One product, one panel, one record.
Renew Life Ultimate Flora Extra Care Probiotic 30 Billion, 30 Delayed Release Vegan Caps — label audit
Thirty of the thirty-one strain designators on this panel return zero PubMed records of any kind, across two spellings each — and the headline number is labelled "Total Probiotic & Postbiotic Cultures — 30 Billion CFU", footnoted to concede that it includes "postbiotic benefits from inanimate organisms".
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.
- 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.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
54.2 out of 100
Rank 88 of the 154 products in this audit the rubric can score. This rank is shared with 1 other product — 2 products sit on 54.2 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 | 31 of 31 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 31 / 31 = 1.0000 | 0.2400 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 0 of 31 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 0 / 31 = 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 31 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 / 31 = 0.0323 | 0.006452 |
| 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 |
0.466452 — the last column added up — divided by 0.86, the weight this record could answer, is 0.5424. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 54.2 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 | Total Probiotic & Postbiotic Cultures — 30 Billion CFU¹ |
| What that count is measured against | Through expiry |
| Strain designators | All organisms coded |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 31 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
Panel, verbatim: "Total Probiotic & Postbiotic Cultures — 30 Billion CFU¹" and "Quality, purity and potency guaranteed through expiration.¹" Footnote ¹, verbatim, from the panel and repeated in the page body: "At Expiration Date under recommended storage conditions. Store in a cool, dry place. Refrigeration not required. Provides postbiotic benefits from inanimate organisms." Page body, verbatim: "Some probiotic supplements guarantee potency and live cultures at time of manufacturing. We guarantee through the expiration date under recommended storage conditions." The basis is at expiry, it is stated plainly, and the brand explicitly contrasts itself with competitors who do not — credit is due for all of that. The same footnote then undermines the number it qualifies. The line item is not "Total Probiotic Cultures"; it is "Total Probiotic & Postbiotic Cultures", and the footnote concedes the count includes benefits from inanimate organisms. A colony-forming unit is by definition a unit that counts organisms capable of forming a colony — live ones. Inanimate cells cannot form colonies and cannot contribute CFU. The label therefore reports dead organisms inside a live-only unit and does not disclose what fraction is which, so a buyer comparing this 30 billion against a competitor's 30 billion is not comparing like with like and has no way to find out.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bifidobacterium lactis | UF-12 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-12"[All Fields] AND Bifidobacterium[All Fields] → 0; "UF-12"[All Fields] → 0; "UF12"[All Fields] → 0 |
| Bifidobacterium lactis | UF-IM04 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-IM04"[All Fields] → 0; UF-IM04 OR UFIM04 OR "UF IM04" → 0 |
| Bifidobacterium lactis | UF-DG19 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-DG19"[All Fields] → 0; UF-DG19 OR UFDG19 OR "UF DG19" → 0 |
| Bifidobacterium lactis | UF-07 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-07"[All Fields] AND Bifidobacterium[All Fields] → 0; "UF-07"[All Fields] → 0 |
| Bifidobacterium lactis | UF-50 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-50"[All Fields] AND Bifidobacterium[All Fields] → 0; "UF-50"[All Fields] → 9, all unrelated |
| Bifidobacterium lactis | UF-26 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-26"[All Fields] AND Bifidobacterium[All Fields] → 0; "UF-26"[All Fields] → 0 |
| Bifidobacterium longum | UF-536 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-536"[All Fields] → 0; UF-536 OR UF536 → 0 |
| Bifidobacterium breve | UF-3 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-3"[All Fields] AND Bifidobacterium breve[All Fields] → 0; "UF-3"[All Fields] → 53, all unrelated |
| Bifidobacterium bifidum | UF-910 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-910"[All Fields] → 0; UF-910 OR UF910 → 0 |
| Bifidobacterium infantis | UF-019 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-019"[All Fields] → 0; UF-019 OR UF019 OR UF-19 → 6, all unrelated |
| Lactobacillus plantarum | UF-217 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-217"[All Fields] → 0; UF-217 OR UF217 → 0 |
