One product, one panel, one record.
Genestra Brands HMF Intensive Powder, 30 g (SKU 10486-30U) — label audit
The rare case where the organisms named on the label are the organisms that were trialled — four Lab4 strains with CUL codes that carry a real human randomised literature under those exact designators, and 25 billion CFU guaranteed through expiration. And the four share one consortium total, on a consortium whose published trials dose its members at ratios as lopsided as twenty to one.
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 Audited 2026-07-31, after the founding cohort of 27 was frozen. It sits outside every D27 denominator this site publishes.
- How deep this went
- Label audit — the lighter pass What the label says, what basis it gives for its CFU number, whether the strains are coded, whether a government label record exists — checked and published. No full claim inventory was written for this SKU. It is a real result, and it is a shallower one than the teardowns above it, which is why the page says so before you weigh it against them.
- What did not survive verification
- Part of this page was refuted or could not be reproduced Three bounded items, and the strain list is not one of them — the Lab4 identification is the strongest thing on this page. First, and this is the one that must travel: the brand's own description of a "randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 155 adults… for 21 days" is UNVERIFIED and must not be republished as fact. A Lab4 trial matching that description at 25 billion CFU is present in the retrieved abstract set at a 28-day duration, not 21, and the specific participant count and duration were never confirmed against full text. The general claim — that this consortium at this dose has been trialled in adults — is supported and quotable; the two numbers are not. Second, the NCIMB deposit numbers for CUL-20 and CUL-34 are deliberately not asserted anywhere on this page, because the published Lab4 literature maps them inconsistently: CUL-20 appears as NCIMB 30153 twice and as NCIMB 30172 once, with CUL-34 taking the opposite number each time. Only the CUL codes, which are what the label carries, are published. Third, two of the four designators come from a superseded government record. The current record (321214) transcribes CUL-20 and CUL-34 with their codes and renders the two L. acidophilus entries without them; CUL-60 and CUL-21 are taken from the older record 56261, which DSLD itself flags as the same product with an image difference, and are corroborated in prose on the archived brand page. That is a real resolution and it is not a read of the current label generation. Related scope limit: the brand's site returns HTTP 403 to automated requests, so the price is from a 2025-11-16 archive snapshot rather than a live page. What did survive verification: the at-expiry potency guarantee, quoted verbatim from a US government transcription of the physical label; the 25 billion CFU consortium total; the refrigeration requirement the guarantee depends on; the four CUL codes and their PubMed record counts; the absence of any per-strain split; and the brand-wide NSF negative, read at the issuer's own register for Genestra, Seroyal and Atrium alike.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
66.0 out of 100
Rank 59 of the 154 products in this audit the rubric can score. This rank is shared with 6 other products — 7 products sit on 66.0 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 the whole rubric: this record answers all five questions below, so nothing is renormalised away and the divisor is the full 1.00. That share travels with every score on this site and is never dropped — a score over part of the rubric’s 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 | 4 of 4 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 4 / 4 = 1.0000 | 0.2400 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 0 of 4 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 0 / 4 = 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 | 4 of 4 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. | 4 / 4 = 1.0000 | 0.2000 |
| Certification confirmed at the issuer’s own register | 0.14 | 1 claimed certification queried at the issuer’s register and not listed there. | 0 / 1 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
0.6600 — the last column added up — divided by 1.00, the weight this record could answer, is 0.6600. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 66.0 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 | Probiotic Consortium — 25 billion CFU |
| What that count is measured against | Through expiry |
| Strain designators | All organisms coded |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 4 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
Two statements, verbatim from the DSLD label transcription: "Potency guaranteed through expiration" and "HMF Intensive Powder 25 Billion CFU guaranteed daily". The honest form of the claim, and the only at-expiry guarantee in its batch. It is also the one that most needs its storage condition read alongside it: "Store under refrigeration (below 46 degrees F)." The guarantee is conditional on a cold chain the buyer must maintain.
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | CUL-60 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PubMed designator search, plus "Lab4 AND probiotic" |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | CUL-21 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PubMed designator search, plus "Lab4 AND probiotic" |
| Bifidobacterium bifidum | CUL-20 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PubMed designator search, plus "Lab4 AND probiotic" |
| Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis | CUL-34 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PubMed designator search, plus "Lab4 AND probiotic" |
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 321214 (opens in a new tab) captured On market, entered 2024-11-22, UPC 8 83196 13990 3, product version 486-30U-BOX V2 — which matches the archived page's SKU 10486-30U exactly. A US government transcription of the physical label rather than the brand's word, which matters here because the brand's own site returns 403. Source for the "Probiotic Consortium — 25 billion CFU" panel line, for both at-expiry statements verbatim, for the storage instruction, for the CUL-20 and CUL-34 designators, and for the formulation statements. Distributor of record: "Made in the UK for Seroyal USA, Pittsburgh, PA" — consistent with Cultech manufacture in Port Talbot, Wales. DSLD itself links this record to 56261 as "Image difference, same product".
