One product, one panel, one record.
Physician's Choice Probiotics 60 Billion CFU, 10 Strains + Organic Prebiotics (60 ct) — label audit
"10 Clinically Studied Probiotic Strains" is claimed three separate times on one page, under the header "Not all probiotics are created equal" — an argument for strain specificity made by a label that identifies zero of its ten strains.
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 the site publishes. This is the unisex 60 Billion flagship and a different SKU from the brand's Men's Probiotic 70 Billion and its 100 Billion product, both torn down separately.
- 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 The identification of this SKU is the cleanest in its batch — the brand's own JSON-LD gtin 854226008582 matches DSLD 292795's UPC exactly, so the panel published here is definitively this product. Two things are nonetheless not quotable. (1) The Non-GMO Project Verified mark could neither be confirmed nor refuted: the issuer's register returned HTTP 404 on one path and a JavaScript application with no queryable API on the other. It is recorded as brand-asserted and unverified, and must never be read as absent. (2) No Amazon retail price is published, because that page renders price client-side and none was present in the payload; the price here is the brand's own JSON-LD offer. A second government record, DSLD 335642, was excluded from every figure on this page — it carries no UPC and its servings-per-container contradicts its net contents.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
8.5 out of 100
Rank 147 of the 154 products in this audit the rubric can score. This rank is shared with 4 other products — 5 products sit on 8.5 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 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 | 0 of 10 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 0 / 10 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 0 of 10 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 0 / 10 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| What the CFU count is measured against | 0.22 | Potency basis "none-stated": CFU figure printed yes, single basis stated no, basis reaches expiry no — 1 of 3. | 1 / 3 = 0.3333 | 0.073333 |
| Printed designators that lead to a human trial | 0.20 | 0 of 10 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. | 0 / 10 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| 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 |
0.073333 — the last column added up — divided by 0.86, the weight this record could answer, is 0.0853. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 8.5 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 | 60 billion CFUs (Probiotic Blend, 220 mg) |
| What that count is measured against | No basis stated |
| Strain designators | None — species only |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 10 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
No basis is stated. The complete DSLD 292795 statement set — 14 statements, all reproduced from the label — and the full brand product page were searched for "expiration", "expiry", "at manufacture", "at time of", "potency guaranteed" and "end of shelf life". The entire storage disclosure on the label is "Store in a cool, dry place." The page nonetheless uses potency language twice without ever anchoring it: "Non-GMO Project Verified and third-party tested for safety, quality, and potency" and "Most probiotics under dose you on potency and strain diversity. Ours doesn't."
The panel’s own words on potency, verbatim.
A CFU number appears with no temporal basis of any kind. A count with no basis is not a quantity; there is no date at which it is claimed to be true.
The panel names species only, with no strain designator anywhere. A species name is not a claim: the trials in this field are of strains, and a species can contain thousands.
| Organism as printed | Designator as printed | Quantity as printed | What the designator resolves to | The query we ran |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lacticaseibacillus casei | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lacticaseibacillus paracasei | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Ligilactobacillus salivarius | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactiplantibacillus plantarum | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium bifidum | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium longum | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium breve | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus bulgaricus (correct name: Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus) | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
What of that is verifiable
A disclosure is verifiable when a reader can open a record that neither we nor the brand controls and see the same thing. Below is every dated artefact this page rests on. What is absent from this list is not verified, however reasonable it sounds.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 292795 (opens in a new tab) captured UPC 8 54226 00858 2, 60 delayed-release veggie capsules, 60 servings, entered 2023-05-24, on-market. The label of record, because the panel is not readable from the brand's own page. Its UPC matches the brand's JSON-LD gtin 854226008582 exactly, so this record is confirmed to be this SKU. Source of the panel, the fourteen label statements, the storage disclosure and the seal statements.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 323205 (opens in a new tab) captured Physician's Choice Women's Probiotic, UPC 8 54226 00809 4. The comparator for the panel diff — 6 organisms, 133 mg blend, 50 billion CFU, plus D-Mannose 60 mg and Pro Cran d'Or cranberry 50 mg.
- Dated capture of the brand’s own page — physicians-choice-60b-pdp-2026-07-31https://physicianschoice.com/products/probiotic-60-billion — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured HTTP 200. JSON-LD offers $45.85 (SKU 60B-60CT-180EA, gtin 854226008582) and $29.38 (SKU 60B-30CT-180EA, gtin 854226008513). Source of every claim quotation, the countdown-timer capture and the enumeration establishing that the Supplement Facts panel is not in the page HTML.