| Lactobacillus plantarum | UF-987 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-987"[All Fields] → 0; UF-987 OR UF987 → 0 |
| Lactobacillus plantarum | UF-115 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-115"[All Fields] → 0; UF-115 OR UF115 → 0 |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | UF-01 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-01"[All Fields] AND Lactobacillus[All Fields] → 0; "UF-01"[All Fields] → 0 |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | UF-5 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-5"[All Fields] AND Lactobacillus acidophilus[All Fields] → 0; "UF-5"[All Fields] → 20, all unrelated |
| Lactococcus lactis | UF-23 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-23"[All Fields] AND Lactococcus[All Fields] → 0; "UF-23"[All Fields] → 0 |
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus (correct name: Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus) | GG | — not stated separately | Human RCT | "Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG"[All Fields] OR "Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG"[All Fields] → 1714; the same OR "ATCC 53103"[All Fields] AND randomized controlled trial[Publication Type] → 191; "ATCC 53103"[All Fields] → 170; "Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG" AND immune AND randomized controlled trial[pt] → 29; ("Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG" OR "LGG") AND (irritable bowel OR "digestive") AND randomized controlled trial[pt] → 17 |
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus (correct name: Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus) | UF-11 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-11"[All Fields] AND rhamnosus[All Fields] → 0; "UF-11"[All Fields] → 1, unrelated |
| Lactobacillus fermentum (correct name: Limosilactobacillus fermentum) | UF-120 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-120"[All Fields] AND fermentum[All Fields] → 0; "UF-120"[All Fields] → 1, unrelated |
| Lactobacillus fermentum (correct name: Limosilactobacillus fermentum) | UF-226 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-226"[All Fields] → 0; UF-226 OR UF226 → 0 |
| Lactobacillus casei (correct name: Lacticaseibacillus casei) | UF-431 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-431"[All Fields] → 0; UF-431 OR UF431 → 0 |
| Lactobacillus casei (correct name: Lacticaseibacillus casei) | UF-121 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-121"[All Fields] AND casei[All Fields] → 0; "UF-121"[All Fields] → 0 |
| Lactobacillus gasseri | UF-2055 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-2055"[All Fields] → 0; UF-2055 OR UF2055 → 0 |
| Lactobacillus reuteri (correct name: Limosilactobacillus reuteri) | UF-14 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-14"[All Fields] AND reuteri[All Fields] → 0; "UF-14"[All Fields] → 0 |
| Lactobacillus paracasei (correct name: Lacticaseibacillus paracasei) | UF-19 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-19"[All Fields] AND paracasei[All Fields] → 0; "UF-19"[All Fields] → 6, all unrelated |
| Lactobacillus brevis (correct name: Levilactobacillus brevis) | UF-35 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-35"[All Fields] AND brevis[All Fields] → 0; "UF-35"[All Fields] → 0 |
| Lactobacillus helveticus | UF-142 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-142"[All Fields] AND helveticus[All Fields] → 0; "UF-142"[All Fields] → 0 |
| Lactobacillus salivarius (correct name: Ligilactobacillus salivarius) | UF-862 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-862"[All Fields] → 0; UF-862 OR UF862 → 0 |
| Streptococcus thermophilus | UF-336 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-336"[All Fields] AND thermophilus[All Fields] → 0; "UF-336"[All Fields] → 0 |
| Lactobacillus bulgaricus | UF-165 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-165"[All Fields] → 1, unrelated |
| Lactobacillus bulgaricus | UF-563 | — not stated separately | No records | "UF-563"[All Fields] → 0; UF-563 OR UF563 → 0 |
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 — RN1530081_REV_20E_20THUMBNAILS_NewLook-02.jpg captured The current Supplement Facts panel, published by the brand only as a product JPEG — alt text "View 2 Ult Flora Extra Care 30 Billion 30 Veg Caps Supplement Facts panel, 3-pack, shown clearly" — downloaded at 2000 to 2400 px and transcribed by eye. Ultimate Flora™ Extra Care 30 Billion Blend, 65 mg, with Bifidobacterium subtotal 17.5 billion CFU and Lactobacillus/Lactococcus/Streptococcus subtotal 12.5 billion CFU across 31 designators; Organic Prebiotic Acacia Fiber 200 mg; other ingredients Non-GMO Vegan Capsule (Delayed Release) (Cellulose, Gellan Gum), MCT, Silica. The strain count checks out arithmetically: 10 Bifido plus 21 Lacto/Lactococcus/Streptococcus is 31, matching the brand's "31 probiotic strains" claim exactly.
