One product, one panel, one record.
Metagenics UltraFlora® Balance Probiotic (L. acidophilus NCFM® + B. lactis Bi-07®, 15 billion CFU) — label audit
The panel says "two of the most clinically studied strains". The only randomised trial of these two strains together dosed 200 billion CFU a day, missed both of its primary endpoints, and is called a pilot study by its own authors. This product's marketed once-daily dose is 15 billion — one thirteenth of it.
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 and changes none of them.
- 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 Two limits sit on this record. First, the brand's own page could not be read live — metagenics.com returns HTTP 403 to three independent fetchers — so every statement here about what that page says, including the string counts that establish the at-expiry qualifier is missing from the web panel, is scoped to an Internet Archive snapshot dated 2025-10-08. Second, the panel figures come from the 60-count and 120-count government records, because the 30-count size the brand page defaults to and prices first has no DSLD record and no GFCO register entry at all. The formula is stated to be identical and was confirmed against the brand's own 30-count panel, but what is not quotable from this page is any government-corroborated panel transcription for the pack size most buyers actually buy.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
80.0 out of 100
Rank 36 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 "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 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 | 2 claimed certifications found on the issuer’s own public register. Read the scope before reading the mark: most certify one narrow property. | 1 / 1 = 1.0000 | 0.1400 |
0.8000 — the last column added up — divided by 1.00, the weight this record could answer, is 0.8000. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 80.0 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 | A Proprietary Blend of: 55 mg (15 billion CFU) |
| What that count is measured against | Through expiry |
| Strain designators | All organisms coded |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 2 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
From the DSLD transcription of the physical label: "A Proprietary Blend of Note: (15 billion CFU) (at date of expiration.)" That is the whole of it. On the brand's own web page the qualifier is gone: the web panel prints "55 mg** (15 billion CFU)††", the †† footnote is never defined, and string counts on the archived HTML return "expiration" 0 occurrences, "Daily Value" 0, "not established" 0. Unlike the sibling Intensive Care page, this page contains no prose restatement of the guarantee either.
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 | NCFM | — not stated separately | Human RCT | "Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM" AND "Randomized Controlled Trial"[Publication Type] |
| Bifidobacterium lactis (correct name: Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis) | Bi-07 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | ("Bifidobacterium lactis Bi-07" OR "Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis Bi-07") AND "Randomized Controlled Trial"[Publication Type] |
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 216636 (opens in a new tab) captured NIH's transcription of the 60-count physical label, on-market, UPC 7 55571 03114 3. Three-way UPC match: DSLD 755571031143 equals the GFCO register entry equals the Blue Sky Vitamin barcode. Source for the at-expiry qualifier, the proprietary-blend wording, the storage notice and the Brand IP statement. The 120-count record (DSLD 216635, UPC 755571927408) matches the same three ways. Neither covers the 30-count size the brand page prices first.
- Internet Archive capture — 20251008191222 (opens in a new tab) captured The archived brand page, used because metagenics.com refuses automation. Source for the brand's own JSON-LD price ($25.50 for the 30-count), the web Supplement Facts panel with its undefined footnote markers, the string counts establishing that "expiration", "Daily Value" and "not established" each appear zero times, the voluntary 7.5B/7.5B off-panel split, the publication-count claims and their IFF citation, and the zero-hit search for men, male, prostate, testosterone and man.
- Internet Archive capture — 20260609213228 (opens in a new tab) captured The brand's Quality page. Source for the certification list that contains the SuppCo TrustScore, the "transparent batch-specific Certificates of Analysis" claim with no retrieval mechanism attached, and the footnote defining the "#1 Doctor Recommended Professional Supplement Brand" claim.
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
$0.83 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $24.95 USD
- What that buys
- 30-capsule bottle (the size the brand's own page defaults to), one capsule daily
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://blueskyvitamin.com/products/ultraflora-balance-probiotic-metagenics.json — 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Gluten-Free Certification Organization (GFCO) — 60-count and 120-count sizes | Confirmed at issuer | 31 July 2026 |
| Gluten-Free Certification Organization (GFCO) — 30-count size (SKU UFDF30) | Absent from register | 31 July 2026 |
| Certified B Corporation (B Lab) | Confirmed at issuer | 31 July 2026 |
| NSF-certified facility | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
| Non-GMO Project Verified | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
| "Undergoes independent verification for quality, purity, potency, and safety" | Not checked | 31 July 2026 |
| SuppCo TrustScore | Register unreachable | 31 July 2026 |
Gluten-Free Certification Organization (GFCO) — 60-count and 120-count sizes
Found on the certifier’s own public register.
