One product, one panel, one record.

Seed DS-01 Daily Synbiotic — label audit

All 24 strain designators printed on this label were queried in quotes. Twenty-three return nothing at all, and the twenty-fourth returns one record that is a review, not a trial. As sold and as labelled, 0 of 24 strains can be mapped to any published human trial — and Seed is simultaneously the only product in this cohort with randomised placebo-controlled human trials of the finished formula at the sold dose.

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

36.4 out of 100

Rank 107 of the 154 products in this audit the rubric can score. This rank is shared with 1 other product — 2 products sit on 36.4 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.

How the 36.4 is arrived at: the five components of the Label Verifiability Score, each with the weight it carries and the fraction this label actually earned.
Component Weight What was counted, and where Fraction Weight × fraction
Strain identity printed on the panel 0.24 24 of 24 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. 24 / 24 = 1.0000 0.2400
Per-organism amount printed 0.20 0 of 24 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. 0 / 24 = 0.0000 0.0000
What the CFU count is measured against 0.22 Potency basis "through-expiry-off-label-only": 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 24 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 / 24 = 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
The five weights sum to 1.00. A component this record could not answer is renormalised away rather than counted as nought — it leaves the divisor, which is why the divisor below is 0.86 rather than 1.00. Fractions are shown to four decimals and the weighted values to six, which is the precision at which adding the last column by hand, dividing, and rounding to one decimal reproduces the published score on every product in this audit. The site's own arithmetic uses the exact fractions and rounds once at the end, so the printed total can differ from the column's own sum in the sixth decimal and never in the score. Recomputed from this product's own record on every build. A stored score that no longer follows from the record it summarises fails the build.

0.313333 — the last column added up — divided by 0.86, the weight this record could answer, is 0.3643. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 36.4 above.

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.

What Seed DS-01 Daily Synbiotic discloses, as recorded from its label and label record.
Disclosure As recorded
CFU as printed 53.6 Billion AFU (Active Fluorescent Units), across four blends
What that count is measured against Through expiry — off-label only
Strain designators All organisms coded
Organism slots transcribed here 24 — the full panel
Marketed as Unisex

Absent from the panel. From the help centre: "It's safe to take if expired—however, we only guarantee potency and efficacy up until the expiration date.""

The panel’s own words on potency, verbatim.

The brand page promises a through-expiry count. The printed panel does not. Only the panel is a label claim.

Every organism on the panel carries a printed strain designator. Whether those designators lead anywhere is a separate question, answered below.

Every organism named on the panel of Seed DS-01 Daily Synbiotic, in panel order, with what its designator resolves to.
Organism as printed Designator as printed Quantity as printed What the designator resolves to The query we ran
Bifidobacterium breve SD-BR3-IT — not stated separately No records "SD-BR3-IT"
Bifidobacterium longum SD-BB536-JP — not stated separately No records "SD-BB536-JP"
Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus HRVD113-US — not stated separately No records "HRVD113-US"
Lactiplantibacillus plantarum SD-LP1-IT — not stated separately No records "SD-LP1-IT"
Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus SD-LR6-IT — not stated separately No records "SD-LR6-IT"
Bifidobacterium lactis HRVD524-US — not stated separately No records "HRVD524-US"
Bifidobacterium infantis SD-M63-JP — not stated separately No records "SD-M63-JP"
Bifidobacterium lactis SD-BS5-IT — not stated separately No records "SD-BS5-IT"
Lacticaseibacillus casei HRVD300-US — not stated separately No records "HRVD300-US"
Bifidobacterium breve HRVD521-US — not stated separately No records "HRVD521-US"
Bifidobacterium lactis SD-150-BE — not stated separately No records "SD-150-BE"
Bifidobacterium longum HRVD90b-US — not stated separately No records "HRVD90b-US"
Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus SD-GG-BE — not stated separately No records "SD-GG-BE"
Limosilactobacillus reuteri RD830-FR — not stated separately No records "RD830-FR"
Lactobacillus crispatus SD-LCR01-IT — not stated separately No records "SD-LCR01-IT"
Limosilactobacillus fermentum SD-LF8-IT — not stated separately No records "SD-LF8-IT"
Ligilactobacillus salivarius SD-LS1-IT — not stated separately No records "SD-LS1-IT"
Bifidobacterium longum SD-CECT7347-SP — not stated separately No records "SD-CECT7347-SP"
Lacticaseibacillus casei SD-CECT9104-SP — not stated separately No records "SD-CECT9104-SP"
Bifidobacterium lactis SD-CECT8145-SP — not stated separately No records "SD-CECT8145-SP"
Lactiplantibacillus plantarum SD-LPLDL-UK — not stated separately No records "SD-LPLDL-UK"
Bifidobacterium lactis SD-MB2409-IT — not stated separately No records "SD-MB2409-IT"
Bifidobacterium lactis SD-BA5-IT — not stated separately No records "SD-BA5-IT"
Limosilactobacillus reuteri SD-LRE2-IT — not stated separately Animal or in-vitro only "SD-LRE2-IT"
The query column is the exact search string, so that a reader can re-run it and get our result or a different one.