- Dated capture of the brand’s own page — renew-life-rn1530081-2026-07-31https://www.renewlife.com/products/ultimate-flora-extra-care-probiotic-30-billion-30-delayed-release-vegan-caps-rn1530081 — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured HTTP 200, fetched directly. renewlife.com is Shopify and fully open, so /products/<handle>.js gave the SKU RN1530081, the barcode 631257158628 and the prices, and /collections.json plus /collections/<handle>/products.json resolved the two Proposition 65 warning collections and enumerated their members. This capture is also the source of the Ingredients accordion that contradicts the panel image, the △ footnote dated January 2022, the self-contradictory money-back guarantee, and the zero counts for NSF, USP, Informed, cGMP, GMP, Certified, tested and third-party.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 214055 (opens in a new tab) captured The oldest of three superseded generations in NIH's database — species only, no designators, 11 ingredient rows against a "12 strains" claim, Bifido 18 billion and Lacto 12 billion. Its UPC, 6 31257 15862 8, matches the live 2026 barcode exactly, which is why the UPC cross-check on this brand proves the opposite of what it usually proves: one UPC, three different formulas.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 250877 (opens in a new tab) captured The Danisco-era generation, also superseded: full designators BI-04, HN019, Bi-07, Bi-26, Lp-115, GG, NCFM, Ll-23, Lc-11, Lpc-37, La-14 and Lbr-35, at Bifido 17.5 billion and Lacto 12 billion. This is the record that documents what the product used to contain, and therefore what the "clinically studied" marketing was originally true of. It carries no UPC field at all, so this generation cannot be UPC-tied to anything.
- Internet Archive capture — 20260708213740 (opens in a new tab) captured The archived Amazon listing, and the source of the retail-channel claim set — "CLINICALLY TESTED STRAINS", the "12 DIVERSE STRAINS … including B. lactis Bl-04 for respiratory health" bullet, the "more clinically studied strains than the leading brand" claim with its IRI January 2021 footnote, the August 2019 PubMed footnote, and the Proposition 65 Legal Disclaimer that the brand's own store does not carry. Live Amazon returns a 3,781-byte robot-check stub to automation.
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
$0.79 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $23.59 USD
- What that buys
- 30-capsule bottle, 1 capsule daily, 30 servings ($23.59 ÷ 30 = $0.7863); $21.23 on the brand's own 10% Subscribe & Save, or $0.71 a day. The archived Amazon price on 2026-07-08 was $22.78 one-time, and that page also showed "$0.68 / count". Note one thing on the same screen: the page carries a "60-Day Money Back Guarantee" badge and, in its own body copy, "we offer a one-year money back guarantee".
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://www.renewlife.com/products/ultimate-flora-extra-care-probiotic-30-billion-30-delayed-release-vegan-caps-rn1530081 — 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 |
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 in the product page's Ingredients accordion and in an Amazon bullet ("Non-GMO Project Verified formula"). The issuer's register could not be queried: nongmoproject.org/find-by-product/ returns HTTP 404, /find-non-gmo/ is a JavaScript shell, and the WordPress REST API exposes no product post type — /wp/v2/types returns no product or verified object. Brand-asserted, unverified; never "does not hold it." Beyond this, nothing is claimed and nothing was found: both live product pages were scanned for NSF, USP, Informed, cGMP, GMP, Certified, tested and third-party, and every one returned zero hits, with the only "third party" occurrences being cookie-policy boilerplate. No third-party contents certification of any kind is asserted for this product, which is at least honest as far as it goes.
