Advertised health or performance benefit
Evidence →Published research exists for ingredients in this formula — see Related research below. Whether this product’s doses match those studies could not be confirmed.
Exact product checked · GTIN 23249093008Sports Research · observed 2026-07-23
Quick read · Sports Research
Sports Research® Vegan Omega 3·6·7·9 Complex…
Marketing check: 3 remain partly or independently unverified.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 23, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
90softgels · 45 servings
Marketing claims, checked
Does the marketing hold up?
Couldn’t verify means public proof was not found; it is not a mark against the product. Ingredient research is not treated as a trial of this exact product.
◐Partly confirmed1
?Couldn’t verify independently2
US manufacturing or origin language
Evidence →“Made in USA” can describe only final bottling. Ingredient-sourcing records were not located for this product.
“Third-party tested”
Evidence →No named laboratory or lot-specific certificate was found for this exact product. No exact brand product page was available for a document check. IFOS, USP, and Informed-Sport were not checked in this record. This is a public-evidence limit, not a finding that testing did not occur.
Quick read · 1 useful finding
What is worth knowing.
Headlines first. Open evidence only when you want the source trail.
What remains open 2
- Not yet in NIH's public label registry.
- No dated review-history series is on file yet.
These are evidence gaps, not strikes against the product.
Research behind the findings
Dose and research context
Ingredient context used alongside the captured panel. These sources do not test this product or establish safety or effectiveness.
Want to inspect the evidence?
The full report shows every source, the exact unresolved question, and the documentation that would settle it.
Open the full evidence trailSources, edge cases, and every unresolved check
Confirmed evidence
What checked out00
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
Nothing could be independently confirmed from the available record.
Documented concerns
What needs caution01
These are documented contradictions or claims that need more evidence. They are separate from missing data.
Unresolved public record
What is still missing06
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
Review-count history: not available
Marketplace rating not shown★ — rating count unavailable. No exact-listing count history was available, so no review-pattern claim is made.
“Lab tested” claimed, but no lab or report named
The observed listing claims third-party testing without naming a lab or certifier. No product-bound report or matching NSF product entry is retained, so the claim cannot be verified as stated.
Multi-ingredient formula — panel read, serving weight unknown
We read the full Supplement Facts panel from the listing-image panel (below), but the label doesn’t state a serving weight, so the arithmetic can’t run. A gap in the label’s information, not evidence of a problem.
Research context is available for the listed ingredients
Published sources describe how omega-3 have been studied. This is ingredient context only; the record does not establish that this product delivers the studied dose or outcome. Sources: NIH ODS — Omega-3 Fatty Acids fact sheet, PubMed dose-response trial.
No label filed with NIH's public catalog
The NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database has no matching label yet. Ingestion lags the market — recorded as a gap, not a strike.
Barcode record is too sparse to confirm identity
Open Food Facts resolves 023249093008 to "Omega 3,6,7,9" (Sports Reasearch), but that record lacks enough exact brand/product detail to confirm or contradict this listing.
What to ask and check
What would settle the open questions
Why is this shown?
Everything we couldn’t verify is something a person can still ask about. Rather than leave gaps sitting as dead ends, we turn each one into a specific question — the exact document, citation, or number that would settle it — plus the things you can confirm yourself with the bottle in your hand.
Ask the brand or seller
1
Can you send the certificate of analysis (COA) for the lot number on my bottle?
A real COA names the testing laboratory, the test date, the lot it covers, and what was measured. “Third-party tested” with no document behind it is a marketing sentence.
2
Is this label filed with NIH’s Dietary Supplement Label Database (DSLD)?
Filing is voluntary, so absence proves nothing — but a filed label puts the full ingredient table on public record where anyone can read it.
3
Where are the ingredients sourced, and where is the product manufactured?
“Made in USA” can describe only the final bottling step. Ask which country the actives came from and whether the facility is audited.
4
What is the amount of each ingredient inside the proprietary blend?
A blend total tells you nothing about whether any single ingredient reaches a dose used in research. Brands may decline — that answer is informative too.
Most brands and sellers publish a contact route. A clear answer adds evidence to the record; no answer leaves the question open.
Check for yourself — no one’s permission needed
1
Compare the panel on the bottle in your hand to the one shown in this record.
Ours was read from listing photos and can contain reading errors. The physical label is the source of truth — if they disagree, tell us and we’ll correct the record.
2
Scan the barcode on the package and confirm it reads 023249093008.
A mismatch between the barcode on the box and the one on the listing is worth pausing over — it can indicate a different variant, a repack, or a counterfeit.
3
Check the lot number and expiry on the bottle against any COA you’re given.
A certificate that doesn’t name your lot doesn’t describe what you’re holding.
These are the open questions on this specific record — not a warning about the product, and not a suggestion to buy or avoid it. Getting them answered is how you decide for yourself.
Record built July 23, 2026. Sources: source listing observed at check time · USPTO Trademark Search · Keepa exact-listing history · NIH / published research · certification and regulator records where available. LookCloser publishes evidence and gaps; it does not advise for or against any supplement. Evidence-based corrections welcome.