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.

  • Dated capture of the brand’s own pageseed-ds01-browser-session-2026-07-30https://seed.com/daily-synbiotic — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured Read in-browser after a Cloudflare managed challenge; every automated route to seed.com, including the sitemap, returns HTTP 403. The session was not retained, so the panel and the 24-strain list as printed cannot be reproduced by a reader. The 24 designators themselves were independently re-queried during the audit, which reproduces the central finding.
  • Dated capture of the brand’s own pagehelp-seed-ds01-295557https://help.seed.com/en-US/articles/ds-01-daily-synbiotic-295557 — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured Seed's help centre, source for the at-expiry potency statement, the MAPP prebiotic identity and the dose rationale. Also from an unretained browser session.

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

$1.67 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.

Price
$49.99 USD
What that buys
60-capsule bottle (30-day supply, 2 capsules daily), monthly subscription only
Price checked
the source we read it fromhttps://seed.com/daily-synbiotic — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.

For context, the median verified cost across the frozen founding cohort is $1.52 a day — about $553 a year. The two figures come off one median: 24 priced products give an even count, so the median is the mean of the two middle ones, $1.515 a day. The daily figure is that rounded to the cent; the annual figure is $1.515 × 365 = $ 552.975, rounded to the dollar. Annualising the rounded $1.52 instead gives $ 554.80, which is why the rule is printed rather than left for you to guess at.

That median runs over 24 products, not 27: three of the founding teardowns have no verifiable US price at all, and are excluded rather than estimated. It is not a median over every teardown on this site.

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.

Certification claims for Seed DS-01 Daily Synbiotic, each checked at the issuer’s own register.
Programme Status at the issuer Checked
Full-formula screening for allergens, contaminants and pesticides Brand-asserted, unverified 30 July 2026
Non-GMO Project Verified Not checked not checked

Full-formula screening for allergens, contaminants and pesticides

The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.

Seed claims gluten, dairy, nut, soy, shellfish, sesame and glyphosate/AMPA testing, states that DS-01 is screened "as a full formula" rather than as raw materials, and says it is tested for all 14 EFSA allergen classes. That full-formulation screening claim is genuinely distinctive — most brands test raw materials. But no certifier, laboratory or certification programme is named anywhere. There is no NSF mark, no USP verification, no Clean Label Project award, no Informed Choice registration and no Non-GMO Project butterfly.

Non-GMO Project Verified

We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.

Not claimed, and Seed explains why in its help centre: the product contains no genetically modified organisms and is therefore non-GMO, but the brand declines the certification on the grounds that the label "doesn't contribute to blanket fears and misunderstandings". That is a defensible, principled position and should be reported as such rather than as a gap. The practical consequence is the same either way: there is no external database in which any Seed testing claim can be checked.

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 zero-of-twenty-four-designators-return-a-record

Every designator as printed on the label was queried in quotes with the phrase-not-found check on. Twenty-three return nothing at all; SD-LRE2-IT returns one record, and it is a review. This is not because the underlying organisms are unstudied — it is because Seed prints a house code. On a good-faith decoding of the middle token, roughly 11 of 24 have at least one human randomised trial under a supplier designator, and five of those (BB536, GG, BR03, M-63, LP01) have substantial programmes. Six decode to zero, and the five Harvard-collaboration isolates have no literature at all. Both sentences should travel together: as labelled, 0 of 24; on a good-faith decoding, roughly 11 of 24.