Verified at the issuer's own register against exact UPCs. ?s=755571031143 returns "UltraFlora Balance (60c) | Metagenics | 755571031143"; ?s=755571927408 returns "UltraFlora Balance (120c) | Metagenics | 755571927408". The label seal transcribed in DSLD reads "GF Certified gluten-free." GFCO certifies the absence of gluten and nothing else — not CFU count, not strain identity, not potency at expiry, not contaminants.
Gluten-Free Certification Organization (GFCO) — 30-count size (SKU UFDF30)
The register was queried and this product is not listed on it.
The register was queried and this pack size is not in it. ?s=755571961266 returns "No products found"; the second query, ?s=Balance&s_brand=Metagenics, returns the 120-count, the 60-count and two Canadian SKUs, and no 30-count. Read this precisely and do not over-read it: the formula is identical (55 mg / 15 billion CFU / 1 capsule, confirmed against the brand's own 30-count panel), and GFCO's own page states that a product carrying the mark but missing from the list should be reported to them. The finding is that for the pack size the brand sells first, the certifier has no record.
Certified B Corporation (B Lab)
Found on the certifier’s own public register.
Verified at B Lab's register: Meta Parent LP, certified since June 2022, standards version 1.6, overall B Impact Score 81.2 against a qualifying threshold of 80, sub-scores Governance 10.1, Workers 26.6, Community 14.6, Environment 19.5, Customers 10.2. The certified entity is the parent holding company, not this product, and B Corp certification measures social and environmental performance — it is not a product quality, potency or purity certification.
NSF-certified facility
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
The page claims "Produced in NSF-certified facilities". nsf.org returns Cloudflare 403 and listings.nsf.org serves an Angular shell whose API could not be reached, so the register could not be queried at all. Brand-asserted, unverified — never "does not hold it".
Non-GMO Project Verified
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
Listed on the Quality page. The Non-GMO Project's product finder 404s at /find-by-product/, /find-a-product/ and /verified-products/ — three URL spellings, site root 200. Register unreachable. The product label itself says only "This product is non-GMO", a plain formulation claim rather than a Non-GMO Project claim.
"Undergoes independent verification for quality, purity, potency, and safety"
We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.
No register was queried because no verifier is named. The claim identifies no issuer, no programme and no laboratory, which makes it unfalsifiable by construction. Recorded as a disclosure defect rather than as an unverified certification.
SuppCo TrustScore
The certifier’s register could not be queried at all. That is a finding about the verification infrastructure, not about the brand.
Metagenics' Quality page places this in a list headed "our commitment to transparency is backed by globally respected certifications, including:" — alongside Non-GMO Project Verified and Gluten-Free Certification — and describes it as an "Independent rating that proves our commitment to quality." SuppCo is a consumer supplement app's rating score, not an accredited certification body, and a rating is not a test. suppco.com did not resolve to a fetchable page this pass, so its methodology is unverified; but placing an app's score in a sentence about globally respected certifications is a disclosure defect independent of whether the score is any good.
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.
Compared against Metagenics UltraFlora® Women's (DSLD 216583, UPC 755571937476). Diffed .
What the two panels differ by
- Different organisms, chosen for different reasons. This SKU is L. acidophilus NCFM plus B. lactis Bi-07, sold for general digestive balance; the women's SKU is L. rhamnosus GR-1 plus L. reuteri RC-14, sold against a named sex-linked indication — "help maintain a healthy vaginal microflora and support urogenital health". DSLD 216636 versus DSLD 216583, both on-market, read 2026-07-31
- The women's panel prints its potency basis in the same breath as its number — 2 billion CFU "(At date of expiration.)" — which this SKU's physical label also does, and this SKU's web page does not. DSLD 216583 versus DSLD 216636, against the archived Balance brand page (Wayback 20251008191222)
- The strain IP is disclosed on both, to different owners: DuPont (now IFF) for NCFM and Bi-07 here, and "Under license from Chr. Hansen A/S and protected by Chr. Hansen A/S patents of the WO 00/35465 patent family, and others" for GR-1 and RC-14 there. DSLD Brand IP statements on 216636 and 216583, 2026-07-31
- The women's SKU is one capsule daily at $36.95 for 30 servings, $1.23 a day. This SKU is $24.95 for 30 servings at one capsule daily, $0.83 a day — and $1.66 at the label's upper dose. Blue Sky Vitamin, both products fetched 2026-07-31
What is identical across the pair
- Both print a strain designator for every organism they name.
