Marketing check: 1 remains partly or independently unverified.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 24, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
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.
No named laboratory or lot-specific certificate was found for this exact product. No exact brand product page was available for a document check. NSF, 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.
Headlines first. Open evidence only when you want the source trail.
These are evidence gaps, not strikes against the product.
Ingredient context used alongside the captured panel. These sources do not test this product or establish safety or effectiveness.
The panel declares 1,375 mg EPA + DHA per serving, within one studied 300–1800 mg/day context. The fish-oil concentrate total is not substituted for EPA + DHA.
$0.72 per labeled serving
matching UPC/GTIN · observed 2026-07-24T06:26:59.556266+00:00
View on Amazon ↗Search results remain unbound until this retailer publishes the matching UPC/GTIN.
Search iHerb ↗Search results remain unbound until this retailer publishes the matching UPC/GTIN.
Search Target ↗Search results remain unbound until this retailer publishes the matching UPC/GTIN.
Search Walmart ↗Only one exact price was available at build time; prices change by date, seller, and promotion.
Reference prices only · no affiliate links · every compared seller must publish the matching UPC/GTIN.
The full report shows every source, the exact unresolved question, and the documentation that would settle it.
Confirmed evidence
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
The panel declares 1,375 mg EPA + DHA per serving (4 Capsules). One randomized dose-response trial used 300–1,800 mg/day; omega-3 studies vary widely. This is research context, not a recommendation or safety verdict.
Documented concerns
These are documented contradictions or claims that need more evidence. They are separate from missing data.
No contradictions or product-specific cautions were found at this check depth.
Unresolved public record
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
Marketplace rating not shown★ — rating count unavailable. No exact-listing count history was available, so no review-pattern claim is made.
The observed listing claims third-party testing without naming a lab or certifier. No product-bound report is retained, so the claim cannot be verified as stated. NSF, IFOS, USP, and Informed-Sport were not checked in this record.
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.
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.
This record does not currently hold an identity-bound public label filing for the exact product. That is a LookCloser coverage gap, not evidence that no filing exists.
Check digit passes; no third-party database record found yet. Coverage gaps are common — not a strike.
What to ask and check
Ask the brand or seller
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.
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.
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
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.
Scan the barcode on the package and confirm it reads 094922277503.
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.
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 24, 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.