The record: 24 PubMed phrase queries re-run independently 2026-07-30, all reproducing

Finding 2 four-proprietary-blends-no-per-strain-amounts

Every strain is named, which is far better than a one-line "13-strain proprietary blend" — but no strain has an individual AFU amount. The concrete cost is workable in one case: the Cardiovascular blend is 4.21 billion AFU shared between two organisms, and the cholesterol trial behind Seed's cardiovascular positioning used 4 x 10^9 CFU/day of one of them alone. Even if that strain took the entire blend it would only just reach the trial dose, and it cannot, because a second organism is in there. On any plausible split it is below the dose at which the effect was demonstrated — and the blend makes that impossible to confirm or refute from the label.

The record: PMID 29228000 · NCT03263104 — open it (opens in a new tab)

Finding 3 no-supplement-facts-panel-on-the-product-page

No "Supplement Facts" heading, no serving size line, no servings per container, no %DV column, no definition of the panel's own footnote symbol, no Other Ingredients list and no prebiotic line item. The 400 mg prebiotic — MAPP, punicalagins from Indian pomegranate — does not appear on the product page at all; its identity comes from the help centre and its dose from Seed's own published trials.

The record: Live DOM string searches from a browser session, 2026-07-30

Finding 4 blend-names-make-claims-the-trials-do-not-support

"Dermatological Health" and "Cardiovascular Health" name outcomes that appear as endpoints in none of Seed's three product trials. The footnote symbol attached to each blend name is never defined on the page.

The record: Seed product page, browser session 2026-07-30

Finding 5 afu-versus-cfu-is-never-explained

AFU counts viable-but-non-culturable cells by flow cytometry, which plate culture misses, so an AFU number is generally larger than a CFU number for the same material and the two are not directly comparable. Seed does not explain this on the product page — while running a competitor comparison table. Any listicle ranking Seed against CFU-labelled products "by CFU" is comparing incompatible units.

The record: Seed product page, browser session 2026-07-30

Finding 6 potency-basis-lives-in-a-support-article

The at-expiry basis is the good answer, and it appears in a help-centre FAQ rather than on the panel. Two of the three products in this batch put it on the label. For the brand that markets hardest on scientific transparency, this is the wrong way round.

The record: help.seed.com article on DS-01, read 2026-07-30

Finding 7 no-government-label-record

Seed has no NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — zero results for the product name, the brand, and "Daily Synbiotic". Combined with Cloudflare blocking every automated route to seed.com including the sitemap, this is the least externally verifiable product in its batch, notwithstanding being the best clinically evidenced.

The record: DSLD queries returning 0, re-run 2026-07-30 — open it (opens in a new tab)

Finding 8 subscription-only-by-design

DS-01 cannot be bought as a one-off from Seed. The Shopify record carries exactly one selling plan, a monthly subscription; the only purchase button reads "Start Now"; and Seed's own FAQ answers "Do I have to sign up for a subscription?" with "Yes." Disclosed plainly, with pause and cancel anytime and a 30-day guarantee, and the rationale Seed gives — that probiotics are transient and benefit requires daily continuity — is scientifically sound. Reported as a hard commercial constraint a buyer should know before clicking, not as a dark pattern.

The record: Seed product page JSON-LD and Shopify payload, browser session 2026-07-30

Finding 9 unsourced-competitor-characterisation

The comparison table describes "Other Probiotics" as "10 or less strains", among other characterisations, with no source. The other batches of this research contain multiple 12- to 34-strain products, so that is not accurate as a category statement.

The record: Seed product page, browser session 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.

