One product, one panel, one record.
NatureWise Probiotics 60 Billion CFU, 17 Strains, 60 Count — label audit
The title says 17 strains. The panel names 17 species and exactly one strain — LactoSpore Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856. The other sixteen are species-only, sharing a single 186.5 mg blend line with no per-organism allocation, so the MTCC 5856 fraction of the headline 60 billion is unknown and could be trace.
This page is an audit of a label. It records what this product’s panel discloses, what of that could be checked against a primary record, and what could not. The score below ranks this product on that disclosure and on nothing else.
The record this page rests on
- NIH label record
- No NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record is on file for this product in this teardown.
- Label read on
- The most recent dated artefact behind this page. Labels change; this is how old our reading of it is.
- Cohort
- Addendum — outside the founding denominators Audited 2026-07-31, after the founding cohort of 27 was frozen. It sits outside every D27 denominator the site publishes and contributes to none of them.
- 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.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
20.1 out of 100
Rank 134 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 | 1 of 17 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 1 / 17 = 0.0588 | 0.014118 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 0 of 17 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 0 / 17 = 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 | 1 of 17 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. | 1 / 17 = 0.0588 | 0.011765 |
| 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 |
0.172549 — the last column added up — divided by 0.86, the weight this record could answer, is 0.2006. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 20.1 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 Blend (60 billion CFU**) — 186.5 mg |
| What that count is measured against | At manufacture only |
| Strain designators | Some organisms coded |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 17 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
"**At Time of Manufacturing"
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.
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 casei | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus paracasei | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus bulgaricus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus brevis | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus reuteri | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus salivarius | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus fermentum | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus gasseri | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium lactis (correct name: Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis) | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium 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 | — |
| LactoSpore Bacillus coagulans | MTCC 5856 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | "Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856 randomized" |
What of that is verifiable
A disclosure is verifiable when a reader can open a record that neither we nor the brand controls and see the same thing. Below is every dated artefact this page rests on. What is absent from this list is not verified, however reasonable it sounds.
- Photograph of the printed panel — NW_Probiotics_60B_30CT_RIGHT.jpghttps://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0966/9062/files/NW_Probiotics_60B_30CT_RIGHT.jpg — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured The brand's own bottle photograph, transcribed directly - the Supplement Facts panel is not present as text in any page HTML, so this image is the only label surface. It shows the 60 Billion CFU formula on the 30-capsule bottle and therefore reads "Servings Per Container 30"; the SKU audited here is the 60-capsule bottle of the same formula. Transcribed - Probiotic Blend (60 billion CFU**) 186.5 mg, Prebiotic Blend (Organic Inulin, Organic Acacia Gum) 150 mg, the 17 organism lines, the "**At Time of Manufacturing" footnote, the other-ingredients list and the allergen statement.
- Dated capture of the brand’s own page — naturewise-com-products-json-2026-07-31https://www.naturewise.com/products.json — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured The brand's own product API. Source of the four variant prices and their SKU codes (NW11435, NW11436, NW11410, NW11411), which is what makes the ten-billion-for-a-dollar finding re-checkable by any reader.
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, 1 organism slot carries 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
$0.47 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $27.99 USD
- What that buys
- 60 Billion CFU / 60 Count bottle, 1 capsule per serving, 1 capsule daily. naturewise.com SKU NW11436.
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://www.naturewise.com/products/probiotics — 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Non-GMO Project | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
| "Third Party Tested" (no laboratory named) | Not checked | 31 July 2026 |
Non-GMO Project
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
The PDP claims "Non-GMO". The Non-GMO Project's own product finder returned HTTP 403 to automated requests, so the claim could not be confirmed or refuted at the issuer. Recorded as brand-asserted and unverified, never as absent. The claim is also worded "Non-GMO" rather than "Non-GMO Project Verified" - the weaker, unregistered formulation.
"Third Party Tested" (no laboratory named)
We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.
The PDP carries the phrase "Third Party Tested" and names no laboratory anywhere. There is no issuer and no register, so there is nothing to query. This is unverifiable by construction rather than unverified by circumstance, and the distinction matters - a claim with no named lab behind it cannot be checked by anyone, including the brand's own customers.
