1" in the bullets, and a sibling ASIN advertises the same formula as "16 IN 1". Three different totals for one product.
The record: Amazon B0BWRR18XJ title, bullets and panel JPEG, 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BWRR18XJ — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 10 organ-named-blends-printed-inside-the-supplement-facts-panel
"Lung Care Blend", "Liver Care Blend" and "Prostate Care Blend" are not marketing copy — they are ingredient-group headings on the regulated nutrition panel, where the FDA disclaimer does not appear. A blend heading that names an organ imports an organ claim into the one part of the label that is supposed to carry composition rather than benefit. Separately, the "Men's Health Support" A+ image carries five benefit claims including "Prostate Health" and "Respiratory Health" with no disclaimer anywhere in the image; the disclaimer exists, buried in the Legal Disclaimer section, remote from the claims. And the Amazon Product Benefits attribute reads "Diarrhea Health" — a named GI condition in a structured product-attribute field.
The record: Panel JPEG 71Z7LfBLZ-L._AC_SL1500_.jpg and Amazon B0BWRR18XJ A+ content and attributes, 2026-07-31
Finding 11 unsubstantiated-superiority-and-authority-claims
"Beyond 98% Leading Brand", "the most effective Gut Health for Men", "Best Choice Of Men' Probiotic" (typo verbatim, in a brand-authored A+ headline), "developed by our world-class research team", "clinically proven" and "3rd-party tested" all appear with no footnote, no source and no methodology anywhere on the page.
The record: Amazon B0BWRR18XJ bullets and A+ content, verbatim, 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BWRR18XJ — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 12 brand-token-absent-from-the-title-and-the-store-slug-is-a-keyword-string
The 227-character listing title carries no brand token at all. The token appears elsewhere on the page — byline, Brand Name, Manufacturer, seller name and four times in the bullets — so this is not a hidden brand but a deliberately de-branded title. The brand's own Amazon store URL is amazon.com/stores/MENSULTIMATECARE/page/14F86B48-88D0-4E67-8DCB-8AAC9FA2F2CD: the store slug is a keyword phrase, not the brand name. Every layer Amazon's search engine reads is a keyword string; the brand name only surfaces in the layers a human reads after arriving.
The record: Amazon B0BWRR18XJ title and brand-store URL, 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BWRR18XJ — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 13 displayed-unit-price-is-half-the-real-daily-cost
Amazon displays "$0.42 / count" one-time and "$0.38 / count" on Subscribe & Save. The serving size is two capsules, so the true cost per day is $0.84 and $0.756. The number is not false — "count" does mean capsule — but it sits in the price block where shoppers read cost per day, and it is exactly half the real figure.
The record: Amazon B0BWRR18XJ price block versus panel serving size, 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BWRR18XJ — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
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.
- "3rd party tested" / "3rd-party tested strains" status
- Claimed twice in the listing bullets. No laboratory is named, no certificate of analysis is linked, and no test scope is stated. There is no issuer, therefore no register. Brand-asserted, unverifiable in principle.
- Certified Organic (USDA) status
- "Certified Organic" appears only in an Amazon structured attribute (Material Features: "Allergen Free, Certified Organic, GMO Free, Vegan"). The Supplement Facts calls three extracts and the amla "Organic". No certifying agent is named anywhere on the label, in the listing, or in the A+ content. USDA Organic INTEGRITY is a Blazor single-page app; four candidate API paths (/integrity/api/opSearch, /integrity/api/OperationSearch, /integrity/api/Operation/Search, /integrity/API/OPSearch) all returned the SPA shell rather than data, so the register is unreachable to automation. Recorded as brand-asserted, unverified — never "verified", and never "does not hold it".
- "Proudly Made in USA", "Whole Food Ingredient", "Vegetarian", "Sugar Free" status
- Four A+ image badges, drawn as hexagons, naming no certifying body. There is nothing to look up. No NSF, no USP Verified, no Informed Choice, no cGMP certifier and no Non-GMO Project mark appears anywhere on the listing.
