One product, one panel, one record.
Sports Research Daily Probiotics 60 Billion CFU — label audit
The label footnote reads "60 billion CFU at time of manufacture through best by date… Best stored refrigerated." The product page reads "With no refrigeration required, this Probiotic blend of 60 Billion CFU is guaranteed through the expiration date, not the manufacturing date like most probiotic brands on the market." The refrigeration contradiction is flatly binary, and the CFU claim is used as a competitive attack on other brands.
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
- 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
25.0 out of 100
Rank 131 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 the whole rubric: this record answers all five questions below, so nothing is renormalised away and the divisor is the full 1.00. That share travels with every score on this site and is never dropped — a score over part of the rubric’s 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 | 1 of 12 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 1 / 12 = 0.0833 | 0.0200 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 0 of 12 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 0 / 12 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| What the CFU count is measured against | 0.22 | Potency basis "contradictory": 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 | 1 of 12 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 / 12 = 0.0833 | 0.016667 |
| Certification confirmed at the issuer’s own register | 0.14 | 1 claimed certification found on the issuer’s own public register. Read the scope before reading the mark: most certify one narrow property. | 1 / 1 = 1.0000 | 0.1400 |
0.2500 — the last column added up — divided by 1.00, the weight this record could answer, is 0.2500. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 25.0 above.
See this product’s row in the full ranking, alongside the other 153 scored products, or read what each of the five components asks and how to check it .
What this label discloses
Everything in this table is what the product itself states — on the printed panel, on the brand’s own page, or in the label record the manufacturer filed. Nothing in it is checked yet; checking is the next section.
| Disclosure | As recorded |
|---|---|
| CFU as printed | 60 Billion CFU (Daily Probiotic Blend, 285 mg) |
| What that count is measured against | Label and site disagree |
| Strain designators | Some organisms coded |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 12 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
Label: "▲ 60 billion CFU at time of manufacture through best by date when stored properly. Best stored refrigerated." Website: "With no refrigeration required, this Probiotic blend of 60 Billion CFU is guaranteed through the expiration date, not the manufacturing date like most probiotic brands on the market.""
The panel’s own words on potency, verbatim.
The printed label and the brand’s own website state different potency bases. Both cannot be right.
Some organisms carry a printed strain designator and some are named by species only.
| Organism as printed | Designator as printed | Quantity as printed | What the designator resolves to | The query we ran |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lactobacillus plantarum (correct name: Lactiplantibacillus plantarum) | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus fermentum (correct name: Limosilactobacillus fermentum) | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (correct name: Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus) | GG | — not stated separately | Human RCT | "Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG" AND randomized controlled trial[pt] |
| Lactobacillus casei (correct name: Lacticaseibacillus casei) | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus paracasei (correct name: Lacticaseibacillus paracasei) | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium bifidum | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium breve | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium longum subsp. longum | — none printed | — not stated separately | No designator printed | — |
What of that is verifiable
A disclosure is verifiable when a reader can open a record that neither we nor the brand controls and see the same thing. Below is every dated artefact this page rests on. What is absent from this list is not verified, however reasonable it sounds.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 326252 (opens in a new tab) captured Brand Sports Research, Daily Probiotics, entered 2025-03-25, on-market, UPC 0 23249 09009 0. Contains the full 285 mg / 60 billion CFU blend, all twelve organisms, the 60 mg Fiber Inulin Blend, the ▲ storage footnote verbatim and the Canada manufacturing statement. The teardown reported this record as non-existent; the audit found it under the exact UPC the teardown said returned nothing.
- Photograph of the printed panel — sr_web_render_fg355a_daily_probiotics_righthttps://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/sr_web_render_fg355a_daily_probiotics_right_medium_32987d14-daba-42cf-b53b-07884e9ac4ce.png — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured The brand's own right-panel render at 1600x1600: the twelve organisms in printed order, the Fiber Inulin Blend, other ingredients and the Canada statement.
- Photograph of the printed panel — sr_web_render_fg355a_daily_probiotics_lefthttps://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/sr_web_render_fg355a_daily_probiotics_left_medium_5bdc84b4-a7b4-44c3-b2f7-13c80ee2a602.png — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured The left panel: suggested use, the QUALITY MATTERS block with the Non-GMO Project butterfly and vegan.org seals, the FDA disclaimer, UPC 0 23249 09009 0, lot L1084-V3-0126, formula code FG355A, and the ▲ footnote.