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 Renew Life Ultimate Flora Women's Complete 90 Billion (RN1550146). Diffed .
What the two panels differ by
- This SKU has no women's counterpart of its own. The brand's gendered pair sits one tier up, at 90 billion — Men's Complete 90 Billion (RN1550161, barcode 631257121578) and Women's Complete 90 Billion (RN1550146, barcode 631257121004) — and both are priced identically at $45.82. renewlife.com product pages and Supplement Facts panels for RN1550161 and RN1550146, both transcribed 2026-07-31
- The women's SKU is differentiated with genuinely urogenital organisms — L. crispatus UF-88 and L. jensenii UF-522, both canonical vaginal Lactobacillus species, plus L. rhamnosus UF-V1 and L. reuteri UF-pH4, codes that read as site-targeted. Its positioning is "Supports vaginal, digestive & immune health". Panels for RN1550146 and RN1550161 transcribed 2026-07-31; ("Lactobacillus crispatus") AND randomized controlled trial[pt] → 46 and ("Lactobacillus jensenii") AND randomized controlled trial[pt] → 2, while UF-88, UF-522, UF-V1 and UF-pH4 each return 0, queried both hyphenated and unhyphenated
- The men's SKU is differentiated with nothing male-specific at all. Its 31 strains are the identical roster to this unisex product — the same 31 codes — at three times the CFU and 105 mg more blend, for $45.82 against $23.59. There is no prostate ingredient, no urinary ingredient, no androgen-related ingredient and no male-associated organism in it. Its positioning is "Supports colon, digestive & immune health". Panel for RN1550161 transcribed against this product's panel RN1530081_REV_20E_20THUMBNAILS_NewLook-02.jpg, both 2026-07-31
- The women's SKU carries 27 strains in 200 mg of blend at 46 billion Bifido to 44 billion Lacto; the men's carries 31 strains in 170 mg at 49 billion to 41 billion. Each also carries three or four organisms the other lacks — the men's has Lactococcus lactis UF-23, L. helveticus UF-142 and B. infantis UF-019; the women's has the four named above. Panels for RN1550146 and RN1550161, both transcribed 2026-07-31
What is identical across the pair
- Both gendered SKUs carry an identical 160 mg prebiotic of Organic Acacia and Organic Oat Hull
- Both gendered SKUs are priced identically at $45.82
Every finding on this page, with the record behind it
Finding 1 the-clinically-studied-claim-rests-on-strains-no-longer-in-the-product
The previous generations of this label ran on the Danisco/IFF catalogue: DSLD 250877, entered 2021-07-27, lists BI-04, HN019, Bi-07, Bi-26, Lp-115, GG, NCFM, Ll-23, Lc-11, Lpc-37, La-14 and Lbr-35 — strains with real literatures ("Bl-04" OR "Bi-04" OR "BL04" → 76; "HN019" → 111; "NCFM" AND randomized controlled trial[pt] → 35; "Bi-07" OR "Bi07" → 60). The current panel runs on 31 UF- codes of which every one returns zero PubMed records, plus GG. The marketing did not change with the formula. As of the archived Amazon listing the SKU was still sold on "CLINICALLY TESTED STRAINS" and "12 DIVERSE STRAINS: Contains 12 Bifido and Lacto probiotic strains, including B. lactis Bl-04 for respiratory health" and "more clinically studied strains than the leading brand" — and Bl-04 is not in the current formula. Bl-04 is also precisely the strain that carries the respiratory evidence being invoked, per PMID 28343401 (Turner et al., Benef Microbes 2017) and PMID 34062085. Why it matters: PMID 29868585, McFarland LV et al., Front Med 2018;5:124, establishes that probiotic efficacy is strain-specific and disease-specific, so evidence does not transfer across strains within a species, let alone across a reformulation.
