One product, one panel, one record.
Garden of Life Dr. Formulated Probiotics Mood+ Shelf-Stable, 60 vegetarian capsules — label audit
The page claims its two named strains are present "in the amount clinically shown to support mood" — and the product's own Supplement Facts panel makes that impossible to check, because R0052 and R0175 sit unquantified inside a 203 mg blend with fourteen other organisms under a single 50 billion total. Nothing on the label constrains either strain to the roughly 3 billion CFU a day the trials used.
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.
- 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 Three bounded items on this page. First, none of the three certification claims could be settled at an issuer: the Non-GMO Project's product finder returns 404, all three NSF endpoints tried were unusable, and Informed Choice lists Garden of Life as a certified brand while the product-level page is Cloudflare 403 — so "brand-asserted, unverified" is the correct phrase everywhere, and "does not hold it" is not publishable for any of them. Second, the independence of the two 2011 Messaoudi papers could not be determined: PMID 21983070 deposits no abstract in PubMed or Europe PMC, its full text is paywalled, and PubMed types it "Clinical Trial" rather than "Randomized Controlled Trial". Do not publish that they are two independent trials, and do not publish that they are one cohort reported twice. Third, the panel lists Bifidobacterium longum twice and codes it once, so whether the organism count is 16 strains, 15 species, or 15 species with one padded entry cannot be resolved from the label. What did survive verification in full: the UPC match between the archived page and DSLD 274061; all sixteen panel entries in order; the at-expiration-date CFU footnote; the 2× per-serving pricing error and its arithmetic; the zero PubMed result for AuroraBlue across two spellings with all ten loose-match hits manually rejected; and the absence of any men's or women's Mood+ SKU across a 60-result Wayback sweep.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
32.0 out of 100
Rank 115 of the 154 products in this audit the rubric can score.
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 | 2 of 16 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 2 / 16 = 0.1250 | 0.0300 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 0 of 16 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 0 / 16 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| What the CFU count is measured against | 0.22 | Potency basis "through-expiry": CFU figure printed yes, single basis stated yes, basis reaches expiry yes — 3 of 3. | 3 / 3 = 1.0000 | 0.2200 |
| Printed designators that lead to a human trial | 0.20 | 2 of 16 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. | 2 / 16 = 0.1250 | 0.0250 |
| 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 |
0.2750 — the last column added up — divided by 0.86, the weight this record could answer, is 0.3198. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 32.0 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 | Total Probiotic Cultures (50 Billion CFU) |
| What that count is measured against | Through expiry |
| Strain designators | Some organisms coded |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 16 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
DSLD's transcription of the panel footnote, verbatim: "Total Probiotic Cultures (50 Billion CFU) (At expiration date under recommended storage conditions)". Storage: "No refrigeration required. Store in a cool, dry place."
The panel’s own words on potency, verbatim.
The panel guarantees the count through the expiration or best-by date. This is the only basis that is falsifiable by a reader holding the bottle.
Some organisms carry a printed strain designator and some are named by species only.
| 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 plantarum | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus helveticus | R0052 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | ("Lactobacillus helveticus R0052" OR "Rosell-52") AND (randomized controlled trial[pt]) |
| Lactobacillus paracasei | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus casei | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus brevis | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus bulgaricus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus gasseri | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus salivarius | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium animalis lactis | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium longum | R0175 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | ("Bifidobacterium longum R0175" OR "Rosell-175") AND (randomized controlled trial[pt]) |
| Bifidobacterium bifidum | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium breve | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium infantis | — 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.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 274061 (opens in a new tab) captured NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record, on-market, entered 2022-09-22, and the newest on-market record carrying the matching UPC. UPC cross-check passed: the archived live page states "Item 658010120043" and DSLD records "6 58010 12004 3". Source for the sixteen ingredient entries in panel order, the 203 mg Mood Probiotic Blend, the 350 mg Stress Support Blend and DSLD's own classification of AuroraBlue as a proprietary botanical blend, the 675 mg Organic Prebiotic Fiber Blend, the at-expiration CFU footnote, the Seals/Symbols field, and the allergen statement that "L. helveticus R0052 and B. longum R0175 are fermented in media that may include traces of soy and dairy." Superseded and duplicate records for the same product - 267300 and 267301 on-market; 232964, 232976, 173741 and 65022 off-market.