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 56261 (opens in a new tab) captured The older record DSLD flags as the same product. Cited for one purpose and stated as such: it carries all four CUL codes, including the two L. acidophilus designators CUL-60 and CUL-21 that the current record renders without them. This is what resolved the strain-code question that the brand's own 403-blocked site could not answer.
- Internet Archive capture — 20251116164113 (opens in a new tab) captured Used because seroyal.com returns HTTP 403 to automated requests. Source for the price ($54.00, listed as both "Your Price" and "Retail Price"), the SKU 10486-30U, the 30 g / 30 serving pack, the prose description of the four-organism composition that corroborates the DSLD roster, and the trial description whose 155-participant and 21-day figures this project declines to publish as verified. The snapshot also shows "This item may be out of stock."
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, 4 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
$1.80 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $54.00 USD
- What that buys
- 30 g tub (30 servings, 1 g scoop daily), SKU 10486-30U
- 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 |
|---|---|---|
| NSF/ANSI 173 contents certification | Absent from register | 31 July 2026 |
| Formulation statements (Dairy free, Gluten free, Soy free, Non GMO, Vegan) | Not checked | 31 July 2026 |
NSF/ANSI 173 contents certification
The register was queried and this product is not listed on it.
Verified at the issuer's own register, and the negative is brand-wide rather than product-specific. CompanyName=Genestra, CompanyName=Seroyal and CompanyName=Atrium — the parent — all return an empty listing. There is no NSF contents certification for this brand at any level. Note that the product claims none, so nothing is being contradicted.
Formulation statements (Dairy free, Gluten free, Soy free, Non GMO, Vegan)
We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.
These are formulation claims rather than certification marks — no issuer is invoked, so there is nothing to query. Recorded so they are not mistaken for certifications. The page's "Scan to learn about our quality excellence" QR statement points to brand-controlled material.
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 no-per-strain-split-on-a-consortium-whose-trials-use-a-twenty-to-one-ratio
Four organisms share one 25 billion CFU consortium total with no split. One published Lab4 trial dosed 10 billion CUL-60, 10 billion CUL-21, 9.5 billion CUL-20 and 0.5 billion CUL-34. The ratio is load-bearing for whether this product resembles the trialled preparation, and the label does not disclose it.
The record: DSLD 321214 panel, "Probiotic Consortium — 25 billion CFU"; Lab4 trial dosing from retrieved abstracts, 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 2 the-at-expiry-guarantee-depends-on-a-cold-chain-the-buyer-maintains
"Potency guaranteed through expiration" is the honest form of the claim, and the same label says "Store under refrigeration (below 46 degrees F)." The guarantee is real and it is conditional.
The record: DSLD 321214 label statements, both verbatim, 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 3 the-brand-site-hard-blocks-automated-access
seroyal.com returns HTTP 403 to automated requests, so no label fact published on it is independently checkable without the Internet Archive or a government record. Everything on this page comes from one of those two routes.
The record: seroyal.com HTTP 403 on 2026-07-31; Internet Archive capture 20251116164113 used instead — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 4 the-155-adults-21-days-trial-description-is-unverified
The archived page describes a randomised placebo-controlled trial in 155 adults over 21 days. A Lab4 trial matching the description at 25 billion CFU is present in the retrieved abstract set at 28 days, and the specific participant count and duration were not confirmed against full text. Do not republish those two figures as verified. The general claim that this consortium at this dose has been trialled in adults is supported.
The record: Archived seroyal.com claim, verbatim, capture 20251116164113; Lab4 abstract set retrieved 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 5 no-nsf-listing-for-the-brand-at-any-level
Genestra, Seroyal and parent company Atrium all return empty listings on NSF's dietary-supplement register. There is no NSF contents certification for this brand at all — and none is claimed, so this is a plain negative rather than a contradicted claim.
The record: info.nsf.org/Certified/Dietary/Listings.asp queried for Genestra, Seroyal and Atrium, all empty, 2026-07-31 — 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.
- Formulation statements (Dairy free, Gluten free, Soy free, Non GMO, Vegan) status
- These are formulation claims rather than certification marks — no issuer is invoked, so there is nothing to query. Recorded so they are not mistaken for certifications. The page's "Scan to learn about our quality excellence" QR statement points to brand-controlled material.