The record: DSLD 250877 against the current panel image, plus Wayback 20260708213740 of amazon.com/dp/B00H61ZBZU quoted verbatim, and PMIDs 28343401, 34062085 and 29868585, all 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 2 cfu-is-used-to-count-dead-organisms
The panel reads "Total Probiotic & Postbiotic Cultures — 30 Billion CFU¹" and footnote ¹ reads "Provides postbiotic benefits from inanimate organisms." A colony-forming unit counts organisms capable of forming a colony. Inanimate cells cannot. The live fraction of the headline number is undisclosed, so a buyer comparing this against a competitor's 30 billion is not comparing like with like.
The record: Panel image RN1530081_REV_20E_20THUMBNAILS_NewLook-02.jpg, footnote transcribed verbatim 2026-07-31, and the same footnote repeated in the page body
Finding 3 thirty-of-thirty-one-designators-have-zero-pubmed-records
Every UF- code on this panel was queried twice, once with a genus or species guard and once bare and unhyphenated. All returned zero probiotic records. The handful of non-zero bare-string hits were each disambiguated by esummary and resolve to uranium-fluoride spectroscopy, ultrasound-assisted food freezing, SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in Florida, German medical law, veterinary ovarian cryopreservation and steroid pharmacology. Not one is a probiotic paper.
The record: Full query set and disambiguation run against NCBI E-utilities 2026-07-31; disambiguated PMIDs 32388312, 40512972, 40904026, 33439885, 35310876, 26446780, 1814021
Finding 4 the-one-strain-with-a-research-file-cannot-be-shown-to-reach-a-studied-dose
L. rhamnosus GG is one of 21 organisms sharing the 12.5 billion CFU Lactobacillus subtotal, with no per-strain disclosure. The arithmetic ceiling is 12.5 billion and an even split would be roughly 0.6 billion, against a trial literature generally run at 10⁹ to 10¹⁰ CFU/day.
The record: Panel subtotals transcribed 2026-07-31; "Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG" OR "Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG" → 1714, with 191 RCT-tagged
Finding 5 the-brands-own-page-contradicts-its-own-label-image
The page's Ingredients accordion reads "Other ingredients: Microcrystalline cellulose, capsule (hypromellose, gellan gum) and medium chain triglycerides." The current panel JPEG next to it reads "Non-GMO Vegan Capsule (Delayed Release) (Cellulose, Gellan Gum), MCT, Silica." Hypromellose against cellulose; microcrystalline cellulose in the text but not the panel; silica in the panel but not the text. The machine-readable field is a formulation generation behind the picture beside it.
The record: renewlife.com product page Ingredients accordion against panel image RN1530081_REV_20E_20THUMBNAILS_NewLook-02.jpg, both 2026-07-31
Finding 6 number-one-most-studied-strain-substantiated-on-two-different-stale-vintages
The brand page footnotes the claim to "the number of scientific and clinical studies of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG for a range of benefits as of January 2022"; the Amazon listing footnotes the same claim to "L. rhamnosus GG strain, PubMed Clinical Trials, August 2019". Two different vintages of one claim, the older nearly seven years stale, both stated in the present tense.
The record: renewlife.com △ footnote and Wayback 20260708213740 footnote (3), both quoted verbatim 2026-07-31
Finding 7 more-clinically-studied-strains-than-the-leading-brand-is-footnoted-to-sales-data
The Amazon bullet "DIVERSE FORMULA: Daily probiotic with more clinically studied strains than the leading brand (2)" resolves to footnote (2), "Based on IRI unit sales data, January 2021." Sales data identifies the comparator and does nothing whatsoever to substantiate a clinical-count comparison, which is left unsupported. It is also five and a half years old.
The record: Wayback 20260708213740 of amazon.com/dp/B00H61ZBZU, bullet and footnote quoted verbatim
Finding 8 the-page-contradicts-itself-on-its-own-money-back-guarantee
A "60-Day Money Back Guarantee" badge and, in the same page's body copy, "we offer a one-year money back guarantee". Minor, and it is on the same screen.
