One product, one panel, one record.
Renew Life Ultimate Flora Extra Care Probiotic 200 Billion, 7 stick packs (RN1550041) — label audit
The same brand, the same "Extra Care" product family and the same panel designer prints UF- strain codes on its 50 Billion SKU and the phrase "(5 diverse strains)" here. "Diverse" is not a strain identifier and carries no information at all. The capability exists; the disclosure is a per-SKU choice.
This page is an audit of a label. It records what this product’s panel discloses, what of that could be checked against a primary record, and what could not. The score below ranks this product on that disclosure and on nothing else.
The record this page rests on
- NIH label record
- Label read on
- The most recent dated artefact behind this page. Labels change; this is how old our reading of it is.
- Cohort
- Addendum — outside the founding denominators Audited 2026-07-31, outside the frozen founding cohort of 27 and outside every D27 denominator.
- 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
36.5 out of 100
Rank 106 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 | 7 of 20 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 7 / 20 = 0.3500 | 0.0840 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 0 of 20 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 0 / 20 = 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 | 1 of 20 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 / 20 = 0.0500 | 0.0100 |
| 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 |
0.3140 — the last column added up — divided by 0.86, the weight this record could answer, is 0.3651. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 36.5 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 | 200 Billion CFU (120 billion Bifido, 80 billion Lacto and Streptococcus) |
| What that count is measured against | Through expiry |
| Strain designators | None — species only |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 20 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
"At Expiration Date under recommended storage conditions. Store in a cool, dry place. Refrigeration not required." Note that unlike the brand's 50 Billion SKU, this panel says "Probiotic Cultures" only — no "& Postbiotic" and no inanimate-organism footnote — so the 200 billion reads as a straight viable count.
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bifidobacterium lactis | (5 diverse strains) | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium infantis | — 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 plantarum | (2 diverse strains) | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactococcus lactis | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus fermentum | (2 diverse strains) | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus | GG | — not stated separately | Human RCT | — |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | (2 diverse strains) | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus casei | (2 diverse strains) | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus gasseri | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus paracasei | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus reuteri | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus brevis | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus helveticus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus salivarius | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Streptococcus thermophilus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus bulgaricus | (2 diverse strains) | — 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 243624 (opens in a new tab) captured UPC cross-check passed — DSLD 6 31257 15859 8 matches the live barcode 631257158598, net contents agree at 7 packets and 24.5 g, and serving size agrees at 3.5 g. Duplicate entry 247402. This SKU is confirmed against the government label database, which is more than most products in this research manage.
- Photograph of the printed panel — RN1550041_AMAZONIMAGES-02.jpghttps://www.renewlife.com/products/ultimate-flora-extra-care-probiotic-200-billion-7-stick-packs-rn1550041 — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured The brand's own current label art, copyright 2025 RenewLife, read from the product page's Full Supplement Facts modal. The strain count was counted from the panel and the brand's claim of 29 is correct.
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
$4.76 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $33.32 USD
- What that buys
- 7 stick packs of 3.5 g (7 servings, 1 packet daily) — a 7-day intensive course, not a maintenance product
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://www.renewlife.com/products/ultimate-flora-extra-care-probiotic-200-billion-7-stick-packs-rn1550041 — 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Any third-party certification | Not checked | 31 July 2026 |
Any third-party certification
We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.
None claimed. Free-of gluten, dairy and soy is stated; no external mark appears anywhere. Issuer registers were unreachable in any case (Non-GMO Project 404, USP 403, NSF 403), so this is recorded as not claimed rather than refuted.
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 diverse-strains-is-a-non-disclosure-dressed-as-a-disclosure
The regression is what makes it a finding. The brand's own 50 Billion Extra Care panel prints a UF- code for every one of 31 strains; this panel, in the same family, prints "(5 diverse strains)". One of 29 strains here carries a real designator.
The record: Panel image RN1550041_AMAZONIMAGES-02.jpg versus RN1550148_REV_20D_THUMBNAILS-04.jpg
Finding 2 two-thousand-milligrams-of-fos-per-packet
FOS is a fermentable prebiotic and a well-known trigger for gas and bloating at dose, in a product sold for digestive upset. It is 3.3 times the weight of the entire probiotic blend — 2,000 mg against 610 mg.
The record: Panel image RN1550041_AMAZONIMAGES-02.jpg, transcribed 2026-07-31
Finding 3 most-expensive-per-day-in-its-batch-by-four-times
$4.76 a day. The "200 billion" framing carries the price and the page cites no evidence that 200 billion outperforms the brand's own 50 billion.
The record: renewlife.com RN1550041, $33.32 over 7 servings, 2026-07-31
Finding 4 most-studied-strain-footnote-frozen-at-january-2022
The same stale GG footnote as the brand's other SKUs, presented in the present tense in 2026.
The record: renewlife.com RN1550041, footnote verbatim
Finding 5 pre-2020-nomenclature-throughout
Every reassigned organism still carries the legacy Lactobacillus genus.
The record: PMID 32293557 — open it (opens in a new tab)
What we could not verify
Every gap below is published rather than deleted. Most are derived automatically from the empty fields in this page’s own record, so a gap cannot be hidden by leaving a box blank.
- Any third-party certification status
- None claimed. Free-of gluten, dairy and soy is stated; no external mark appears anywhere. Issuer registers were unreachable in any case (Non-GMO Project 404, USP 403, NSF 403), so this is recorded as not claimed rather than refuted.
- The identity of 28 of the 29 strains
- The panel replaces designators with the word "diverse". There is nothing to look up.
- Per-strain CFU
- A two-tier split of 120 billion and 80 billion, and nothing finer, across 29 organisms.
- Whether 200 billion outperforms 50 billion
- No evidence is cited on the page for the proposition, and the CFU figure is what carries the price.
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.
Renew Life prints a strain code for every organism on its Extra Care 50 Billion. On this product — same brand, same “Extra Care” name, same panel designer — the codes are gone and the panel reads Bifidobacterium lactis (5 diverse strains).
“Diverse” is not a strain identifier. It carries no information whatsoever. The count is honest — I counted 29 on the panel and the page claims 29 — but 28 of those 29 are species-level or worse. Only L. rhamnosus GG is named, and its dose is unknowable inside an 80-billion bucket shared with nineteen other organisms.
Two things this label does better than its sibling. It calls its total “Probiotic Cultures” with no postbiotic hedge and no inanimate-organism footnote, so the 200 billion reads as a straight viable count at expiry. And its UPC matches a government label record exactly — net contents, serving size and all — which is more independent verification than most products in this research have.
Two things to weigh against that. Each packet carries 2,000 mg of FOS, a fermentable fibre with a well-known gas-and-bloating dose response, in a product sold for digestive upset — and that is 3.3 times the weight of the entire probiotic blend. And at $4.76 a day it is far and away the most expensive thing in its batch. That is defensible for a seven-day intensive course rather than a daily habit, which is how the brand frames it, but nothing on the page argues that 200 billion does more than the brand’s own 50 billion.