- Both guarantee CFU at the date of expiration on the physical label.
- Both are sold by a brand whose Men's Health category contains six products and no probiotic.
Every finding on this page, with the record behind it
Finding 1 the-product-delivers-one-thirteenth-of-the-dose-in-the-only-trial-of-this-pair
Ringel-Kulka 2011 is the only randomised trial of L. acidophilus NCFM and B. lactis Bi-07 together. Its dose, verbatim from the full text: "a mixture of equivalent amounts of two probiotic bacteria (L-NCFM and B-LBi07 - 1x10^11 CFU in each pill)" administered "twice daily" — 200 billion CFU a day. This product's marketed once-daily dose is 15 billion, and its label maximum is 30 billion. That is one thirteenth of the studied dose at the marketed dose and one sixth at the maximum. And the trial that used the full dose failed: "Our study intervention of daily consumption of L-NCFM and B-LBi07 (2x10^11 CFU per day) did not show a significant improvement over placebo on the study's two primary endpoints, global relief of GI symptoms and satisfaction with treatment." The authors call it "a pilot study" and name its limits themselves. Bloating, a secondary endpoint, did improve (4.10 vs 6.17 at 4 weeks, P=0.009).
The record: PMID 21436726 (J Clin Gastroenterol 2011;45(6):518-25, NCT00618904), dose and conclusion quoted verbatim from the full text — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 2 the-at-expiry-guarantee-is-on-the-bottle-and-not-on-the-website
The physical label, as transcribed by NIH, reads "(15 billion CFU) (at date of expiration.)" — the honest form of the claim, and credit is due for it. The brand's own web page prints "55 mg** (15 billion CFU)††" and never defines the †† marker. String counts on the archived page: "expiration" 0 occurrences, "Daily Value" 0, "not established" 0. There is no prose restatement either, unlike the sibling Intensive Care page. The practical consequence is that a shopper on metagenics.com cannot learn that the 15 billion is an at-expiry number. The disclosure exists on the bottle and vanishes at the point of sale.
The record: DSLD 216636 label transcription against the archived brand page, Wayback 20251008191222, with string counts run on the archived HTML — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 3 the-pack-size-the-brand-sells-first-has-no-government-record-and-no-certifier-entry
The brand page defaults to and prices the 30-capsule size, SKU UFDF30, retail barcode 755571961266. DSLD returns 0 hits for that barcode and, on a second query, returns only the 60-count, the 120-count and two off-market records. GFCO's register returns "No products found" for the same barcode and, on a brand-filtered second query, returns the 120-count, the 60-count and two Canadian SKUs. DSLD submission is voluntary and incomplete, so this is a coverage gap and not a violation — but the third-party verification chain on this product covers the sizes most buyers do not choose.
The record: DSLD queried by UPC 755571961266 and by name (0 for the 30-count); GFCO queried ?s=755571961266 ("No products found") and ?s=Balance&s_brand=Metagenics — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 4 proprietary-blend-on-the-panel-with-the-split-published-in-the-marketing-copy
The regulated panel reads "A Proprietary Blend of: 55 mg (15 billion CFU)" with both organisms listed beneath it and no per-strain quantity against either. The body copy on the same page gives the split — 7.5 billion CFU each. So the information exists and is simply not in the place the regulation puts it. Grade it precisely: designators disclosed yes, per-strain CFU on-panel no, per-strain CFU anywhere yes, in marketing copy only.
The record: DSLD 216636 panel transcription against the archived brand page body copy, Wayback 20251008191222
Finding 5 the-pivotal-trial-was-funded-by-the-strain-owner-with-an-employee-as-co-author
Funding and conflicts on Ringel-Kulka 2011, verbatim: "Supported by K23 DK075621, RR00046, and Danisco USA Inc." and "Dr. Ringel has received research funding and consultation honorarium from Danisco USA Inc. Dr. Ringel-Kulka has received educational/research funding from Danisco USA Inc. Dr. Leyer is an employee of Danisco USA, Inc." Danisco owns the strains — the trademark line on this very label reads "NCFM and Bi-07 are registered trademarks licensed by DuPont", DuPont having acquired Danisco. A co-author of the only trial of this pair is an employee of the company that owns the pair.