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
$0.83 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $24.95 USD
- What that buys
- 30-capsule bottle (30 servings, 1 delayed-release capsule per serving)
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://www.sportsresearch.com/products/daily-probiotics — 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 | Confirmed at issuer | 30 July 2026 |
| Certified Vegan (vegan.org) | Brand-asserted, unverified | 30 July 2026 |
| "Third Party Tested" | Brand-asserted, unverified | 30 July 2026 |
| cGMP Compliant | Not checked | not checked |
Non-GMO Project Verified
Found on the certifier’s own public register.
Verified at the issuer's own open API: brand id 9714 with 91 verified products, including product 2-25768-3023, "Daily Probiotics Delayed Release 60 Billion CFU", with verification type NonGMO and status Verified. One discrepancy worth carrying: the NIH label record for this SKU transcribes the same-generation seal as "IGEN Non-GMO Tested", while the label render shows the Non-GMO Project butterfly. And on the brand's own website the claim is rendered in a bullet list as "Non-GMO Tested" — a materially weaker, uncertified self-claim. The certification is real; the brand's own copy downgrades it.
Certified Vegan (vegan.org)
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
The register page returns HTTP 200 but is a faceted search that returns 403 to automated queries, so the listing could not be checked. Brand-asserted.
"Third Party Tested"
The badge is displayed, but the register could not be reached to confirm it. We call this unverified, not false.
Printed as a checkbox on the label and as "Third Party Tested Certified" on the page. No certifier is named anywhere — no lab, no programme, no certificate number — so there is nothing that can be checked. An unattributed third-party-tested claim is unfalsifiable by construction.
cGMP Compliant
We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.
Self-attestation of a baseline regulatory requirement under 21 CFR Part 111, not a certification.
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 Sports Research Women's Probiotics. Diffed .
What the two panels differ by
- The women's blend is 298 mg / 65 billion CFU across 16 organisms; this one is 285 mg / 60 billion across 12. Brand label renders FG355A versus FG373
- The women's panel carries two designators — L. rhamnosus GG and L. plantarum WCFS 1® — and this one carries one. Brand label renders FG355A versus FG373
- The women's product adds Cranberry Powder (fruit) (37:1) 60 mg. This one has no botanical add-on. Its Fiber Inulin Blend does contain organic apple fibre pomace, which the women's does not. Brand label renders FG355A versus FG373
- Organisms unique to the women's SKU: L. gasseri, L. jensenii, L. reuteri, L. salivarius and L. plantarum WCFS1 — the vaginal-microbiome set. Brand label renders FG355A versus FG373
What is identical across the pair
- Identical price at $24.95, identical 30 capsules at one a day, identical $0.83 a day.
- Both manufactured in Canada. Both 60 mg Fiber Inulin Blends.
Every finding on this page, with the record behind it
Finding 1 label-and-website-contradict-on-refrigeration
The label's ▲ footnote ends "Best stored refrigerated." The product page leads with "With no refrigeration required". This is flatly binary, and it matters more than it looks: storage is precisely the variable that determines whether a through-expiry CFU claim survives contact with a customer's kitchen cupboard.
The record: Brand label render FG355A versus sportsresearch.com product page, both verified 2026-07-30 — open ithttps://www.sportsresearch.com/products/daily-probiotics — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
Finding 2 label-and-website-contradict-on-cfu-basis
The label leads with "at time of manufacture" — "60 billion CFU at time of manufacture through best by date when stored properly" — which is genuinely ambiguous and can be read either way. The website is not ambiguous at all: "guaranteed through the expiration date, not the manufacturing date like most probiotic brands on the market". That is a comparative superiority claim against competitors, built on a basis the brand's own label states differently. Both quotations should be shown side by side rather than one being picked.
The record: Brand label render FG355A versus sportsresearch.com product page, both verified 2026-07-30
Finding 3 eleven-of-twelve-organisms-species-only
Only L. rhamnosus GG carries a designator. The other eleven are species or subspecies only, so none can be matched to a published trial — and because the blend has no per-strain split, even GG cannot be tied to a trial dose.
