One product, one panel, one record.
DRFOSTER Probiotics for Men Digestive Health, 120 Billion CFUs with Saw Palmetto & Cranberry — label audit
Seven nutrients with established Daily Values — vitamin C, B12, B6, K2, D3, magnesium and zinc — are concealed inside an undifferentiated 46 mg "Vitamin and Mineral Blend". 21 CFR 101.36(b)(2) requires vitamins and minerals with established RDIs to be declared individually with amounts and percent Daily Value; they may not be rolled into a proprietary blend total.
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
- D₂₇ founding teardown One of the 27 products taken apart at label level. That cohort is frozen and dated, so the audit’s published percentages cannot silently move.
- 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
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 24 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 0 / 24 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 0 of 24 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 0 / 24 = 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 24 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 / 24 = 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 |
0.073333 — 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 | 120 Billion CFUs (Men's Probiotic Complex, 500 mg) |
| What that count is measured against | No basis stated |
| Strain designators | None — species only |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 24 — 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacillus coagulans | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bacillus subtilis | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Saccharomyces boulardii | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Pediococcus pentosaceus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus plantarum (correct name: Lactiplantibacillus plantarum) | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus casei | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus paracasei | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus lactis (correct name: Lactococcus lactis) | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus reuteri | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus crispatus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus salivarius | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus fermentum | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus helveticus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus gasseri | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus bulgaricus (correct name: Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus) | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium animalis | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium adolescentis | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium longum | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium bifidum | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium breve | — 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 infantis (correct name: Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis) | — 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 — 519Trsv3epLhttps://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/519Trsv3epL — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured The listing's own Supplement Facts image, read directly. DRFOSTER has no NIH DSLD record, so this image is the only source for the panel — and the 21 CFR finding is conditional on this transcription being right.
- Dated capture of the brand’s own page — amazon-B0D41MW6T2-2026-07-30https://www.amazon.com/Probiotics-Digestive-Probiotic-Prebiotics-Cranberry/dp/B0D41MW6T2 — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured Listing metadata re-confirmed during the audit: title, 4.6 stars, "No featured offers available", "cannot be shipped", first available 2024-05-13.
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| "GMP CERTIFIED" roundel | Not checked | not checked |
| "NON-GMO" seal | Not checked | not checked |
"GMP CERTIFIED" roundel
We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.
No certifying body named. cGMP compliance under 21 CFR Part 111 is legally mandatory for every US dietary supplement manufacturer — a floor, not a distinction — and "GMP Certified" without a named certifier (NSF, NPA, UL) is not a third-party certification. No certificate of analysis, no batch lookup, no laboratory named.
"NON-GMO" seal
We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.
Generic text on the panel, not the Non-GMO Project 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 2 single-500mg-blend-across-24-organisms
One 500 mg proprietary complex, 120 billion CFU claimed, and no per-strain CFU or milligram allocation whatsoever. The entire probiotic content could be 119 billion CFU of the cheapest spore-former plus trace amounts of 23 others. Nothing on the label excludes that.
The record: Amazon listing Supplement Facts image, ASIN B0D41MW6T2 — open ithttps://www.amazon.com/Probiotics-Digestive-Probiotic-Prebiotics-Cranberry/dp/B0D41MW6T2 — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 3 cfu-basis-completely-unstated
No "at manufacture", no "through expiration", nowhere — not on the panel, not in the bullets, not in the A+ content, not in the product description. Combined with the 500 mg blend, the 120 billion figure is accountable to nothing: not to a per-strain split and not to a point in time.
The record: Amazon listing, ASIN B0D41MW6T2
Finding 4 invalid-species-name-on-the-panel
"Lactobacillus lactis" is not a valid species. The organism is Lactococcus lactis — a different genus.
The record: Amazon listing Supplement Facts image, ASIN B0D41MW6T2
Finding 5 strain-count-inflated-by-double-counting
B. animalis and B. lactis are the same taxon; B. longum and B. infantis are species and subspecies of each other; L. casei and L. paracasei are a long-standing taxonomic muddle frequently sold as two. A defensible distinct-taxon count is about 21, not 24.
The record: Amazon listing Supplement Facts image, ASIN B0D41MW6T2
Finding 6 clinically-studied-strains-with-no-strain-named
The listing claims "24 unique clinically studied probiotic strains". Zero strain designators appear on the panel. The claim is unverifiable by construction: you cannot identify a clinically studied strain that has no name. For fairness, several of these species do have substantial trial literatures at strain level — 58 randomised-trial records for Bacillus coagulans, 119 for Saccharomyces boulardii — which is the point: the evidence exists for named strains and this product has severed itself from it.
The record: Amazon listing, ASIN B0D41MW6T2
Finding 7 uti-relief-claim
"Includes 140mg Cranberry extract with Vitamin C to relieve UTI discomfort without pain or burning and to support kidney & bladder health." A urinary tract infection is a diagnosed infection; relieving its discomfort is a treatment claim. The 2023 Cochrane cranberry review analysed no male subgroup at all and found cranberry null in the elderly and in bladder-emptying dysfunction.
The record: PMID 37947276 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 8 urinary-frequency-claim-contradicted-by-cochrane
"This saw palmetto for men aids in reducing urinary frequency, reducing frequent bathroom trips, and supporting overall prostate and urinary health." Cochrane found nocturia not significantly reduced at 72 weeks (one-sided P = 0.19), peak urine flow mean difference 0.40 mL/s (95% CI −0.30 to 1.09) and AUA symptom score 0.25 (95% CI −0.58 to 1.07) — all null, at double and triple the dose this product uses.