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, 0 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
$0.76 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $45.85 USD
- What that buys
- 60-capsule bottle (60 servings, 1 delayed-release capsule daily)
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://physicianschoice.com/products/probiotic-60-billion — 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 Verified | Register unreachable | 31 July 2026 |
| "Third-Party Tested" / "3rd party tested" | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
| cGMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) | Brand-asserted, unverified | 31 July 2026 |
Non-GMO Project Verified
The certifier’s register could not be queried at all. That is a finding about the verification infrastructure, not about the brand.
Claimed twice on the brand page. It could not be confirmed at the issuer's own register: nongmoproject.org/find-a-product/ returns HTTP 404, and the live finder at /find-non-gmo/ is a JavaScript application with no queryable API endpoint in its payload. Unreachable register means brand-asserted and unverified — it does not mean the brand lacks the certification, and it may never be published as an absence. Note also that web-search results appearing to confirm the mark merely restate the brand's and retailers' own claims; that is not issuer verification. The Non-GMO Project register has now been unreachable to automation on two separate passes of this project.
"Third-Party Tested" / "3rd party tested"
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
A label seal statement recorded in DSLD 292795. No laboratory is named on this SKU's label or page. The contrast is internal to the brand: Physician's Choice names Eurofins and Light Labs on its men's SKU and names nobody here.
cGMP (Good Manufacturing Practice)
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
A label seal statement in DSLD 292795, alongside "Manufactured in the USA from imported and domestic ingredients". Facility and process scope, with no certifier and no certificate number. No NSF contents certification, no USP Verified and no Informed Choice mark is claimed anywhere.
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 Physician's Choice Women's Probiotic (DSLD 323205, UPC 8 54226 00809 4). Diffed .
What the two panels differ by
- The women's SKU carries sex-specific actives — D-Mannose 60 mg and Pro Cran d'Or (cranberry) 50 mg, a coherent urinary-tract rationale. This unisex SKU carries none, because it is not trying to: its own Amazon title says "for Women & Men". DSLD 292795 versus DSLD 323205
- The women's SKU is 6 organisms in a 133 mg blend at 50 billion CFU. This one is 10 organisms in a 220 mg blend at 60 billion CFU. A buyer choosing the women's product for its urinary actives gives up four organisms and 10 billion CFU to get them. DSLD 292795 versus DSLD 323205
- Prebiotic differs too: 150 mg of organic inulin and acacia here, against 100 mg of organic Jerusalem artichoke and acacia senegal on the women's SKU. DSLD 292795 versus DSLD 323205
What is identical across the pair
- Zero strain designators on both panels.
- CFU basis unstated on both.
- Both are built on the same proprietary-style single-blend structure with no per-organism split.
Every finding on this page, with the record behind it
Finding 1 ten-clinically-studied-strains-with-zero-strains-identified
The claim is made three separate times on one page: "10 Clinically Studied Probiotic Strains — Not all probiotics are created equal. We use 10 clinically studied Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains, chosen for their ability to survive, thrive, and deliver real results"; "60 Billion Probiotic delivers 60B CFUs from 10 clinically studied strains plus organic prebiotics"; and "replenishes your gut with 60B CFUs from 10 diverse, clinically studied strains". The label identifies zero of those ten. Whatever clinical studies are being invoked were run on named strains this product does not name — and the header "Not all probiotics are created equal" is precisely an argument for strain specificity, made by a label that discloses no strains.
The record: physicianschoice.com/products/probiotic-60-billion, all three instances quoted verbatim 2026-07-31
Finding 2 cfu-basis-unstated-while-marketing-on-potency
The entire storage disclosure on the label is "Store in a cool, dry place", and no potency basis appears in any of DSLD 292795's fourteen statements or anywhere on the page. Meanwhile the page says "Non-GMO Project Verified and third-party tested for safety, quality, and potency" and "Most probiotics under dose you on potency and strain diversity. Ours doesn't." Tested for potency as of when, against what specification, guaranteed until when — none of it is stated. For contrast: a competitor at half the cost per day guarantees potency to the expiration date in writing.
The record: DSLD 292795 statement set and the full brand page, both searched 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 3 supplement-facts-not-machine-readable-on-the-brands-own-page
The page offers a "view nutrient label" control, but the panel is not present as text in the page HTML and sits behind a JavaScript modal. Every image URL on the page was enumerated and the only label-adjacent asset is a 3D bottle render belonging to a different product. The only way to read this product's actual formulation was the US government's DSLD transcription. A shopper using a screen reader, a price-comparison tool, an allergy-checking crawler or a shopping assistant cannot read this label from the brand's own page.