Full-formula screening for allergens, contaminants and pesticides status
Seed claims gluten, dairy, nut, soy, shellfish, sesame and glyphosate/AMPA testing, states that DS-01 is screened "as a full formula" rather than as raw materials, and says it is tested for all 14 EFSA allergen classes. That full-formulation screening claim is genuinely distinctive — most brands test raw materials. But no certifier, laboratory or certification programme is named anywhere. There is no NSF mark, no USP verification, no Clean Label Project award, no Informed Choice registration and no Non-GMO Project butterfly.
Non-GMO Project Verified status
Not claimed, and Seed explains why in its help centre: the product contains no genetically modified organisms and is therefore non-GMO, but the brand declines the certification on the grounds that the label "doesn't contribute to blanket fears and misunderstandings". That is a defensible, principled position and should be reported as such rather than as a gap. The practical consequence is the same either way: there is no external database in which any Seed testing claim can be checked.
Everything on this page that comes from Seed's own product page
seed.com hard-blocks all automated access behind a Cloudflare managed challenge, including its sitemap, so the panel, the 24-strain list as printed, the blend allocations, the AFU totals, the ViaCap copy, the help-centre quotations and the negative string searches all come from a browser session that was not retained and cannot be reproduced by any reader — including by this project. Independently corroborated from third-party sources: the $49.99 monthly price, the 24 strains, the 53.6 billion AFU total, 60 capsules as a 30-day supply, and the subscription-only model. Separately, the audit re-queried all 24 designators independently and reproduced the central finding exactly: 23 return zero and only SD-LRE2-IT returns one non-trial record.
Which underlying strain each house code corresponds to
Seed publishes no mapping. The decodings recorded against each organism above are good-faith inferences from the middle token of each code and are labelled as inferences, not as identity claims. Seed does not print DSM, ATCC or CECT accession numbers, except where CECT happens to be embedded in three of the house codes.
Any government label record
Seed has none — DSLD returns zero records for the product or the brand.
The 400 mg prebiotic dose from any label surface
MAPP, the pomegranate-derived punicalagin prebiotic, does not appear on the product page at all. Its identity comes from Seed's help centre and its 400 mg dose comes from Seed's own published trials.
Any support for the ViaCap delivery claims
"ViaCap" returns zero PubMed records.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

Primary product record: https://seed.com/daily-synbiotichttps://seed.com/daily-synbiotic — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.

Seed is the hardest product in this research to characterise honestly, because the best thing about it and the worst thing about it are both true and they point in opposite directions.

The worst thing. Every one of the 24 strain designators printed on this label was queried in quotes, with the phrase-not-found check on so that PubMed’s fallback matching could not manufacture hits. Twenty-three return nothing. The twenty-fourth returns one record, and it is a review, not a trial. As sold and as labelled, 0 of 24 strains can be mapped to any published human trial.

That is not because the organisms are unstudied. It is because Seed prints a house code. The codes are partially decodable — SD- is Seed’s prefix, the country tag is a suffix, and the middle token usually contains the supplier’s real designator — and decoding gives roughly 11 of 24 with at least one human randomised trial, five of them with substantial programmes. But Seed publishes no mapping, prints no DSM or ATCC accession numbers, and the decoding is an inference. Both sentences have to travel together, and this site prints both.

The best thing. Two products in the founding 27 have a published human trial of the finished formula rather than of an ingredient: this one and Pendulum Glucose Control (NCT03893422). Seed is the only one where the trial dose is the dose on the label — Pendulum’s trial ran at three times what it sells. So the claim below is narrower than “the only one tested”, and the qualifier is doing real work: Seed has published randomised, placebo-controlled human trials of the actual finished formula at the actual sold dose — three of them, including an n=350 six-week efficacy trial with real effect sizes on bloating, gas and abdominal discomfort. Every caveat ships with that credit: all three are sponsor-affiliated, all three are in MDPI journals, two are n=32 mechanistic rather than efficacy studies, and the efficacy trial’s endpoints are self-reported questionnaires collected online. Even so, almost nothing else in this category has tested the thing it sells.

The men’s question can be answered with Seed’s own data, which is rare. The pivotal trial reports its sex split exactly: 56 of 174 and 57 of 176 — 113 men across both arms, better male representation than most of the probiotic literature. And neither paper reports a sex-stratified efficacy analysis. Sex appears twice: once in the list of baseline variables checked for balance, and once in Table 1. The declared subgroup analyses are by baseline constipation and baseline anxiety. There is no male-specific result, from Seed’s trials or anywhere else.

A note on what this page cannot prove. seed.com blocks every automated route including its own sitemap, so the panel, the strain list as printed, the blend allocations and the help-centre quotations all come from a browser session that was not retained. Independently corroborated: the price, the 24 strains, the 53.6 billion AFU, the 30-day supply and the subscription model. The rest is marked. The 0-of-24 finding, however, was re-run from scratch during the audit and reproduces exactly.

One unit note, because it changes any comparison you have read elsewhere: AFU is not CFU. Active Fluorescent Units are counted by flow cytometry and include viable-but-non-culturable cells that plate counting misses, so an AFU figure will generally be larger than a CFU figure for the same material. Seed does not explain this on the product page while running a competitor comparison table. Ranking this product against CFU-labelled competitors “by CFU” is comparing incompatible units.