- A machine-readable Supplement Facts panel
- The panel exists only inside a product JPEG on Amazon's image CDN and was transcribed by reading the image. There is no HTML, no PDF and no database transcription anywhere reachable. DSLD holds no record: five queries returned nothing for the brand, the UPC (726810257969) or the product name. If the ASIN is delisted the panel disappears.
- The basis of the 500 billion CFU claim
- The full rendered listing — title, bullets, description, A+ content, Important Information, Safety Information, Directions, Legal Disclaimer — plus the panel image was searched for "at time of manufacture", "time of manufacture", "at manufacture", "expiration", "expiry", "best by", "through end", "end of shelf", "guarantee" and "guaranteed". Zero hits on every one in brand-authored copy. The only "potency" hit on the page is inside a customer review.
- Whether 500 billion CFU plus 500 mg of botanical extract fits in two capsules
- Not asserted as a falsity and not resolvable from public data. Two capsules must carry 500 billion CFU of freeze-dried culture plus 500 mg of extracts plus amla powder plus the shells; high-potency commercial concentrates typically run in the low hundreds of billions of CFU per gram, so the number sits at the physical upper edge of the commercially available range. What can be said is that the label provides no basis statement, no manufacture-date reference and no third-party assay by which anyone could check. The absence of a basis is what makes the magnitude unfalsifiable.
- The relationship between this listing and eight near-identical sibling ASINs
- A single search surfaced eight further ASINs with near-identical "500 Billion CFU / 12 Strains / Turmeric, Cranberry, Goji" titles, most also without a brand token — B0C3QCWBBL, B0CH9PW1JC, B0B9GHVW3G, B0B9GJPH2P, B0CSYF1QCP, B0C5HD6F87, B0FCS25RCH. None was opened and no claim is made about their panels or their relationship to this brand. Recorded as a lead, not a finding.
- The dose of the fourth claimed "prebiotic"
- Organic Amla Powder is declared in Other Ingredients, where no quantity is required and none is given. A claimed active ingredient declared as an excipient carries no disclosed dose.
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.
Give this label its credit first, because it earns two pieces of it and they matter.
It is not a proprietary blend — every one of the twelve organism rows carries its own CFU number, which is better disclosure than several far more expensive products in this audit. And the arithmetic is exact: 100 + 100 + 100 + 50 + 150 = 500 billion. The headline number is not padded.
The problem is that the number counts the wrong things.
Three of the twelve names were put to LPSN, the ICSP-linked nomenclature authority at DSMZ, live this pass. All three came back flagged.
Bifidobacterium lactis (40 billion, in the “Lung Care Blend”) and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis (80 billion, in the “Liver Care Blend”) are homotypic synonyms — the same taxon. One organism, split across two organ-branded blends under two names, counted twice toward “12 strains”. That is 120 billion CFU, 24% of the headline number.
Bifidobacterium infantis is a subspecies of B. longum, and both are in the same blend, with the B. longum row carrying no subspecies — so as printed, a reader cannot tell them apart.
And “Lactobacillus lactis”, at 50 billion CFU, resolves under LPSN to Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. lactis, obsolete since 1984, flagged “not recommended for medical use”. It is not Lactococcus lactis; that is a different genus. Nothing here asserts a typo or claims to know what is in the capsule. The ambiguity is the finding.
So: a “12 Strains” claim on a panel with zero strain designators and at most nine unambiguously identified, currently-named organisms.
Two more things the label says about itself that the label contradicts. The bullets promise a “delayed-release capsule”; the Other Ingredients read, in full, “Organic Amla Powder, Vegetable Cellulose (Capsule)” — an immediate-release shell, with no enteric polymer declared anywhere, and any such material would have to be declared. And the “Prostate Care Blend”, the only male-specific thing in the bottle, contains one undesignated L. paracasei. There is a human prostatitis trial on that species. It was run on L. paracasei CNCM I-1572 — a strain with a public deposit number. This label says “Lactobacillus paracasei” and stops.
Put it beside the SKU it shares a batch with. Culturelle claims 10 billion CFU and states its basis three times. This claims 500 billion and states no basis at all.