The record: renewlife.com product page RN1530081, both statements read 2026-07-31
Finding 9 dsld-is-two-formulation-generations-stale-under-a-matching-upc
The government's label database holds three distinct generations of this label and none is what is on sale: DSLD 214055 (2020-02-26, species only, no designators, 11 rows against a "12 strains" claim) and DSLD 250877 (2021-07-27, the Danisco-era designators), against a live 2026 panel carrying 31 UF- codes. The UPC cross-check passes and proves the opposite of what it usually proves — the live barcode 631257158628 matches DSLD 214055's UPC 6 31257 15862 8 exactly, so one UPC covers three different formulas and a UPC match is not sufficient to tie a government panel to a current SKU for this brand. An absence claim confirms there is no record of the current formulation: "UF-536" returns 0 hits in DSLD, and "Bifidobacterium lactis UF-12" returns 12 hits of which none is Renew Life.
The record: DSLD 214055 and 250877 against the live panel and barcode; DSLD search-filter q=UF-536 → 0 and q=Bifidobacterium lactis UF-12 → 12, none Renew Life, all run 2026-07-31
Finding 10 the-two-sales-channels-disagree-on-proposition-65
The archived Amazon listing carries a Legal Disclaimer reading "WARNING: Consuming this product can expose you to chemicals including lead, which are known to the State of California to cause cancer." Renew Life's own store does not tag this SKU for a lead warning at all — the two warning collections on its Shopify store were resolved and enumerated, and neither contains this product. The endpoints named also differ between channels, cancer against birth defects or other reproductive harm.
The record: Wayback 20260708213740 Legal Disclaimer, against renewlife.com/collections.json?limit=250 and the members of collections lead-mercury-warning (1 member) and lead-warning (11 members), all 2026-07-31
Finding 11 nomenclature-is-roughly-six-years-stale
Pre-2020 Lactobacillus names throughout the panel, against the reclassification in PMID 32293557 (Zheng J et al., Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2020, "A taxonomic note on the genus Lactobacillus: Description of 23 novel genera"). Legal, and dated.
The record: Panel image RN1530081_REV_20E_20THUMBNAILS_NewLook-02.jpg against PMID 32293557, 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 in the product page's Ingredients accordion and in an Amazon bullet ("Non-GMO Project Verified formula"). The issuer's register could not be queried: nongmoproject.org/find-by-product/ returns HTTP 404, /find-non-gmo/ is a JavaScript shell, and the WordPress REST API exposes no product post type — /wp/v2/types returns no product or verified object. Brand-asserted, unverified; never "does not hold it." Beyond this, nothing is claimed and nothing was found: both live product pages were scanned for NSF, USP, Informed, cGMP, GMP, Certified, tested and third-party, and every one returned zero hits, with the only "third party" occurrences being cookie-policy boilerplate. No third-party contents certification of any kind is asserted for this product, which is at least honest as far as it goes.
- The per-strain CFU for any of the 31 organisms
- Not disclosed. The panel gives two subtotals — Bifidobacterium 17.5 billion CFU and Lactobacillus/Lactococcus/Streptococcus 12.5 billion CFU — and nothing per organism. This is structurally unanswerable rather than a search failure, and it is what makes the GG dose unknowable.
- What fraction of the "30 Billion CFU" is alive
- The line item is "Total Probiotic & Postbiotic Cultures" and the footnote concedes it provides "postbiotic benefits from inanimate organisms". A colony-forming unit counts organisms that can form a colony; inanimate cells cannot. The live fraction is undisclosed, and the intersection of the two ideas is barely studied: "postbiotic"[Title/Abstract] AND "colony forming unit*"[Title/Abstract] returns 5 records. This is a labelling practice running ahead of the literature.
- What the UF- prefix stands for and who assigns it
- A web search summary asserts UF means Ultimate Flora and that these are Renew Life's own proprietary designators. That could not be confirmed at a primary source and is not relied on here. What is verified is that UF- is not one of the internationally recognised depositary prefixes — ATCC, DSM, CNCM, NCIMB, CECT, JCM, NCTC — and that PubMed returns nothing for any of them.
