One product, one panel, one record.
Renew Life Ultimate Flora Men's Complete Probiotic 90 Billion (RN1550161) — label audit
The product page runs a strain-to-benefit table crediting twelve branded strain designators. Only one of them — L. rhamnosus GG — is on the Supplement Facts panel. Eleven are not in the bottle, and the panel's own codes collide with three of them by a single character.
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
- D₂₇ founding teardown One of the 27 products taken apart at label level. That cohort is frozen and dated, so the audit’s published percentages cannot silently move.
- 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 | 90 Billion CFU (49 billion Bifidobacterium, 41 billion Lactobacillus / Lactococcus / Streptococcus) |
| What that count is measured against | Through expiry |
| Strain designators | All organisms coded |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 31 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Marketed to men |
¹At Expiration Date under recommended storage conditions. Store in a cool, dry place. Refrigeration not required. Provides postbiotic benefits from inanimate organisms.
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 (correct name: Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis) | UF-12 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-12" |
| Bifidobacterium lactis (correct name: Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis) | UF-IM04 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-IM04" |
| Bifidobacterium lactis (correct name: Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis) | UF-DG19 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-DG19" |
| Bifidobacterium lactis (correct name: Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis) | UF-07 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-07" |
| Bifidobacterium lactis (correct name: Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis) | UF-50 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-50" |
| Bifidobacterium lactis (correct name: Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis) | UF-26 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-26" |
| Bifidobacterium bifidum | UF-910 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-910" |
| Bifidobacterium breve | UF-3 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-3" |
| Bifidobacterium infantis (correct name: Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis) | UF-019 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-019" |
| Bifidobacterium longum | UF-536 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-536" |
| Lactobacillus plantarum (correct name: Lactiplantibacillus plantarum) | UF-217 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-217" |
| Lactobacillus plantarum (correct name: Lactiplantibacillus plantarum) | UF-987 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-987" |
| Lactobacillus plantarum (correct name: Lactiplantibacillus plantarum) | UF-115 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-115" |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | UF-01 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-01" |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | UF-5 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-5" |
| Lactococcus lactis | UF-23 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-23" |
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus (correct name: Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus) | GG | — not stated separately | Human RCT | "Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG" AND randomized |
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus (correct name: Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus) | UF-11 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-11" |
| Lactobacillus fermentum (correct name: Limosilactobacillus fermentum) | UF-120 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-120" |
| Lactobacillus fermentum (correct name: Limosilactobacillus fermentum) | UF-226 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-226" |
| Lactobacillus casei (correct name: Lacticaseibacillus casei) | UF-431 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-431" |
| Lactobacillus casei (correct name: Lacticaseibacillus casei) | UF-121 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-121" |
| Lactobacillus gasseri | UF-2055 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-2055" |
| Lactobacillus reuteri (correct name: Limosilactobacillus reuteri) | UF-14 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-14" |
| Lactobacillus paracasei (correct name: Lacticaseibacillus paracasei) | UF-19 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-19" |
| Streptococcus thermophilus | UF-336 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-336" |
| Lactobacillus salivarius (correct name: Ligilactobacillus salivarius) | UF-862 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-862" |
| Lactobacillus brevis (correct name: Levilactobacillus brevis) | UF-35 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-35" |
| Lactobacillus helveticus | UF-142 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-142" |
| Lactobacillus bulgaricus (correct name: Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus) | UF-165 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-165" |
| Lactobacillus bulgaricus (correct name: Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus) | UF-563 | — not stated separately | Untraceable house code | "UF-563" |
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 — RN1550161_REV_20C_20THUMBNAILS_SFBhttps://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/RN1550161_REV_20C_20THUMBNAILS_SFB_4e3a3c4f-1c5d-4fb8-9809-897316bd63b4.jpg — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured The brand's own Supplement Facts image, read directly and independently re-read during the audit: 31 designators with every UF- code confirmed, blend 170 mg, 49 B / 41 B / 90 B, prebiotic 160 mg, footnote verbatim. Strain arithmetic checks — 10 Bifido plus 21 others is 31.
- Photograph of the printed panel — RN1550146_20C_20Thumbnails_SFBhttps://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/RN1550146_20C_20Thumbnails_SFB_01bf2578-40a6-4acc-9a5d-a92ece7cad06.jpg — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured Women's comparator panel, read independently.