- Internet Archive capture — 20251210103252 (opens in a new tab) captured Internet Archive snapshot, used because gardenoflife.com returns HTTP 403 to automated fetch (Akamai, re-confirmed 2026-07-31). Source for the $40.79 price and the "$0.68/serving" claim, the subscription terms, the health claims quoted verbatim on this page, the "#1 selling probiotic" footnote with its 2021 measurement window, the INFORMED CHOICE mark, and the "Shelf Stable—Potency Promise" copy.
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, 2 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
$1.36 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $40.79 USD
- What that buys
- 60-capsule bottle (30 servings, 2 capsules once daily)
- Price checked
- — the source we read it from (opens in a new tab)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Non-GMO Project Verified | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
| NSF Certified Gluten-Free | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
| INFORMED CHOICE | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
| Certified organic by QCS | Not checked | 31 July 2026 |
| Green-e certified renewable energy | Not checked | 31 July 2026 |
Non-GMO Project Verified
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
Claimed on the label and on the page. The Non-GMO Project's product finder returns HTTP 404 with and without a search parameter, so the register could not be queried. Brand-asserted, unverified — never "false".
NSF Certified Gluten-Free
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
Claimed on the label. Three NSF endpoints were tried this pass and none was usable - nsf.org/certified-products-systems returned 403, info.nsf.org/Certified/GlutenFree/ returned 404, and listings.nsf.org/api/api/searchListing returned HTTP 200 with only an Angular SPA shell and no data. Scope trap worth naming: NSF Certified Gluten-Free certifies the absence of gluten. It says nothing about CFU count, strain identity, potency at expiry or contaminants. This product carries no NSF contents certification, no NSF Certified for Sport mark and no USP Verified mark.
INFORMED CHOICE
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
Shown on the product page and absent from the DSLD label transcription — a page/label mismatch worth flagging on its own. At the issuer, informed-choice.org/certified-product-brands returned HTTP 200 and Garden of Life does appear as a certified brand; the product-level page (/supplement-search/brand/garden-life) returned a Cloudflare 403, and Informed Sport's product search returned 0 results for Garden of Life. So: brand-level listing verified at the issuer, product-level certification unverified. Informed Choice is a banned-substance programme certified per product and per batch, not per brand — a brand-level listing does not tell you this bottle was tested, and banned-substance screening says nothing about whether the 50 billion CFU is real.
Certified organic by QCS
We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.
Claimed on the label. Not checked this pass.
Green-e certified renewable energy
We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.
Claimed on the label. This is a corporate energy-purchasing claim, not a product-quality claim, and is recorded only so that a reader counting seals on the carton knows which of them are about the contents.
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 in-the-amount-clinically-shown-is-a-dose-claim-the-panel-cannot-support
The page states that Dr Perlmutter created the formula with R0052 and R0175 "in the amount clinically shown to support mood, emotional well-being and relaxation." Both strains sit unquantified inside a 203 mg blend with fourteen other organisms under a single 50 billion total. Nothing on the label constrains either strain to the roughly 3×10⁹ CFU per day used in the trials. This is a dose-equivalence claim made unverifiable by the product's own Supplement Facts panel.
The record: Archived product page 2025-12-10 and DSLD 274061 panel transcription — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 2 clinically-studied-organic-alaskan-blueberries-return-zero-pubmed-records
The page calls AuroraBlue® "clinically studied organic Alaskan blueberries". PubMed returns 0 for "AuroraBlue" and 10 for the looser AuroraBlue[All Fields] OR "Aurora blue berry" — all ten manually inspected and all false positives (author and consortium name matches in oncology, genetics and critical-care papers). No PubMed-indexed human study of AuroraBlue exists.
The record: PubMed, two query spellings, 2026-07-31; all 10 loose-match hits opened and rejected — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 3 a-proprietary-blend-nested-inside-a-proprietary-blend
"Mood Probiotic Blend — 203 mg" holds all sixteen organisms with no per-organism CFU. Separately, "Stress Support Blend — 350 mg" contains AuroraBlue®, which DSLD itself classifies as "Proprietary Blend (Herb/Botanical)" — a proprietary blend nested inside a proprietary blend.
The record: DSLD 274061 structured ingredient data, 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 4 per-serving-price-understated-by-exactly-two-times
The brand states "$0.68/serving". The serving is 2 capsules and there are 30 servings, so the true cost per day is $40.79 ÷ 30 = $1.36. $0.68 is $40.79 ÷ 60 capsules — the per-capsule price presented as the per-serving price. This is the same class of error already documented on the brand's RAW Probiotics Men SKU, where it understated by 3× against a 3-capsule serving. Two SKUs, same brand, same arithmetic mistake, each time in the direction that flatters the price.
