One product, one panel, one record.
Life Extension FLORASSIST Probiotic Mood Improve, 30 vegetarian capsules (item 02250) — label audit
This is the most honest strain label in its batch — two organisms, two published Rosell designators, no species-only filler, a machine-readable panel and numbered references on the page — and the brand states outright that the saffron in the capsule is not the saffron in the trials it cites, on a page where one of the four "meta-analyses" is a single 50-patient OCD trial with no placebo arm.
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. First, the page's "two randomized controlled trials" claim cannot be checked: PMID 21983070 deposits no abstract in PubMed or Europe PMC and its full text is paywalled, and PubMed types it "Clinical Trial" rather than "Randomized Controlled Trial". Do not publish that references 1 and 2 are two independent trials, and do not publish that they are one cohort reported twice — the honest statement is that the independence is unverified. Second, NSF's register was unreachable across three endpoints, so the brand's distribution-facility GMP registration is brand-asserted and unverified rather than absent; "Life Extension does not hold it" is not publishable. Third, there is no stability data and no published shelf life, so nothing here supports a statement about what the 3 billion CFU is at any point after manufacture — including the "ME" microencapsulation claim, which is a mechanism claim with no supporting data cited. What did survive verification in full: the UPC match between the live page and DSLD; both strain designators and their RCT counts, re-runnable from the query strings on this page; the at-manufacture footnote confirmed in two independent sources; the resolution of all four saffron references, including reference 7 being a single OCD trial; the brand's own verbatim admission that its saffron extract is not the studied one; and the absence of any gendered variant of this SKU.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
58.7 out of 100
Rank 80 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 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 | 2 of 2 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 2 / 2 = 1.0000 | 0.2400 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 0 of 2 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 0 / 2 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| What the CFU count is measured against | 0.22 | Potency basis "at-manufacture": CFU figure printed yes, single basis stated yes, basis reaches expiry no — 2 of 3. | 2 / 3 = 0.6667 | 0.146667 |
| Printed designators that lead to a human trial | 0.20 | 2 of 2 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 / 2 = 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 |
0.586667 — the last column added up — divided by 1.00, the weight this record could answer, is 0.5867. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 58.7 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 | Mood Probiotic Blend — 357 mg — (3 Billion CFU †) |
| What that count is measured against | At manufacture only |
| Strain designators | All organisms coded |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 2 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
"† Colony Forming Units at time of manufacture." Independently confirmed in DSLD's transcription of the same panel - "(3 billion CFU) (Colony forming units at time of manufacture.)" Two sources, same wording. The panel also carries "^ ME refers to a patented microencapsulation process that protects the probiotics for enhanced stability" — a mechanism claim, not a potency guarantee, with no supporting stability data cited.
The panel’s own words on potency, verbatim.
The count is stated at time of manufacture only. The panel makes no commitment about what is alive when you swallow it.
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 helveticus | Rosell-52 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | ("Lactobacillus helveticus R0052" OR "Rosell-52") AND (randomized controlled trial[pt]) |
| Bifidobacterium longum | Rosell-175 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | ("Bifidobacterium longum R0175" OR "Rosell-175") AND (randomized controlled trial[pt]) |
What of that is verifiable
A disclosure is verifiable when a reader can open a record that neither we nor the brand controls and see the same thing. Below is every dated artefact this page rests on. What is absent from this list is not verified, however reasonable it sounds.
- Dated capture of the brand’s own page — lifeextension-item02250-2026-07-31https://www.lifeextension.com/vitamins-supplements/item02250/florassist-mood-improve — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured Live product page, HTTP 200, fetched directly — with the Supplement Facts panel present in the page HTML as text, which is genuinely rare in this category. States UPC 737870225034, matching DSLD. Source for the panel and its at-manufacture footnote, the ME microencapsulation footnote, the price and AutoShip terms, the health claims quoted verbatim on this page, and the numbered references that made the saffron audit possible at all.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 232414 (opens in a new tab) captured NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record, entered 2020-08-23, UPC "7 37870 22503 4" matching the live page. Used as an independent corroboration of the brand's own panel, including the at-manufacture wording. Both this record and its duplicate, DSLD 232778, are flagged offMarket = 1 while the product is actively sold — DSLD's off-market flag tracks when a label image was last refreshed, not whether the SKU is discontinued. A related but distinct SKU, DSLD 62998 ("FLORASSIST Mood", 60 capsules, 2 per day, no saffron, UPC 7 37870 20006 2, on-market), must not be conflated with this one.
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
$0.78 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $23.25 USD
- What that buys
- 30-capsule bottle (30 servings, 1 capsule daily). $21.00 on AutoShip.