- Dated capture of the brand’s own page — renewlife-rn1550161-pdp-2026-07-30https://www.renewlife.com/products/ultimate-flora-mens-complete-probiotic-90-billion-30-delayed-release-vegan-caps-rn1550161 — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured Live page carrying the benefit table, both strain counts, the "10 to 15 million CFU" comparator and the price.
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
$1.53 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $45.82 USD
- What that buys
- 30-capsule bottle (30 servings, 1 delayed-release capsule per serving)
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://www.renewlife.com/products/ultimate-flora-mens-complete-probiotic-90-billion-30-delayed-release-vegan-caps-rn1550161 — 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 | 30 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 by the brand. The certifier's product search returned HTTP 403 to automated requests. Note the scope even if current: it certifies GMO status. It says nothing about CFU count, identity or purity.
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 Ultimate Flora Women's Complete Probiotic 90 Billion (RN1550146). Diffed .
What the two panels differ by
- Present only in the women's product: L. crispatus UF-88, L. jensenii UF-522, L. reuteri UF-pH4, L. rhamnosus UF-V1 — exactly four. Brand panel image RN1550161 versus RN1550146
- Present only in the men's product: B. infantis UF-019, Lactococcus lactis UF-23, L. helveticus UF-142, L. plantarum UF-115, L. rhamnosus UF-11, L. fermentum UF-226, L. casei UF-121, L. bulgaricus UF-563 — exactly eight, of which five are simply second or third strains of a species already in the blend. Brand panel image RN1550161 versus RN1550146
- Men's 31 strains in 170 mg, 49 B / 41 B split; women's 27 strains in 200 mg, 46 B / 44 B. Brand panel image RN1550161 versus RN1550146
What is identical across the pair
- Twenty-three strains are on both panels.
- 90 billion CFU at expiration date in both. Same $45.82. Same 30-count.
Every finding on this page, with the record behind it
Finding 1 ghost-strains-in-the-benefit-table
The product page's Ingredients tab runs a strain-to-benefit table naming twelve branded designators: GG, Bi-26, HN019, La-14, Bi-07, BI-04, NCFM®, Lpc-37®, LBr-35™, Lc-11®, Li-23™ and Lp-115®. Only GG is on the Supplement Facts panel. Eleven are not in the bottle. Taken strictly: of the eight designators credited with a health benefit — colonisation, immune, digestive regularity, respiratory — seven are absent, and a further four credited only with "formula diversity" are also absent. These are real, well-characterised Danisco/DuPont/IFF-lineage strains with genuine literature, which is what makes the mismatch damaging rather than merely untidy: the page borrows the evidence base of a strain roster the product does not contain.
The record: Brand panel image RN1550161 versus the product page's own Ingredients tab, both verified live 2026-07-30 — open ithttps://www.renewlife.com/products/ultimate-flora-mens-complete-probiotic-90-billion-30-delayed-release-vegan-caps-rn1550161 — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 2 near-miss-numeral-collisions
The mismatch is hard to catch because the numerals collide while the strains differ: UF-35 against LBr-35, UF-23 against Li-23, UF-115 against Lp-115.
The record: Brand panel image RN1550161
Finding 3 thirty-of-thirty-one-designators-untraceable
Every UF- code returns zero published records. Exact-phrase queries for "UF-2055", "UF-536", "UF-910" and "UF-12" AND Bifidobacterium all return 0, and three further codes tested during the audit — "UF-019", "UF-88", "UF-142" — also return 0. They map to no ATCC, DSM, CNCM or NCIMB deposit PubMed indexes.
The record: PubMed exact-phrase queries re-run 2026-07-30
Finding 4 strain-count-stated-as-both-12-and-31
The same page states "12 probiotic strains (see strains breakdown below)" in the Ingredients tab and "90 Billion CFU¹ from 31 probiotic strains" in the description and schema markup, with an image alt-text saying "31 strains". The panel has 31.