The record: Archived product page 2025-12-10, stated unit price versus DSLD 274061 serving size and servings per container — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 5 sixteen-probiotic-strains-is-false-precision
Fourteen of the sixteen entries are species, not strains. Two carry real designators. And the sixteen entries cover fifteen distinct species, because Bifidobacterium longum is listed twice with only the first instance coded.
The record: DSLD 274061 ingredient list, 16 entries transcribed in panel order — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 6 ashwagandha-is-undosed-and-unstandardised
Organic ashwagandha sits in a 350 mg two-component blend with no plant part, no extract type, no standardisation and no individual dose. The stress literature it is evidently invoking — 14 human RCTs for Withania somnifera, 5 for the KSM-66 extract — uses standardised root extracts at defined doses, and cannot be matched to this.
The record: DSLD 274061 ingredient record, forms field empty; PubMed queries Q17 = 14 and Q18 = 5 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 7 number-one-selling-probiotic-rests-on-a-five-year-old-measurement
The claim's own footnote reads "Based on U.S. Supplement Market, 52 Weeks Ending 7-11-21, Combined Sales: SPINS Natural Channel, iRi US MULO Channel, Amazon.com, Whole Foods Market, The Vitamin Shoppe." Presented in the present tense in July 2026.
The record: Archived product page 2025-12-10, footnote to the "#1 selling probiotic" claim — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 8 page-label-certification-mismatch
The INFORMED CHOICE mark appears on the product page and does not appear in DSLD's transcription of the label. A certification shown in one place and not the other is worth flagging before anyone tries to verify it.
The record: Archived product page 2025-12-10 versus DSLD 274061 Seals/Symbols field — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 9 nomenclature-about-six-years-stale
The panel uses pre-2020 genus names throughout, superseded by Zheng et al. 2020 (PMID 32293557, DOI 10.1099/ijsem.0.004107). Legal, and an indication that the panel has not been revisited in six years.
The record: DSLD 274061 ingredient names versus PMID 32293557 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 10 the-largest-trial-of-its-own-strain-pair-is-not-mentioned
PMID 37049546 (Nutrients 2023, NCT04823533, n=135 analysed, four weeks of R0052 + R0175) reports verbatim "Results showed no significant effects of probiotic intake in whole sample outcomes", with Lallemand SAS — the strain owner — listed as a collaborator. It is the largest and most recent trial of exactly the pair this product is sold on, and the page does not cite it.
The record: PMID 37049546; ClinicalTrials.gov sponsor record for NCT04823533 — 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.
- Non-GMO Project Verified status
- Claimed on the label and on the page. The Non-GMO Project's product finder returns HTTP 404 with and without a search parameter, so the register could not be queried. Brand-asserted, unverified — never "false".
- NSF Certified Gluten-Free status
- Claimed on the label. Three NSF endpoints were tried this pass and none was usable - nsf.org/certified-products-systems returned 403, info.nsf.org/Certified/GlutenFree/ returned 404, and listings.nsf.org/api/api/searchListing returned HTTP 200 with only an Angular SPA shell and no data. Scope trap worth naming: NSF Certified Gluten-Free certifies the absence of gluten. It says nothing about CFU count, strain identity, potency at expiry or contaminants. This product carries no NSF contents certification, no NSF Certified for Sport mark and no USP Verified mark.
- INFORMED CHOICE status
- Shown on the product page and absent from the DSLD label transcription — a page/label mismatch worth flagging on its own. At the issuer, informed-choice.org/certified-product-brands returned HTTP 200 and Garden of Life does appear as a certified brand; the product-level page (/supplement-search/brand/garden-life) returned a Cloudflare 403, and Informed Sport's product search returned 0 results for Garden of Life. So: brand-level listing verified at the issuer, product-level certification unverified. Informed Choice is a banned-substance programme certified per product and per batch, not per brand — a brand-level listing does not tell you this bottle was tested, and banned-substance screening says nothing about whether the 50 billion CFU is real.
- Certified organic by QCS status
- Claimed on the label. Not checked this pass.
- Green-e certified renewable energy status
- Claimed on the label. This is a corporate energy-purchasing claim, not a product-quality claim, and is recorded only so that a reader counting seals on the carton knows which of them are about the contents.
- The dose of R0052 and R0175 in this product
- Both sit unquantified inside a 203 mg "Mood Probiotic Blend" with fourteen other organisms under one 50 billion total. Nothing on the label constrains either strain to any value between approximately zero and 50 billion. This is the gap that makes the brand's own dose-equivalence claim uncheckable.