The record: PMID 21436726, funding and COI statements quoted verbatim from the full text — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 6 the-mechanistic-follow-up-found-the-combination-lacked-what-the-single-strain-showed
The same research group, on the same strains, ran a follow-up in twenty Caucasian women. Its conclusion, verbatim: "Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM modulates mu-opioid receptor expression and activity, while the combination of L-NCFM and B-LBi07 does not." And: "Both treatment groups trended towards improvement in symptoms, but the study was insufficiently powered to draw meaningful conclusions." Any "these two strains work together" framing has to answer that.
The record: PMID 24853043 (Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2014;40(2):200-7, NCT01064661), n=20, conclusion quoted verbatim — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 7 the-publication-counts-come-from-the-company-that-sells-the-ingredient
The page claims NCFM is "Studied in more than 330 publications, including 60+ human clinical trials" and Bi-07 "Investigated in 80+ publications, including 30+ clinical trials". Its own citation is "International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. [Internet]. LACTOBACILLUS ACIDOPHILUS NCFM®. Accessed May 14, 2024. Available from: https://hcp.howaru.com/strains/ncfm/" — IFF owns the strain and howaru.com is its trade site. For calibration, an unfiltered PubMed phrase search for "Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM" returns 204 records and 32 RCT-tagged ones. Different counting rules routinely explain gaps like this, so this is not an accusation of inflation. It is a statement about who did the counting.
The record: Archived brand page citation to hcp.howaru.com (IFF), Wayback 20251008191222, against PubMed phrase counts of 204 and 32 run 2026-07-31
Finding 8 uncited-pharmacokinetic-claims-about-thirty-minutes-and-twenty-four-hours
"These strains are DNA-verified, traceable, and scientifically formulated to: Start working in as little as 30 minutes by releasing live cultures quickly · Survive stomach acid and stay active for 24 hours of gut support with daily use." Both are pharmacokinetic claims. Neither carries a citation anywhere on the page.
The record: Archived brand page body copy, Wayback 20251008191222
Finding 9 once-daily-in-the-copy-one-to-two-times-daily-in-the-directions
The Directions read "Take one capsule one to two times daily". The marketing copy on the same page calls it "one simple, once-daily dose". At the label's upper dose a 30-count bottle is a fifteen-day supply and the cost per day doubles from $0.83 to $1.66. The copy resolves the ambiguity in the flattering direction.
The record: Archived brand page Directions against the same page's body copy, Wayback 20251008191222
Finding 10 no-refrigeration-needed-in-the-copy-against-the-labels-own-storage-notice
The page says "Shelf-stable probiotics, no refrigeration needed." The label's own storage notice, from the DSLD transcription, reads "Notice: Stability studies indicate that all probiotics should be shipped under temperature control to maintain potency (CFU). For best results, store in a cool dry place or keep refrigerated." Both can be technically true at once; they do not leave a shopper with the same impression.
The record: DSLD 216636 storage statement against the archived brand page, Wayback 20251008191222
Finding 11 no-male-outcome-evidence-exists-for-either-strain-and-the-brand-claims-none
Four query formulations, two per strain, all return zero for prostate, testosterone or erectile outcomes on NCFM and Bi-07. Worth stating alongside it: the trial base for this product is 72% female (n=60) and its mechanistic follow-up is 100% female (n=20). If a listicle recommends this SKU for men, the honest note is that roughly seventeen men have ever been randomised to this combination, at thirteen times the dose in the bottle, in a trial that missed both primary endpoints. The brand itself makes no men's claim: searched for men, male, prostate, testosterone and man across the archived page, the count is 0.
The record: PubMed E-utilities, four query formulations, all 0, run 2026-07-31 and printed verbatim in the teardown; population figures from PMID 21436726 and PMID 24853043
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-certified facility status
- The page claims "Produced in NSF-certified facilities". nsf.org returns Cloudflare 403 and listings.nsf.org serves an Angular shell whose API could not be reached, so the register could not be queried at all. Brand-asserted, unverified — never "does not hold it".
- Non-GMO Project Verified status
- Listed on the Quality page. The Non-GMO Project's product finder 404s at /find-by-product/, /find-a-product/ and /verified-products/ — three URL spellings, site root 200. Register unreachable. The product label itself says only "This product is non-GMO", a plain formulation claim rather than a Non-GMO Project claim.
- "Undergoes independent verification for quality, purity, potency, and safety" status
- No register was queried because no verifier is named. The claim identifies no issuer, no programme and no laboratory, which makes it unfalsifiable by construction. Recorded as a disclosure defect rather than as an unverified certification.