The record: Brand label render FG355A, read directly at 1600x1600
Finding 4 third-party-tested-with-no-certifier
Printed on the label as a checkbox and on the page as "Third Party Tested Certified", with no lab, no programme and no certificate number anywhere. Unfalsifiable by construction.
The record: Brand label render FG355A and product page, both verified 2026-07-30
Finding 5 certification-downgraded-between-label-and-site
The label displays the Non-GMO Project Verified butterfly — a formal certification, and one this site confirmed at the issuer. A website bullet list renders the same claim as "Non-GMO Tested", a materially weaker uncertified self-claim. The two are not interchangeable, and the downgrade runs in the wrong direction.
The record: Brand label render FG355A versus sportsresearch.com bullet list, both verified 2026-07-30
Finding 6 sixty-billion-as-a-headline-number
Quantity is not efficacy. Sixty billion CFU of mostly undesignated organisms is not demonstrably better than fifteen billion of two well-characterised ones — the field's own consensus body says a greater number of colony-forming units does not always equate with enhanced effects.
The record: ISAPP consumer infographic "Probiotics: Dispelling Myths", quoted verbatim
Finding 7 misspelling-on-the-panel
"Mallus pumila" should be Malus pumila (apple).
The record: Brand label render FG355A, read directly at 1600x1600
Finding 8 not-a-mens-product
This is the brand's ungendered default. Sports Research does build gendered products — it runs /collections/men and /collections/women — and it chose not to build a men's probiotic. At the identical $24.95 the women's SKU delivers more CFU, more organisms, one more designated strain and a botanical add-on.
The record: sportsresearch.com sitemap, 543 entries with exactly three probiotic products, fetched 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.
- Certified Vegan (vegan.org) status
- The register page returns HTTP 200 but is a faceted search that returns 403 to automated queries, so the listing could not be checked. Brand-asserted.
- "Third Party Tested" status
- Printed as a checkbox on the label and as "Third Party Tested Certified" on the page. No certifier is named anywhere — no lab, no programme, no certificate number — so there is nothing that can be checked. An unattributed third-party-tested claim is unfalsifiable by construction.
- cGMP Compliant status
- Self-attestation of a baseline regulatory requirement under 21 CFR Part 111, not a certification.
- The Certified Vegan listing
- vegan.org's product search returns 403 to automated queries.
- Who does the "Third Party Tested" testing
- No certifier, laboratory or programme is named anywhere on the label or the page.
- The per-strain CFU split
- Not disclosed. Twelve organisms share one 285 mg / 60 billion line, so the single designated strain cannot be tied to any trial dose.
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.
Two sentences, from the same company, about the same bottle.
On the label, in the ▲ footnote: “60 billion CFU at time of manufacture through best by date when stored properly. Best stored refrigerated.”
On the product page: “With no refrigeration required, this Probiotic blend of 60 Billion CFU is guaranteed through the expiration date, not the manufacturing date like most probiotic brands on the market.”
The refrigeration half is flatly binary — one of these is wrong. And it is not a trivial detail, because storage is exactly the variable that decides whether a through-expiry potency claim survives a customer’s kitchen cupboard. The CFU half is subtler: the label’s phrasing genuinely reads both ways, while the website’s does not, and the website turns it into a competitive attack on other brands, which raises the stakes on getting it right.
Everything else about this label is better than average. The subspecies discipline is good — Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis, B. longum subsp. infantis and subsp. longum all correctly resolved, Bifidobacterium breve correctly spelled where a competitor in the same batch misspells it. But eleven of the twelve organisms are species-only, and the one that is not (L. rhamnosus GG) sits inside an undisclosed blend, so even it cannot be tied to a trial dose.
One correction on this page runs in the product’s favour, and it is the most important one. The original teardown reported that Sports Research holds no NIH label record and that its Non-GMO Project Verified claim could not be confirmed. Both were wrong. DSLD 326252 exists, under the exact UPC the teardown said returned nothing, and it carries the whole panel. And the Non-GMO Project verification checks out at the certifier’s own open API — brand id 9714, product 2-25768-3023, status Verified. Publishing an implication that a certification mark is unbacked, when the certifier’s own register backs it, would have been the single most damaging sentence in this research. It is not published.
What survives on the certification side is smaller and still true: “Third Party Tested” appears on the label and the page with no certifier named anywhere, and the brand’s own website bullet list renders its real Non-GMO Project certification as the weaker phrase “Non-GMO Tested”.