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 at-manufacture-basis-while-the-brand-states-an-expiry-floor-on-its-own-sibling-sku
The panel footnote reads, verbatim, "**At Time of Manufacturing". That is the disclosure that tells a buyer least - it guarantees nothing about what is alive when the capsule is swallowed. The brand demonstrably knows how to do better - its own Max Care SKU states, verbatim, "3 Billion CFU at time of manufacture, Minimum of 1 Billion CFU at expiration." Same brand, same category, an at-expiry floor on one product and not on this one.
The record: Panel photograph NW_Probiotics_60B_30CT_RIGHT.jpg against DSLD 327755, NatureWise Max Care Probiotics, both read 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 2 seventeen-strains-in-the-title-is-seventeen-species-on-the-panel
Sixteen of the seventeen organisms are identified to species only. One - LactoSpore Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856 - carries a strain designator. A species name is not a tested agent, so sixteen of these organisms cannot be matched to any trial at all.
The record: Panel photograph NW_Probiotics_60B_30CT_RIGHT.jpg, all 17 organism lines transcribed, 2026-07-31
Finding 3 de-facto-proprietary-blend-with-no-per-organism-allocation
186.5 mg and 60 billion CFU across 17 organisms, published as one line. The label is not headed "proprietary blend", but it functions as one - the fraction belonging to the single identifiable strain is unknown and could be trace.
The record: Panel photograph NW_Probiotics_60B_30CT_RIGHT.jpg - "Probiotic Blend (60 billion CFU**) 186.5 mg", 2026-07-31
Finding 4 third-party-tested-with-no-laboratory-named
The PDP claims "Third Party Tested" and names no laboratory. There is no issuer, no certificate and no register, so the claim cannot be checked by anyone.
The record: naturewise.com product page badge row, verbatim - "Clean Ingredients / Non-GMO / Manufactured in the USA / Gluten Free / Third Party Tested" - read 2026-07-31 — open ithttps://www.naturewise.com/products/probiotics — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 5 ten-billion-more-cfu-for-one-dollar
The brand's own variant list sells 60 Billion / 30 Count at $15.99 and 70 Billion / 30 Count at $16.99. Same thirty capsules, ten billion more CFU, one dollar. That is the brand demonstrating, in its own price list, that the headline number is not a cost-bearing quality attribute.
The record: naturewise.com variant pricing, SKUs NW11435 ($15.99) and NW11410 ($16.99), read 2026-07-31
Finding 6 pre-2020-nomenclature-throughout
Every Lactobacillus on the panel uses the pre-2020 genus name, ignoring the reclassification published by Zheng et al. in 2020. "Bifidobacterium lactis" is also not a valid standalone species name; the organism is Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis.
The record: Panel photograph NW_Probiotics_60B_30CT_RIGHT.jpg against PMID 32293557 (Zheng et al. 2020), read 2026-07-31
Finding 7 no-government-label-record-for-this-sku
Four DSLD queries return nothing for the 60 billion / 70 billion Probiotics line, while NatureWise records exist for Max Care, Women's, Time Release and Oral Health. There is no neutral transcription of this panel for a reader to check the brand's own photograph against.
The record: DSLD v9 queries "NatureWise", "NatureWise Probiotics 60 Billion", "NatureWise Probiotics Prebiotics", "Probiotics 17 strains", all run 2026-07-31
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 status
- The PDP claims "Non-GMO". The Non-GMO Project's own product finder returned HTTP 403 to automated requests, so the claim could not be confirmed or refuted at the issuer. Recorded as brand-asserted and unverified, never as absent. The claim is also worded "Non-GMO" rather than "Non-GMO Project Verified" - the weaker, unregistered formulation.
- "Third Party Tested" (no laboratory named) status
- The PDP carries the phrase "Third Party Tested" and names no laboratory anywhere. There is no issuer and no register, so there is nothing to query. This is unverifiable by construction rather than unverified by circumstance, and the distinction matters - a claim with no named lab behind it cannot be checked by anyone, including the brand's own customers.
