LookCloser record · 324208698648 · methodology v0.1
This product can't be verified from public data Neither good nor bad — the checks below show what this listing publishes and what it withholds. Verifiable products publish more. Evidence availability only; this does not establish safety or effectiveness.
3 of 6 public trust signals found · 1 product-specific concern
This product is noted for having a discrepancy between the listed Vitamin C amount and what's shown on the Supplement Facts panel. The panel indicates 250 mg of Vitamin C per serving, while the listing claims 180 mg. This product was not found in the NIH's Dietary Supplement Label Database, and there are no FDA recall records for this brand. You can verify the ingredients by comparing the Supplement Facts panel in the product photos to the bottle you have.
Confirmed evidence
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
Nothing in this listing contradicts how these ingredients were studied (magnesium, zinc, multivitamin / greens blend). For example, magnesium: daily oral use; chelated forms (glycinate) are studied for absorption — note labels may state compound mass rather than elemental magnesium, which differs ~7-fold. Sources: NIH ODS — Magnesium fact sheet, PubMed search: magnesium glycinate supplementation.
The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.
UPCitemdb resolves 324208698648 to "PreserVision AREDS 2 + Multivitamin 2-in-1 Eye Vitamin Contains Vitamin C D " (PreserVision) — consistent with this listing.
Documented concerns
These are documented contradictions or claims that need more evidence. They are separate from missing data.
The listing claims 180 mg, but the photo-read Supplement Facts panel shows Zinc at 40 mg per serving — a discrepancy to explain, not proof of fraud.
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. Authenticity not analysed: burst, purge and stockout patterns need price/review history.
label states 180 mg/serving — about 450% of the adult daily reference (adult RDA 8–11 mg; NIH sets 40 mg/day as the tolerable upper limit for adults). A single serving isn’t meant to supply a full day, so this is context, not a shortfall. Caveat: chelate and gluconate labels may state compound mass rather than elemental zinc. Sources: NIH ODS — Zinc fact sheet, PubMed search: zinc supplementation trial.
The NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database has no matching label yet. Ingestion lags the market — recorded as a gap, not a strike.
What to ask and check
Ask the brand or seller
Which specific study supports this claim — and was it run on this exact formula?
Ask for the citation, how many people took part, the dose used, and whether the study tested this product or just one ingredient in it. Ingredient research is not product evidence.
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.
Were the endorsing professionals compensated, and what exactly did they review?
An endorsement can be genuine and still not mean the product was tested. Ask whether they reviewed the formula, the manufacturing, or only the marketing.
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 324208698648.
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.
The full report is free no signup · no paywall
Every check, claim, label read, dose comparison, registry search, source, and date. Free to read, download, and share.
Want to know if this changes?
Supplements are repeat purchases. Formulas get reformulated, lots get recalled, brands finally publish the lab report they were asked for. We can watch this record and email you only if something changes.
Your address is used for this one purpose. No newsletter, no marketing, no third parties, no tracking pixels — and every email carries a one-click unsubscribe that needs no login. We store the address, the record, and the date. Nothing else.
Record built July 21, 2026. Sources: source listing (live fetch) · brand's own storefront · published independent assays (NOW Foods 2024, SuppCo 2025; brand-level) · PubMed · openFDA · Open Food Facts · NIH DSLD · LookCloser ingredient KB. Evidence-tiered statements of documented fact; conclusions belong to the reader. Beta: this report isn’t yet independently archived — treat it as a well-sourced starting point, not a certificate. Evidence-based corrections welcome.