- Whether the two Bifidobacterium longum entries are two different strains
- The panel lists B. longum twice, coded once. If they are genuinely different strains the second is unnamed; if not, the organism count is padded. The label does not say.
- NSF Certified Gluten-Free at NSF's register
- Three NSF endpoints tried, all unusable - 403, 404, and an SPA shell with no data. Brand-asserted, unverified in either direction.
- Non-GMO Project verification at the issuer
- The Non-GMO Project product finder returns HTTP 404 with and without a search parameter.
- Whether this product holds Informed Choice certification
- Garden of Life is listed at the issuer as a certified brand; the product-level page is Cloudflare 403 and Informed Sport's product search returns 0 results for the brand. Informed Choice certifies per product and per batch, so a brand-level listing does not answer the question.
- Whether Messaoudi 2011 in Gut Microbes is an independent trial
- PMID 21983070 has no abstract deposited in PubMed or Europe PMC and its full text is paywalled (Taylor & Francis, HTTP 403). PubMed types it "Clinical Trial", not "Randomized Controlled Trial". It could not be determined whether it is a second trial or a second report of the same cohort as PMID 20974015. Neither characterisation may be published.
- The plant part, extract type, standardisation and dose of the ashwagandha
- It sits inside a 350 mg two-component "Stress Support Blend" with no plant part, no extract type, no standardisation and no individual dose; DSLD's forms field is empty. The Withania somnifera stress literature — 14 human RCTs, 5 for the KSM-66 extract specifically — uses standardised root extracts at defined doses, so none of it can be matched to what is in this capsule.
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.
Start with what this label gets right, because it is not nothing and the brand’s own men’s SKU does worse.
The CFU count is guaranteed at the expiration date. Verbatim from the government’s transcription: “Total Probiotic Cultures (50 Billion CFU) (At expiration date under recommended storage conditions).” That is the honest form of the claim, and it is stronger wording than the FDA-approved biologic in the same batch manages. Two real strain designators are printed — L. helveticus R0052 and B. longum R0175 — which is strictly better than Garden of Life’s own Once Daily Men’s, where fifteen organisms carry none. The claim wording is disciplined structure/function throughout, nothing crosses into a disease claim, the dose is one serving a day, and the label voluntarily discloses that the two named strains are fermented in media that may contain traces of soy and dairy.
Now the finding that matters most, and it is a single sentence on the page.
“Dr. Perlmutter created this unique formula with clinically studied probiotics L. helveticus R0052 and B. longum R0175 in the amount clinically shown to support mood, emotional well-being and relaxation.”
That is a dose-equivalence claim. The product’s own Supplement Facts panel makes it impossible to check. R0052 and R0175 sit unquantified inside a 203 mg blend alongside fourteen other organisms, under one 50 billion total. Nothing on the label constrains either strain to any value between roughly zero and 50 billion — and the trials this claim is reaching for used about 3 billion CFU a day of the pair. A buyer cannot verify the claim, and neither can anyone else.
The evidence underneath it is real and thinner than the page suggests. R0052 and R0175 have a named, publicly searchable literature — which already puts them ahead of most of this category. That literature is one small positive 2011 trial with an uncorrected multiplicity problem, one 2008 trial that was positive on gut symptoms and explicitly null on psychological symptoms, and one 2023 trial three times the size that was null overall and co-run by the strain owner. The 2023 trial is not mentioned on the page.
Three more things a reader should see.
“Clinically studied organic Alaskan blueberries.” AuroraBlue® returns zero PubMed records. A looser query returns ten, and all ten were opened and rejected as name matches in unrelated fields.
“16 raw probiotic strains” is false precision. Fourteen of the sixteen entries are species names. And Bifidobacterium longum appears twice, coded once — so sixteen entries cover fifteen distinct species, and the buyer cannot tell whether the duplicate is a second unnamed strain or a padded count.
The per-serving price is understated by exactly two times. The brand prints “$0.68/serving”. The serving is two capsules; there are thirty of them in the bottle. The true cost is $1.36 a day. The $0.68 is the per-capsule price wearing a per-serving label — and this brand has now done the same thing on a second SKU, each time in the direction that flatters the price.
Finally, the men’s question, which answers itself: Mood+ is a unisex SKU. A 60-result sweep of the brand’s own archived URLs turns up no men’s Mood+ and no women’s Mood+, so there is no panel to diff. No prostate ingredient, no androgen ingredient, no urinary ingredient, no male-associated organism. It appears in “best probiotic for men” listicles because it is a well-known Garden of Life probiotic, and for no reason that is on the label.