The panel publishes 2 amounts, led by Organic Maca Root 1.5 g.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 22, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.
Specific fact confirmed
USPTO lists Estrella, Miguel (['INDIVIDUAL', 'CORPORATION']) in ['DOMINICAN REPUBLIC', 'FLORIDA, USA'] for the exact brand wordmark. This identifies the USPTO mark owner or applicant; it does not by itself prov…
The listing-image panel publishes an amount for each of its 2 declared rows. That supports ingredient-by-ingredient review; it does not verify the contents.
| Panel row | Amount | %DV | What to notice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organic Maca Root | 1500 mg | — | |
| Black Pepper Extract | 5 mg | — |
FDA rules (21 CFR 101.36) require the amount of each dietary ingredient per serving unless hidden in a declared “proprietary blend” (legal, but a transparency yellow flag). A label stating no amount at all is non-compliant — a checkable red flag. This panel states amounts; the open question is whether those declared amounts are independently verified and how they compare with relevant research.
vision:google/gemini-flash-1.5 Amounts are shown as declared panel data, not independently lab-tested contents.
9482 Madewood Ct, Royal Palm Beach, FLORIDA 33411, UNITED STATES
Filed address
9482 Madewood Ct, Royal Palm Beach, FLORIDA 33411, UNITED STATES
This is the USPTO owner of the brand wordmark. It tells a shopper who is behind the brand, but does not by itself identify the manufacturer or prove where this product was made.
Review counts rose gradually. Written-review counts rose from 1,156 to 1,160 across the observed period. That describes count movement, not review authenticity or product quality. A variation family may share some public counts.
Keepa exact-listing history · counts do not prove authenticity · variation family may share counts
These links provide the public research context used alongside the captured panel. They do not establish safety, effectiveness, or product quality.
Do the labeled amounts reconcile with the stated serving and container? Evidence that would settle it: identity-bound Supplement Facts panel.
Confirmed evidence
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.
USPTO lists Estrella, Miguel (['INDIVIDUAL', 'CORPORATION']) in ['DOMINICAN REPUBLIC', 'FLORIDA, USA'] for the exact brand wordmark. This identifies the USPTO mark owner or applicant; it does not by itself prove who manufactures or sells this product.
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.
The retained listing evidence does not establish net weight, per-serving dose, servings per container, so the dose claim cannot yet be checked against serving arithmetic. This is a neutral evidence gap, not a pass or strike.
Published sources describe how maca root have been studied. This is ingredient context only; the record does not establish that this product delivers the studied dose or outcome. Sources: PubMed search: Lepidium meyenii randomized trial, NIH NCCIH — Maca.
The NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database has no matching label yet. Ingestion lags the market — recorded as a gap, not a strike.
The paid catalog links this exact item to a parent listing. Review counts on public product pages may be shared across sizes, flavors, or other variants, so the count history is listing context — not evidence that reviewers received or tested this exact variant.
Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 1,156 on 2026-07-02 to 1,160 on 2026-07-16 (net +4). Count movements can reflect sales, listing variants, collection resets, or moderation; this history does not establish whether reviews are authentic.
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
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.
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.
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 198168381175.
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 22, 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.