The record: PMID 23235581 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 9 saw-palmetto-panel-and-marketing-disagree
The panel says "Saw Palmetto — 200 mg" with no extract ratio, no standardisation, no fatty-acid percentage and no plant part. As printed, that could be milled berry powder, which is not what any BPH trial used. The Amazon bullet says "200mg per serving highly absorbable saw palmetto extract". And 200 mg is below the 320 mg/day the Cochrane trials used — which was itself null.
The record: Amazon listing Supplement Facts image versus the listing bullets, ASIN B0D41MW6T2
Finding 10 ten-times-more-survivability-with-no-comparator
"10 TIMES MORE SURVIVABILITY" — a specific quantitative claim with no comparator stated and no data cited. Ten times more than what?
The record: Amazon listing, ASIN B0D41MW6T2
Finding 11 enteric-coating-claimed-not-declared
The listing claims "enteric-coated capsules and delayed-release technology". Other Ingredients lists only "Vegetable Capsule" — no enteric polymer is declared, no HPMCP, no shellac, no methacrylate.
The record: Amazon listing Supplement Facts image, ASIN B0D41MW6T2
Finding 12 fairy-dusted-vigor-ingredients
Taurine 20 mg against a typical energy-drink dose of 1,000–2,000 mg. An Amino Acid Blend of 100 mg across five amino acids — a single dietary gram of protein contains vastly more. The 46 mg vitamin and mineral blend across seven nutrients.
The record: Amazon listing Supplement Facts image, ASIN B0D41MW6T2
Finding 13 no-dsld-record-no-corporate-entity
The brand returns an empty hit set in the NIH DSLD, confirmed on re-query, and the Amazon manufacturer field reads only "DRFOSTER" — no corporate entity, no address.
The record: DSLD brand query returning count 0, re-run 2026-07-30 — open it (opens in a new tab)
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.
- "GMP CERTIFIED" roundel status
- No certifying body named. cGMP compliance under 21 CFR Part 111 is legally mandatory for every US dietary supplement manufacturer — a floor, not a distinction — and "GMP Certified" without a named certifier (NSF, NPA, UL) is not a third-party certification. No certificate of analysis, no batch lookup, no laboratory named.
- "NON-GMO" seal status
- Generic text on the panel, not the Non-GMO Project mark.
- A US retail price, and therefore the cost per day
- No verifiable US price exists. The Amazon listing showed "No featured offers available" and "This item cannot be shipped to your selected delivery location" from the fetching locale, and the buy box was empty — which also means availability is unstable. A EUR 15.03 figure was observed from an EU locale for the 90-count, but a euro price from a different marketplace is not a US price. The $24.97 visible on the page belongs to a sponsored Physician's Choice placement, not to this product. No cost per day is computed.
- A men’s-versus-women’s label diff
- The same brand’s women’s SKU has not been compared against this panel.
- Any US price
- See the price note. Empty Amazon buy box, item not shippable to the fetching locale.
- Whether a DRFOSTER women's version exists
- Not located. The men's-versus-women's argument for this batch is carried by the GNC and Nature Target comparisons instead.
- The Supplement Facts panel against any independent source
- DRFOSTER has no NIH DSLD record — the query returns an empty hit set — so the Amazon listing image is the sole source for this panel. The 21 CFR argument above is airtight only if that transcription is right.
- Whether 120 billion CFU in 500 mg is physically plausible
- That implies about 240 billion CFU per gram of blend before carriers, which sits at the very top of what commercial freeze-dried concentrates achieve. Flagged as questionable; no assay and no source establishing a commercial ceiling was obtained, so it is not asserted as false.
- A corporate entity or address for the seller
- The Amazon manufacturer field reads only "DRFOSTER".
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.
Most of what is wrong with this product is the same thing wrong with a dozen others in this set: a big number, a proprietary blend, no strain names, no potency basis. One finding is different, because it is checkable against a regulation rather than against a judgement.
The panel carries a line reading “Vitamin and Mineral Blend — 46 mg”, and underneath it: vitamin C, vitamin B12, vitamin B6, vitamin K2, vitamin D3, magnesium glycinate, zinc. No individual amounts. No percent Daily Value for any of them.
21 CFR 101.36 splits dietary ingredients into two groups. Paragraph (b)(2) covers the ones with an established Reference Daily Intake or Daily Reference Value — vitamins and minerals — and the regulation says that ingredients in a proprietary blend which are listed under (b)(2) “shall be declared in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section.” Only (b)(3) “other dietary ingredients” may be rolled into a blend total. All seven of those nutrients are (b)(2) ingredients. Subparagraph (b)(2)(i)(B) names them.
This site says “appears to be” and stops there, because whether a label violates a regulation is a determination for a regulator, and because the panel itself comes from a single listing image — DRFOSTER has no government label record at all.
But the substance is not merely technical. Forty-six milligrams across seven nutrients, one of which is magnesium glycinate at roughly 14% elemental magnesium by weight, is necessarily a trivial dose. A meaningful magnesium dose alone would be several hundred milligrams. The vitamin and mineral content is fairy dust, and the proprietary blend is what hides it.
The same architecture runs through the rest of the panel. Twenty-four organisms and 120 billion CFU in one undifferentiated 500 mg complex, with Bacillus coagulans listed first — the cheapest and most stable spore-former on the list, and, under proprietary-blend rules, the one present in the greatest amount. There is no per-strain split, no strain designator, and no statement of whether the 120 billion is measured at manufacture or at expiry. The number is accountable to nothing.