- Non-GMO Project Verified status at the issuer
- nongmoproject.org/find-by-product/ returns HTTP 404, /find-non-gmo/ is a JavaScript shell, and the WordPress REST API exposes no product post type. Brand-asserted, unverified, in both directions.
- The Amazon rating count
- Amazon renders it client-side and it is not extractable from the archived snapshot. Listing-reported, unverified.
- Whether the Amazon listing still named Bl-04 at the moment of this pass
- The archived Amazon snapshot is dated 2026-07-08 and the brand page was fetched 2026-07-31, so a 23-day gap exists in which the listing could have been updated, or through which old stock could have been shipping. What is documented and dated is that the two live channels for UPC 631257158628 described materially different products, and that the retail channel was the one naming a strain with published evidence.
- Whether this product contains lead
- The two sales channels disagree about Proposition 65 and neither disagreement is an assay. The archived Amazon listing carries, under Legal Disclaimer, "WARNING: Consuming this product can expose you to chemicals including lead, which are known to the State of California to cause cancer." Renew Life's own store does not tag this SKU for a lead warning: the Shopify product-warnings app config that ships site-wide is scoped to two collections, lead-mercury-warning and lead-warning, whose members were enumerated — one cleanse SKU and eleven cleanse and herbal SKUs respectively — and neither RN1530081 nor its 100 billion sibling is in either. The endpoints named also differ, cancer on Amazon versus birth defects or other reproductive harm in the brand's own app text. Amazon Legal Disclaimer blocks are frequently seller-level or category-level defaults rather than product-specific, so no assertion is made here that this product contains lead.
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.
Give this label the credit it has earned before taking it apart. It discloses 31 strain-level designators rather than a species list or an opaque blend, which is far better than the category median. The strain count is arithmetically honest — 10 Bifido plus 21 others is exactly the 31 the brand claims. It gives Bifido and Lacto subtotals. It guarantees potency at expiry, says so plainly, and explicitly calls out competitors who guarantee at manufacture: “Some probiotic supplements guarantee potency and live cultures at time of manufacturing. We guarantee through the expiration date.” And it claims no third-party certification it does not hold.
Then query the designators. Every UF- code was run twice — once with a genus or species guard, once bare
and unhyphenated. Thirty of thirty-one return nothing. The handful of bare-string hits were each
disambiguated one by one and resolve to uranium-fluoride spectroscopy, ultrasound-assisted chicken freezing,
SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in Florida, German medical law, veterinary ovarian cryopreservation and steroid
pharmacology. Not one is a probiotic paper. UF- is not a recognised depositary prefix, and what the letters
stand for could not be confirmed at a primary source, so this page does not claim to know.
The one exception is real, and its dose is unknowable. L. rhamnosus GG has 1,714 records and 191 RCT-tagged ones. It is also 1 of 21 organisms sharing a 12.5-billion subtotal, with no per-strain disclosure. An even split would be roughly 0.6 billion against a trial literature run at 10⁹ to 10¹⁰ CFU/day. The product cannot demonstrate that it delivers a studied dose of the only strain it can name.
And the headline number counts the dead. The line item is “Total Probiotic & Postbiotic Cultures — 30 Billion CFU”, footnoted “Provides postbiotic benefits from inanimate organisms.” A colony-forming unit counts organisms that can form a colony. Inanimate cells cannot. The live fraction is not disclosed.
The finding that matters most is documented, not inferred. The previous generation of this label ran on the Danisco/IFF catalogue — Bl-04, HN019, NCFM, Bi-07 and the rest, strains with hundreds of records between them. The current one runs on UF- codes with none. The marketing did not change with the formula. Three weeks before this pass, the retail listing was still selling “B. lactis Bl-04 for respiratory health” — a strain that is not in the bottle, and precisely the strain that carries the respiratory evidence being invoked.
Two last things a buyer would want. NIH’s own label database is two formulation generations stale for this product, under a UPC that still matches — so anyone reading this panel out of a government record, as several comparison sites do, is publishing a strain list the product has not contained since roughly 2022. And the brand’s own page contradicts its own panel image on other ingredients, one accordion away from the picture.