Published research exists for ingredients in this formula — see Related research below. Whether this product’s doses match those studies could not be confirmed.

THORNE - Daily Greens Plus - Comprehensive Greens Powder with…
Marketing check: 2 remain partly or independently unverified.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 24, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
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 independently1
No named laboratory or lot-specific certificate was found for this exact product. No exact brand product page was available for a document check. Under NSF/ANSI 173, NSF lists Thorne® products, including Thorne® L-Glutamine Powder, but not this exact SKU. 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.
What is worth knowing.
Headlines first. Open evidence only when you want the source trail.
Panel carries documented template or translation artifacts
Template, translation, or duplicate-row artifacts are reasons to trust the printed numbers less until the brand supplies a clean, product-specific panel.
Evidence and sources
The panel carries these quoted observations: “Calories has no unit”. US-market labels are produced under cGMP controls; these are template or translation artifacts worth checking, not proof that the label is fabricated or that the product is unsafe.
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingThe barcode identity checks out · 693749014225.
The outside identifier points to this product, so the other checks are less likely to be about a look-alike.
Evidence and sources
Open Food Facts resolves 693749014225 to "Thorne Daily Greens" (Thorne) — consistent with this listing.
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingWhat remains open 2
- No identity-bound public label filing is retained in this record.
- No dated review-history series is on file yet.
These are evidence gaps, not strikes against the product.
Dose and research context
Ingredient context used alongside the captured panel. These sources do not test this product or establish safety or effectiveness.
Price check for this exact product
Amazon
Exact UPC/GTIN match$2.40 per labeled serving
matching UPC/GTIN · observed 2026-07-24T07:26:40.124145+00:00
View on Amazon ↗iHerb
Not confirmedSearch results remain unbound until this retailer publishes the matching UPC/GTIN.
Search iHerb ↗Target
Not confirmedSearch results remain unbound until this retailer publishes the matching UPC/GTIN.
Search Target ↗Walmart
Not confirmedSearch 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.
No official brand storefront is confirmed in this record. That is neutral, but it prevents a direct brand-price, label, review, and document check.
Reference prices only · no affiliate links · every compared seller must publish the matching UPC/GTIN.
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 out01
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
Barcode confirmed in an outside database
Open Food Facts resolves 693749014225 to "Thorne Daily Greens" (Thorne) — consistent with this listing.
Documented concerns
What needs caution01
These are documented contradictions or claims that need more evidence. They are separate from missing data.
Panel carries documented template or translation artifacts
The panel carries these quoted observations: “Calories has no unit”. US-market labels are produced under cGMP controls; these are template or translation artifacts worth checking, not proof that the label is fabricated or that the product is unsafe.
Unresolved public record
What is still missing07
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 is retained, so the claim cannot be verified as stated. Under NSF/ANSI 173, NSF lists Thorne® products, including Thorne® L-Glutamine Powder, but the retained registry result does not cover this exact SKU. IFOS, USP, and Informed-Sport were not checked in this record.
Listed amounts fit the serving
Technical check only: the panel’s 28 actives sum to 6,070 mg, which fits inside the ≈6,900 mg serving. This means the numbers are physically possible — it does not mean the formula was validated or the contents confirmed.
Photo-read pack math is internally consistent
30 servings × 6.9 g = 207 g, matching the printed net weight 207 g (NET WT 7.3 OZ (207 G)). This checks agreement within the photo read; it is not an independent contents test.
Research context is available for the listed ingredients
Published sources describe how ashwagandha, prebiotic fiber, zinc have been studied. This is ingredient context only; the record does not establish that this product delivers the studied dose or outcome. Sources: NIH NCCIH — Ashwagandha, PubMed search: ashwagandha randomized trial.
Certified by NSF — contents and contaminants checked
Thorne® appears in NSF’s certified-products registry with 10 certified product(s), but we couldn’t confirm this exact listing is among them. Closest listed product: “Thorne® Daily Greens Plus”. Certification covers contents and contaminants — not effectiveness.
Public label filing not retained
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.
What to ask and check
What would settle the open questions
Why is this shown?
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 693749014225.
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.
Look the product up yourself in NSF’s certified-products registry.
Search “Thorne®” at info.nsf.org — certification covers contents and contaminants, not effectiveness.
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.