- A men’s-versus-women’s label diff
- The same brand’s women’s SKU has not been compared against this panel.
- The per-strain split across the four organisms
- Not disclosed. The panel gives one consortium total of 25 billion CFU. This matters more than usual here because published Lab4 trials dose the strains very unevenly — one used 10 billion CUL-60, 10 billion CUL-21, 9.5 billion CUL-20 and 0.5 billion CUL-34, a twenty-to-one spread — so the ratio is load-bearing for whether this product resembles the trialled preparation, and the label does not give it.
- The "155 adults, 21 days" trial the brand describes
- Not confirmed, and explicitly not republishable as verified. The archived product page states: "In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 155 adults, daily intake of a probiotic supplement providing 25 billion CFU (containing two strains each of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium) for 21 days significantly and positively affected the intestinal microbiota." A Lab4 trial matching that description at 25 billion CFU is present in the retrieved abstract set at a 28-day duration, not 21. The specific 155-participant and 21-day figures were not confirmed against full text. The general claim — that this consortium at this dose has been trialled in adults — is supported; the two specific numbers are not, and must not be published as verified.
- NCIMB deposit numbers for CUL-20 and CUL-34
- Deliberately not asserted. The published Lab4 trial literature reports the mappings inconsistently: across the retrieved abstracts, CUL-20 appears as NCIMB 30153 twice and as NCIMB 30172 once, with CUL-34 taking the opposite number each time. CUL-60 to NCIMB 30157 and CUL-21 to NCIMB 30156 are consistent. This page reports the CUL codes, which is what the label carries, and makes no NCIMB claim for CUL-20 or CUL-34.
- The two L. acidophilus designators on the current label generation
- The current DSLD record (321214) transcribes CUL-20 and CUL-34 with their codes and renders the two L. acidophilus entries without them. CUL-60 and CUL-21 come from the older record 56261, which DSLD itself flags as the same product with an image difference. The four-strain roster is corroborated in prose on the archived brand page, which describes "two strains of Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacterium bifidum, and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis".
- The live brand page, and the current price
- seroyal.com returns HTTP 403 to automated requests, so no label fact on it is independently checkable without the Internet Archive or DSLD. The price published here comes from the 2025-11-16 archive snapshot, which also shows "This item may be out of stock." Seroyal gates practitioner pricing behind a sign-in wall, so $54.00 is the non-practitioner figure.
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 is the rare product where the organisms named on the label are the organisms that were trialled.
Four Cultech Lab4 strains, all with CUL designators — L. acidophilus CUL-60 and CUL-21, B. bifidum CUL-20, B. animalis subsp. lactis CUL-34 — and each carries a real human literature under the exact code printed: 10, 10, 15 and 12 PubMed records, with double-blind placebo-controlled randomised trials in adults and in preschool children among the retrieved abstracts. Most of this category names a strain that has never been studied, or studies a strain it does not name. This one does neither.
And the potency is guaranteed through expiration. “Potency guaranteed through expiration.” “HMF Intensive Powder 25 Billion CFU guaranteed daily.” The only at-expiry commitment in its batch — and it comes with a condition that belongs in the same breath: “Store under refrigeration (below 46 degrees F).” The guarantee is real and the buyer carries the cold chain.
There is a genuine gap, and it matters more here than the usual version of it.
The four organisms share one 25 billion CFU consortium total with no split. For most blends that is a generic complaint. For Lab4 it is specific: one published trial of this consortium dosed 10 billion CUL-60, 10 billion CUL-21, 9.5 billion CUL-20 and 0.5 billion CUL-34 — a twenty-to-one spread between the largest and smallest component. Whether this product resembles the trialled preparation depends entirely on a ratio the label does not print.
Two things about how this page was built, because they are part of the finding. Seroyal’s site returns 403 to automated requests, so nothing published on it is independently checkable — every fact here comes from the US government’s label database or from an archive snapshot. And the strain codes themselves were resolved by DSLD rather than by the brand: the current record names CUL-20 and CUL-34 with their codes and renders the two L. acidophilus entries bare, so CUL-60 and CUL-21 come from an older record that DSLD itself flags as the same product.
One claim on this page is deliberately not repeated. The archived product page describes “a randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 155 adults… for 21 days”. A Lab4 trial matching that description at 25 billion CFU exists in the retrieved abstract set — at 28 days. The 155-participant and 21-day figures were never confirmed against full text, so they are recorded here as unverified rather than reprinted. That this consortium at this dose has been trialled in adults is supported. The specific numbers are not.