- SuppCo TrustScore status
- Metagenics' Quality page places this in a list headed "our commitment to transparency is backed by globally respected certifications, including:" — alongside Non-GMO Project Verified and Gluten-Free Certification — and describes it as an "Independent rating that proves our commitment to quality." SuppCo is a consumer supplement app's rating score, not an accredited certification body, and a rating is not a test. suppco.com did not resolve to a fetchable page this pass, so its methodology is unverified; but placing an app's score in a sentence about globally respected certifications is a disclosure defect independent of whether the score is any good.
- A live read of the brand's own product page
- metagenics.com returns HTTP 403 to curl with full browser headers, 403 to WebFetch, and a Cloudflare security interstitial through a reader proxy. Every statement here about what the brand page says — including the string counts that establish the at-expiry qualifier is missing from the web panel — is scoped to the Internet Archive snapshot of 2025-10-08 and dated as such.
- A government label record or a certifier entry for the 30-count size
- Neither exists. DSLD returns 0 hits for UPC 755571961266 and, on a second query for UltraFlora Balance 30 under brand Metagenics, returns only the 60-count (216636), the 120-count (216635) and two off-market historical records. GFCO's register returns "No products found" for the same UPC. The panel figures on this page therefore come from the 60-count and 120-count records, confirmed against the brand's own 30-count panel image, and the third-party verification chain covers the 60s and 120s rather than the size the brand sells first.
- The NSF facility certification and the Non-GMO Project verification
- Both registers were unreachable — nsf.org Cloudflare 403 with no reachable listings API, and the Non-GMO Project product finder 404 at three URL spellings. Recorded as brand-asserted and unverified rather than as absent.
- What "independent verification for quality, purity, potency, and safety" refers to
- No verifier is named anywhere on the page. There is nothing to look up, which is why this is recorded as a disclosure defect rather than as a failed register query.
- The "transparent batch-specific Certificates of Analysis" claim
- Asserted on the Quality page, with no COA link, lot-number lookup or portal anywhere on it. The claim could not be tested because the mechanism is not offered, and the site is 403-blocked to automation. A certificate of analysis you cannot request is not transparency.
- The SuppCo TrustScore's methodology
- suppco.com did not resolve to a fetchable page this pass. The disclosure problem — an app's rating listed among "globally respected certifications" — does not depend on the answer.
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.
Two organisms, two real designators, and a potency basis printed on the bottle. On disclosure, this label is far above the mass-market products in this audit — and it is the clearest case in the whole project of a claim that is true at the strain level and empty at the dose level.
“Two of the most clinically studied strains” sits directly above the panel. Both halves of that are defensible: L. acidophilus NCFM® is ATCC 700396 with 204 PubMed records and 32 RCT-tagged ones, and B. lactis Bi-07® has 24 records and 13 RCT-tagged. Then read the only trial that studied the two of them together. Ringel-Kulka 2011 dosed 200 billion CFU a day. This bottle’s marketed once-daily dose is 15 billion. One thirteenth.
And the trial that used the full dose did not work. The authors, verbatim: “did not show a significant improvement over placebo on the study’s two primary endpoints, global relief of GI symptoms and satisfaction with treatment.” They call it a pilot. Bloating — a secondary endpoint — did improve. Then the same group ran a mechanistic follow-up in twenty women and concluded that “Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM modulates mu-opioid receptor expression and activity, while the combination of L-NCFM and B-LBi07 does not.” The combination this product sells lacked the mechanism the single strain showed.
The disclosure has its own gap, and it is a web-implementation one rather than a labelling one. The
physical label guarantees the count at date of expiration — the honest form, and the same standard as
the sibling Intensive Care SKU. The brand’s own web page drops it. The panel there prints
55 mg** (15 billion CFU)†† and never defines the marker; searched across the archived HTML, the word
“expiration” appears zero times, as do “Daily Value” and “not established”. A shopper on
metagenics.com cannot learn that the number is an at-expiry number. The guarantee is real, and it is not
discoverable at the point of sale.
One more structural point, easy to miss. The brand page defaults to the 30-count. That size has no NIH label record and no gluten-certifier entry — both cover the 60s and the 120s. The formula is stated to be identical, DSLD submission is voluntary, and GFCO’s own page invites reports of exactly this mismatch, so this is a coverage gap rather than a violation. But the verification chain a careful buyer would lean on covers the pack sizes they did not pick up.
None of this is a men’s product, and the brand never says it is. What makes it belong on this site is the shelf around it: Metagenics runs a Men’s Health category of six products — prostate, testosterone, libido — with not one probiotic in it, while selling a women’s probiotic with two designated strains and a named urogenital indication. The company that would profit most from a men’s probiotic being real has quietly decided it is not.