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://www.lifeextension.com/vitamins-supplements/item02250/florassist-mood-improve — 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 |
|---|---|---|
| NSF GMP registration of distribution operations | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
| Product-level third-party certification | Absent from register | 31 July 2026 |
| "#1 Rated Catalog/Internet Brand" badge | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
| Certificate of analysis | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
NSF GMP registration of distribution operations
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
The brand's quality FAQ states, verbatim - "Life Extension is GMP registered with NSF International. This registration is based on rigorous bi-annual audits of our distribution operations and quality systems and indicates full compliance with applicable areas of 21 CFR Part 111." Scope trap: this is a facility registration of DISTRIBUTION operations. It is not a product certification and not a manufacturing-site certification — it attests to how the warehouse is run, and says nothing about whether this bottle contains 3 billion CFU of the named strains. NSF's register was unreachable this pass (403, 404, and an SPA shell with no data across three endpoints), so even the facility registration is brand-asserted and unverified.
Product-level third-party certification
The register was queried and this product is not listed on it.
None is claimed and none is held. The page makes no NSF Certified for Sport claim, no USP Verified claim, no Informed Choice or Informed Sport claim and no Non-GMO Project Verified claim; it says "Gluten free" and "Non-GMO" as unadorned statements. Credit for not implying certifications it does not hold — and the practical answer for a buyer is still that this product carries no third-party product certification.
"#1 Rated Catalog/Internet Brand" badge
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
Site-wide badge, footnoted verbatim - "† Ratings based on results of the 2026 ConsumerLab.com Survey of Supplement Users." That is a customer-satisfaction survey, not a product test. Recent, at least.
Certificate of analysis
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
The brand's safety page states, verbatim - "If you want to be sure you're getting what's promised on the label, just ask us. We are happy to provide a summary of the reports we receive from the contract manufacturers and the independent laboratories… So just ask. Customer Service: 1-800-678-8989." What is offered is a summary of reports rather than the reports, by telephone. There is no public COA portal and no lot-number lookup; lifeextension.com/coa/02250 returns HTTP 404. Materially weaker than brands that publish per-lot COAs, and much weaker than an NSF or USP 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.
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 cfu-basis-is-at-time-of-manufacture
The footnote reads "† Colony Forming Units at time of manufacture", confirmed identically in DSLD's transcription. This is the weak form of the claim and it directly undermines the product's own dose story: the 3 billion figure matches the roughly 3×10⁹ CFU per day used in the Diop and Messaoudi trials, but those trials measured what subjects received. An at-manufacture number says nothing about what is in the capsule at month 18 of a shelf life the brand does not publish.
The record: lifeextension.com item02250 Supplement Facts footnote and DSLD 232414 transcription, 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 2 the-brand-states-its-saffron-is-not-the-saffron-in-the-cited-trials
Verbatim from the product page - "The highest level of standardization in the above clinical studies was 11% for crocin and 2% for safranal. Since those concentrations are not readily available on the market, we worked with our saffron sources to create a proprietary blend specifically for this formulation." An unusually candid admission that the material in the capsule was never tested. Matching the standardisation percentages of the strongest extract in the literature is not the same as using that extract.
The record: lifeextension.com item02250 product page, saffron paragraph, 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://www.lifeextension.com/vitamins-supplements/item02250/florassist-mood-improve — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 3 reference-seven-is-a-single-ocd-trial-inside-a-sentence-that-says-meta-analyses
The page claims "Meta-analyses of up to eight trials have found that use of saffron extract is associated with improved mood test scores relative to placebo or active controls. 4-7". Reference 7 resolves to PMID 29062366 — a single 50-patient RCT of saffron versus fluvoxamine in obsessive-compulsive disorder, with no placebo arm, reporting no significant time-treatment interaction on Y-BOCS. It is not a meta-analysis.
The record: All four cited references resolved via PubMed - PMIDs 25384672, 31118846, 29849461, 29062366 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 4 the-saffron-evidence-stack-is-drug-comparison-literature-in-clinically-ill-populations
Reference 4 is a systematic review of saffron for the treatment of major depression (6 studies, not 8). Reference 5 is a meta-analysis of 8 studies in depressed patients versus placebo and fluoxetine. Reference 6 is a meta-analysis of 7 studies in major depressive disorder versus placebo and synthetic antidepressants. Reference 7 is an OCD trial versus fluvoxamine. The on-page claim is mood support in a supplement context; the substantiation stack underneath it is a drug-treatment evidence base in clinically ill populations. This is the cleanest example of borrowed disease evidence in the project, and it needs no inference — it is documented on the brand's own page.