The record: physicianschoice.com/products/probiotic-60-billion HTML and image enumeration, 2026-07-31
Finding 4 proprietary-style-blend-across-ten-organisms
"Probiotic Blend — 220 mg", footnoted "total probiotic activity 60 billion CFUs", with no per-organism split across ten organisms and no designator on any of them.
The record: DSLD 292795, read 2026-07-31
Finding 5 non-gmo-project-verified-unverifiable-at-the-issuer
Claimed twice on the brand page. The issuer's register could not be queried — /find-a-product/ returns HTTP 404 and the live finder is a JavaScript application with no queryable API endpoint.
The record: nongmoproject.org, both paths tested 2026-07-31
Finding 6 third-party-tested-with-no-lab-named-on-this-sku
A label seal statement with no laboratory identified, on a brand that names Eurofins and Light Labs on its men's SKU. The brand knows how to name its labs and did not do it here.
The record: DSLD 292795 seal statements against the brand's men's SKU disclosure, 2026-07-31
Finding 7 developed-with-doctors-with-no-doctor-named
"Developed with Doctors", footnoted "Developed with our team of Physician's Choice doctors, please talk to your doctor before starting any new health routine"; "developed alongside our Scientific Advisory Board, a team of medical professionals including MDs and naturopathic doctors"; "Doctor approved formula" as a label statement; and "This isn't a formula thrown together, it's science-backed, clinically informed." No doctor is named anywhere.
The record: physicianschoice.com/products/probiotic-60-billion and DSLD 292795, quoted verbatim 2026-07-31
Finding 8 spring-special-countdown-running-on-31-july
Verbatim from the brand page: "SPRING SPECIAL 32% 0ff plus free shipping / 2 HRS : 0 MINS : 00 SECS". Captured on 31 July 2026 — a spring special running in high summer, on a two-hour countdown, with template typos in both the offer ("0ff") and the timer ("0 MINS"). A perpetual-urgency timer mislabelled by a full season.
The record: physicianschoice.com/products/probiotic-60-billion, captured 2026-07-31
Finding 9 unsourced-retention-statistic-as-a-quality-signal
"Less than 1% return this product" and "Less than 1% ask for a refund", with no source given.
The record: physicianschoice.com/products/probiotic-60-billion, quoted verbatim 2026-07-31
Finding 10 uncited-seventy-percent-immune-system-figure
"An estimated 70% of your immune system lives in your gut. Our targeted strains support gut balance, immunity, and overall wellness." A widely repeated figure presented with no citation.
The record: physicianschoice.com/products/probiotic-60-billion, quoted verbatim 2026-07-31
Finding 11 the-brands-own-channel-is-the-expensive-one
The brand sells its 30-count for $29.38 while Vitacost sells the same 30-count for $24.97 — $4.41 below the brand's own site. And within the brand's own catalogue the 60-count is the better value at $0.76 a day against the 30-count's $0.98, so buying the small bottle costs 29% more per day.
The record: Brand JSON-LD offers (SKU 60B-60CT-180EA and 60B-30CT-180EA) against vitacost.com, all fetched 2026-07-31
Finding 12 occasional-is-doing-heavy-lifting
"Helps with Occasional Constipation, Diarrhea, Gas & Bloating‡". The claims are carefully fenced with "occasional", which is the standard structure/function hedge, and all carry the FDA disclaimer with its full text present. On the letter of the rule these do not cross into disease claims. Diarrhoea is nonetheless a symptom of diagnosable disease, and this sits closer to the line than anything else in its batch without crossing it.
The record: physicianschoice.com claims block and Amazon ASIN B09GLGC9DG title, both quoted verbatim 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 Verified status
- Claimed twice on the brand page. It could not be confirmed at the issuer's own register: nongmoproject.org/find-a-product/ returns HTTP 404, and the live finder at /find-non-gmo/ is a JavaScript application with no queryable API endpoint in its payload. Unreachable register means brand-asserted and unverified — it does not mean the brand lacks the certification, and it may never be published as an absence. Note also that web-search results appearing to confirm the mark merely restate the brand's and retailers' own claims; that is not issuer verification. The Non-GMO Project register has now been unreachable to automation on two separate passes of this project.
- "Third-Party Tested" / "3rd party tested" status
- A label seal statement recorded in DSLD 292795. No laboratory is named on this SKU's label or page. The contrast is internal to the brand: Physician's Choice names Eurofins and Light Labs on its men's SKU and names nobody here.
- cGMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) status
- A label seal statement in DSLD 292795, alongside "Manufactured in the USA from imported and domestic ingredients". Facility and process scope, with no certifier and no certificate number. No NSF contents certification, no USP Verified and no Informed Choice mark is claimed anywhere.
- The Non-GMO Project Verified mark, at the issuer's register
- nongmoproject.org/find-a-product/ returns HTTP 404 and the live finder is a JavaScript application with no queryable API endpoint. The register could not be queried at all, so the claim is recorded as brand-asserted and unverified — never as absent.
- The Supplement Facts panel, from the brand's own page
- The page renders a "view nutrient label" control, but the panel is not present as text in the page HTML. Every image URL on the page was enumerated; the only label-adjacent asset is a 3D bottle render belonging to a different product. The panel sits behind a JavaScript modal. This product's formulation could only be read from the US government's DSLD transcription.
- What the 60 billion CFU is measured against
- No potency basis appears on the label, in any of DSLD 292795's fourteen transcribed statements, or anywhere on the brand page — while the page markets on "potency" twice.
- The per-organism CFU of any of the ten organisms
- One 220 mg figure and one 60 billion CFU figure cover all ten.
- The Amazon retail price
- The Amazon page (ASIN B09GLGC9DG) fetched HTTP 200, but the price is rendered client-side and was not present in the HTML payload. The price published here is the brand's own JSON-LD offer.
- Which laboratory does the third-party testing
- No lab is named on this SKU's label or page, while the same brand names Eurofins and Light Labs on its men's SKU.
- The "Less than 1% return this product" statistic
- An unsourced retention figure used as a quality proxy. No basis is given.
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.
Count the claim, then count the strains.
“10 Clinically Studied Probiotic Strains.” “60B CFUs from 10 clinically studied strains.” “60B CFUs from 10 diverse, clinically studied strains.” Three times on one page. And the header sitting above the first one reads “Not all probiotics are created equal” — which is, exactly, the argument for strain specificity. It is being made by a label that names zero of its ten strains.
Whatever studies are being invoked were run on named strains. This product does not name them, so none of that evidence attaches to this bottle. Searching a species it lists against a symptom it claims, at trial level, returns nothing: Lacticaseibacillus casei and bloating, randomised, zero. Species-level searching cannot rescue a species-level label.
The second gap is potency. The page says the product is “third-party tested for safety, quality, and potency” and that “Most probiotics under dose you on potency and strain diversity. Ours doesn’t.” The label’s entire storage disclosure is “Store in a cool, dry place.” Across fourteen government-transcribed label statements and the whole brand page, nothing says whether the 60 billion is measured at manufacture or at expiry. Tested for potency — as of when, against what specification, guaranteed until when? A competitor torn down alongside this one, at half the cost per day, guarantees potency to the expiration date in writing.
The third gap is structural, and it is the reason this site exists. The brand’s page has a “view nutrient label” control, but the Supplement Facts panel is not in the page HTML — it lives behind a JavaScript modal, and enumerating every image on the page turns up only a 3D bottle render belonging to a different product. The only way to read this product’s formulation was the US government’s transcription of it. Anyone using a screen reader, a comparison tool or a shopping assistant is locked out of the label on the brand’s own site.
Real credit, though, because this label does things its neighbours do not. The UPC cross-check passes cleanly: the brand’s own structured data and the government record agree exactly, which is rarer here than it should be. The nomenclature is current — five of ten organisms carry post-2020 genus names, the only panel in its batch to have been modernised. The prebiotic is real, disclosed at 150 mg, with its sources named. The capsule is delayed-release. And the claim wording is correctly fenced with “occasional” throughout, with the FDA disclaimer present in full.
Two things a shopper should simply know. The brand’s own store is the expensive channel — it sells the 30-count for $29.38 while Vitacost sells the same bottle for $24.97 — and within the brand’s own catalogue the 60-count is 29% cheaper per day than the 30-count. And on 31 July 2026 the page was running a countdown reading “SPRING SPECIAL 32% 0ff… 2 HRS : 0 MINS : 00 SECS” — a spring sale in high summer, on a two-hour timer, with the typo still in it.
Last: this is not a men’s product and never claimed to be. Its own Amazon title says “for Women & Men”, and its own bullets say “Probiotics for Women & Men alike.” It reached a men’s list because a publisher ranked it first in one. The brand does sell sex-specific SKUs — the women’s version adds D-mannose and cranberry, a coherent urinary rationale — but this is the general-purpose bottle those are cut from. The men’s framing was applied downstream, by someone else.