- A men’s-versus-women’s label diff
- The same brand’s women’s SKU has not been compared against this panel.
- The panel photograph is of the 30-count bottle, not the 60-count one
- The transcribed panel comes from the brand's own bottle photograph NW_Probiotics_60B_30CT_RIGHT.jpg, which shows the 60 Billion CFU formula on the 30-capsule bottle and therefore states "Servings Per Container 30". The SKU audited here is the 60-capsule bottle of the same 60 Billion CFU formula. The per-capsule composition is what was transcribed and it is the same; the servings-per-container line on the audited bottle was not read directly. Recorded here rather than smoothed over.
- The Amazon list price
- JS-rendered on ASIN B0D5JKBSYH and not recoverable from the served HTML. Only the brand-direct price is published.
- Any government label record for this SKU
- None exists. Four DSLD queries were run per the project's absence rule - "NatureWise", "NatureWise Probiotics 60 Billion", "NatureWise Probiotics Prebiotics", "Probiotics 17 strains". NatureWise has records for Max Care (327755), Women's (327756), Time Release x3 and Oral Health x2; the 60 billion / 70 billion "Probiotics" line is absent from all of them. The brand files labels with NIH and has not filed this one.
- How the 60 billion CFU is split across the 17 organisms
- It is not disclosed. The whole count sits in one 186.5 mg Probiotic Blend line with no per-organism allocation, so no organism in this bottle - including the one identifiable strain - can be matched to the dose any trial used.
- The Non-GMO Project claim
- The certifier's product finder returned HTTP 403 to automated requests, so nothing was confirmed or refuted.
- What "Third Party Tested" refers to
- No laboratory is named on the PDP or anywhere else. There is no issuer to query and no certificate to look up.
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.
“17 Strains” is on the front of this bottle. The panel names seventeen species and one strain.
The exception is real and worth naming: LactoSpore® Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856, printed with its trademark attributed to Sabinsa in the label’s own footnote, and returning eight indexed human records under that exact code. That is a genuinely, separately studied organism. The other sixteen are Lactobacillus acidophilus, L. plantarum, L. casei and so on down the list — species names, which are not tested agents. Sixteen of seventeen organisms in this capsule cannot be matched to any trial in existence.
And the one that can be matched has no dose. The entire 60 billion CFU sits in a single 186.5 mg line with no per-organism allocation, so the MTCC 5856 fraction is undisclosed and could be trace.
The potency basis is the weak form. The footnote reads, verbatim, “**At Time of Manufacturing” — a number about the day the powder was blended, not about the day it is swallowed. The instructive part is in-house: NatureWise’s own Max Care SKU, transcribed by NIH as DSLD 327755, states “3 Billion CFU at time of manufacture, Minimum of 1 Billion CFU at expiration.” The brand knows how to print an at-expiry floor. It prints one on another product and not on this one.
The price list is an argument against the price list. NatureWise sells 60 billion for $15.99 and 70 billion for $16.99 — the same thirty capsules, ten billion more CFU, one dollar. Headline CFU costs about a dime per billion to add. That is not our inference about the category; it is the brand’s own variant pricing, and it is the cleanest available demonstration that the number on the front of a probiotic bottle is close to free.
What is genuinely good here should be said plainly. The full organism list is published as plain text rather than existing only inside an image. The blend and the prebiotic are itemised as separate milligram figures. The one branded strain is named with its trademark and its culture-collection code. Dosing is one capsule. And the brand’s per-capsule unit price — “$0.53 per capsule | 30 Servings, 1 capsule per serving” — is arithmetically correct, which is rarer in this category than it should be.
Two limits on this page. The panel transcribed here comes from the brand’s photograph of the 30-count bottle of the same 60 billion formula, while the SKU priced here is the 60-count; the per-capsule composition is identical and the servings line is not. And no government label record exists for this product — four DSLD queries return nothing, against NatureWise records that do exist for Max Care, Women’s, Time Release and Oral Health.
The MTCC 5856 literature was verified to exist and to be indexed. It was not read. Nothing on this page states what that strain does.