The record: PMIDs 25384672, 31118846, 29849461 and 29062366, all resolved and read — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 5 reference-five-has-a-confidence-interval-touching-zero
PMID 31118846's headline result is SMD versus placebo = −0.86, 95% CI −1.73 to 0.00. The interval touches zero, i.e. it does not exclude no effect. Describing it as "associated with improved mood test scores relative to placebo" is a generous reading of a boundary-null.
The record: PMID 31118846, Psychol Res Behav Manag 2019;12:297-305 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 6 two-randomized-controlled-trials-is-not-currently-checkable
The page states "In two randomized controlled trials, participants taking a blend of Lactobacillus helveticus Rosell-52 and Bifidobacterium longum Rosell-175 reported significant mood, stress response and emotional balance support as compared to placebo." References 1 and 2 are the two 2011 Messaoudi papers. PubMed types the Gut Microbes paper (PMID 21983070) as "Clinical Trial", not "Randomized Controlled Trial", and deposits no abstract for it. The claim may be right; it is not checkable.
The record: PMID 20974015 and PMID 21983070; no abstract deposited in PubMed or Europe PMC for the latter — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 7 the-gi-citation-is-accurate-and-the-same-trial-was-null-on-psychological-symptoms
"These strains relieved stress-related gastrointestinal discomfort as well." resolves to Diop 2008 (PMID 19083380), which is accurate for GI symptoms. The same trial states verbatim that "the probiotics did not significantly modify the other physical and psychological symptoms and sleep problems" — and the page cites it one sentence after a mood claim, without that context.
The record: PMID 19083380, Nutr Res 2008;28(1):1-5 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 8 the-largest-trial-of-its-own-strain-pair-is-not-cited
PMID 37049546 (Nutrients 2023, NCT04823533, n=135 analysed) tested exactly this pair for four weeks and reports verbatim "Results showed no significant effects of probiotic intake in whole sample outcomes", with Lallemand SAS — the strain owner — listed as a collaborator. Three times the size of the foundational trial, twelve years more recent, and absent from the page.
The record: PMID 37049546; ClinicalTrials.gov sponsor record for NCT04823533 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 9 proprietary-blend-with-no-split-between-the-two-strains
Both organisms are fully designated — the best strain identity in the batch — and they still sit inside a 357 mg "Mood Probiotic Blend" with one combined 3 billion CFU figure. The ratio is not disclosed.
The record: lifeextension.com item02250 Supplement Facts, corroborated by DSLD 232414 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 10 the-nsf-claim-is-a-distribution-facility-registration
The brand's NSF claim covers GMP registration of its distribution operations — how the warehouse is run — not the product and not the manufacturing site. It is also unverifiable, because NSF's register was unreachable across three endpoints.
The record: lifeextension.com/faq/quality-purity-efficacy, quoted verbatim; NSF endpoints 403, 404 and SPA shell — open ithttps://www.lifeextension.com/faq/quality-purity-efficacy — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 11 coa-by-telephone-only-and-only-a-summary
The certificate of analysis is available by phone request, and what is offered is "a summary of the reports" rather than the reports. There is no public COA portal and no lot lookup; lifeextension.com/coa/02250 returns HTTP 404.
The record: lifeextension.com/about/life-extension-research/safety, quoted verbatim, 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://www.lifeextension.com/about/life-extension-research/safety — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 12 contains-milk-and-soybeans
The panel declares "Contains milk, soybeans." Relevant to a product marketed for daily long-term use.
The record: lifeextension.com item02250 Supplement Facts allergen declaration — open ithttps://www.lifeextension.com/vitamins-supplements/item02250/florassist-mood-improve — 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.
- NSF GMP registration of distribution operations status
- The brand's quality FAQ states, verbatim - "Life Extension is GMP registered with NSF International. This registration is based on rigorous bi-annual audits of our distribution operations and quality systems and indicates full compliance with applicable areas of 21 CFR Part 111." Scope trap: this is a facility registration of DISTRIBUTION operations. It is not a product certification and not a manufacturing-site certification — it attests to how the warehouse is run, and says nothing about whether this bottle contains 3 billion CFU of the named strains. NSF's register was unreachable this pass (403, 404, and an SPA shell with no data across three endpoints), so even the facility registration is brand-asserted and unverified.
- "#1 Rated Catalog/Internet Brand" badge status
- Site-wide badge, footnoted verbatim - "† Ratings based on results of the 2026 ConsumerLab.com Survey of Supplement Users." That is a customer-satisfaction survey, not a product test. Recent, at least.
- Certificate of analysis status
- The brand's safety page states, verbatim - "If you want to be sure you're getting what's promised on the label, just ask us. We are happy to provide a summary of the reports we receive from the contract manufacturers and the independent laboratories… So just ask. Customer Service: 1-800-678-8989." What is offered is a summary of reports rather than the reports, by telephone. There is no public COA portal and no lot-number lookup; lifeextension.com/coa/02250 returns HTTP 404. Materially weaker than brands that publish per-lot COAs, and much weaker than an NSF or USP mark.