The record: renewlife.com product page, verified live 2026-07-30
Finding 5 misleading-ten-to-fifteen-million-comparator
Verbatim: "Our 90 billion CFU¹ formula delivers far more than the 10 to 15 million CFU you'll commonly find in other probiotics." The mainstream competitive set is dosed in billions. Framed against that comparator the product appears six to nine thousand times stronger than the alternatives.
The record: renewlife.com product page, verified live 2026-07-30
Finding 6 three-product-names-in-one-listing
The page title says "Ultimate Flora Men's Complete Probiotic 90 Billion", the body copy calls it "Men's Once Daily", and the panel calls the blend "Ultimate Flora™ Men's Once Daily 90 Billion Blend" — while the brand's live catalogue separately sells Men's Care 50 Billion (RN1530124) and Men's Once Daily 65 Billion (RN27502). Anyone citing this product must cite the SKU code, not the name.
The record: renewlife.com /products.json, 72 products, verified 2026-07-30
Finding 7 strain-count-inflated-by-duplicate-species
Multiple strains of B. lactis, L. plantarum, L. acidophilus, L. casei, L. fermentum, L. bulgaricus and L. rhamnosus are each counted individually toward the 31. Listing "B. longum UF-536" and "B. infantis UF-019" as two entries is taxonomically listing the same species twice — legitimate at strain level, inflationary at the headline level.
The record: Brand panel image RN1550161
Finding 8 mens-faq-with-nothing-men-specific-in-it
The FAQ answer to "WHAT DO PROBIOTICS DO FOR MEN?" is generic microbiome copy under a men's heading, containing nothing men-specific.
The record: renewlife.com product page, verified live 2026-07-30
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 by the brand. The certifier's product search returned HTTP 403 to automated requests. Note the scope even if current: it certifies GMO status. It says nothing about CFU count, identity or purity.
- What any UF- code actually is
- Thirty of the 31 designators return zero PubMed records. They are not ATCC, DSM, CNCM or NCIMB accessions and the supplier behind them is unidentified. The defensible claim is that the public cannot verify them — not that they are worthless. A UF- code could be a well-characterised organism under a supplier alias.
- Any current government label record for this SKU
- DSLD holds only a 2014 off-market "Ultimate Flora Men's Complete" (record 39477). The 31-strain panel published here rests on the brand's own label image, read directly and independently re-read during the audit.
- The dose of L. rhamnosus GG
- Not disclosed. GG's share of the 41 billion Lactobacillus / Lactococcus / Streptococcus subtotal is unknown. If it is one twenty-first of that pool it is about 2 billion CFU; if it is a token inclusion it could be far less.
- Whether the Non-GMO Project verification is current
- The certifier's product search returned HTTP 403.
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.
Open the Ingredients tab and Renew Life tells you which strains do what:
Can colonize the human microbiome: rhamnosus GG, B. infantis Bi-26, B. lactis HN019, L. acidophilus La-14 … Shown to support immune health: … Bi-07, BI-04, NCFM® … Shown to promote digestive balance and regularity: … Lpc-37® …
Now open the Supplement Facts panel on the same page. Of the twelve branded designators in that table, exactly one — L. rhamnosus GG — is in the bottle. The other eleven are not. The panel contains UF- codes instead: UF-01, UF-5, UF-217, UF-987, UF-115, UF-11, UF-19, thirty of them, and every single one returns zero PubMed records.
The near-misses are what make it hard to catch. UF-35 against LBr-35. UF-23 against Li-23. UF-115 against Lp-115. The numerals collide; the strains do not.
The most likely explanation is not fraud. It is copy that was never updated after the formula moved from branded strains to house codes. That is how this site reports it — a documented mismatch with consequences, not proven intent. But the consequence is real: a shopper reading the Ingredients tab is being shown clinical attributions for organisms that are not in the capsule.
And credit where it is due, because it is substantial. This label prints “¹At Expiration Date under recommended storage conditions” and the front panel says potency is guaranteed through expiration. The brand draws the contrast itself: “Some probiotic supplements guarantee potency and live cultures at time of manufacturing. We guarantee through the expiration date.” That is the correct standard, it is on the label rather than in a website FAQ, and most of this category does not meet it. It also discloses full designators on the panel rather than hiding them behind “proprietary blend” — which is precisely what made the ghost-strain mismatch findable in the first place.