- The split between R0052 and R0175
- "Mood Probiotic Blend — 357 mg" gives one combined CFU figure for the pair. The trials studied a combination; a buyer cannot confirm this product reproduces its proportions, and one strain could be a token fraction of the 3 billion.
- Whether the two 2011 Messaoudi papers are independent trials
- The page claims "two randomized controlled trials". PMID 21983070 deposits no abstract in PubMed or Europe PMC, its full text is paywalled (Taylor & Francis, HTTP 403), and PubMed types it "Clinical Trial" rather than "Randomized Controlled Trial". Same authors, same year, same formulation, same population descriptor as PMID 20974015. Whether these are two trials or one cohort reported twice could not be determined, and neither characterisation may be published.
- NSF's register
- Three endpoints tried this pass - nsf.org/certified-products-systems 403, info.nsf.org/Certified/GlutenFree/ 404, listings.nsf.org/api/api/searchListing HTTP 200 with an Angular SPA shell and no data. The brand's own GMP-registration claim is therefore unverified in either direction.
- Any stability data or a published shelf life
- The CFU figure is at time of manufacture and the "ME" microencapsulation claim is offered as the mitigation. No stability data and no shelf-life figure were found on the page, so there is nothing to say what the count is at month 18.
- A certificate of analysis
- Available only by telephone request, and what is offered is a summary of reports rather than the reports. lifeextension.com/coa/02250 returns HTTP 404. No public portal, no lot-number lookup, no batch-level document.
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 label deserves credit before criticism, because on strain identity it is among the best in the project.
Two organisms, two designators, no filler. Lactobacillus helveticus Rosell-52 and Bifidobacterium longum Rosell-175 — real, published, searchable codes, with no sixteen-organism kitchen sink and no species-only padding. The Supplement Facts panel is in the page HTML as text, which almost nothing in this category manages. And the page carries numbered references, which is rarer still — and is the only reason the audit below was possible at all. Life Extension published the evidence that undercuts its own claims, and that is worth saying plainly.
It also does not invent certifications. No NSF Certified for Sport, no USP Verified, no Informed Choice badge. Just “gluten free” and “non-GMO” as unadorned statements. The practical answer for a buyer is still that this product holds no third-party product certification — but the brand is not pretending otherwise.
Now the three findings.
The CFU count is guaranteed only at time of manufacture. The footnote is right there — “Colony Forming Units at time of manufacture” — and DSLD’s independent transcription says the same. This matters more here than usual, because the 3 billion figure is the product’s dose argument: it matches the roughly 3×10⁹ CFU a day used in the trials. But those trials measured what subjects received. An at-manufacture number tells you nothing about month 18 of a shelf life the brand does not publish. The “ME” microencapsulation claim is offered as the mitigation, and it is a mechanism claim with no stability data behind it.
The saffron problem, which is the highest-value finding on this SKU. The page says “Meta-analyses of up to eight trials have found that use of saffron extract is associated with improved mood test scores…” and cites four references. All four were resolved. Reference 4 is a systematic review of six studies on saffron for the treatment of major depression. Reference 5 is a meta-analysis in depressed patients whose headline result — SMD −0.86, 95% CI −1.73 to 0.00 — touches zero. Reference 6 is a meta-analysis in major depressive disorder against synthetic antidepressants. Reference 7 is not a meta-analysis at all: a single 50-patient trial of saffron versus fluvoxamine in obsessive-compulsive disorder, with no placebo arm and no significant result on its primary analysis.
The wording on the page stays lawfully structure/function. The substantiation stack underneath it is a drug-treatment evidence base in clinically ill populations.
And then the brand tells you the capsule does not contain the studied material, verbatim:
“The highest level of standardization in the above clinical studies was 11% for crocin and 2% for safranal. Since those concentrations are not readily available on the market, we worked with our saffron sources to create a proprietary blend specifically for this formulation.”
That is an unusually candid admission that the actual material in the capsule was never tested. Matching the standardisation percentages of the strongest extract in the literature is not the same as using that extract. Read it against the brand’s own quality FAQ — “we use ingredients and dosages that accurately replicate the most successful results obtained in scientific studies” — and the product page contradicts the policy page in the brand’s own words.
Two last notes. The 2023 trial of exactly this strain pair, three times the size of the foundational one and null overall, with the strain owner listed as a collaborator, is not cited here or anywhere else in the category. And there is no men’s version and no women’s version of this SKU: Life Extension runs distinct Men’s Health and Women’s Health categories, and files this product under Mood Support — neither.