The panel publishes 1 amounts, led by GABA (Gamma Aminobutyric Acid) 750 mg.
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 eSupplements, LLC (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY) in UTAH, 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…
Specific fact confirmed
UPCitemdb resolves 810014672786 to "Nutricost GABA (Gamma Aminobutyric Acid) 750mg 240 Capsules - Non-GMO Gluten F" (Nutricost) — consistent with this listing.
We did the comparison: the listing claims 750 mg of gaba (gamma aminobutyric acid), and the listing-image panel shows 750 mg gaba (gamma aminobutyric acid) 1 capsule. Those amounts agree. This is internal consistency, not independent lab testing.
| Panel row | Amount | %DV | What to notice |
|---|---|---|---|
| GABA (Gamma Aminobutyric Acid) | 750 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; any remaining comparison concerns the front-label framing.
vision:google/gemini-flash-1.5 Amounts are shown as declared panel data, not independently lab-tested contents.
UTAH, USA) DBA Nutricost; 351 E 1750 N, VINEYARD, UTAH 84059, UNITED STATES
Filed address
UTAH, USA) DBA Nutricost; 351 E 1750 N, VINEYARD, UTAH 84059, 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 152 to 180 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
Can the testing claim be tied to a named laboratory and this product lot? Evidence that would settle it: lot-specific COA naming the laboratory and matching the product lot.
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 eSupplements, LLC (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY) in UTAH, 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.
UPCitemdb resolves 810014672786 to "Nutricost GABA (Gamma Aminobutyric Acid) 750mg 240 Capsules - Non-GMO Gluten F" (Nutricost) — consistent with this listing.
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 listing claims third-party testing without naming any lab or certifier, so the claim can't be verified as stated.
The listing claims 750 mg; the photo-read Supplement Facts panel shows GABA (Gamma Aminobutyric Acid) at 750 mg per serving — the listing text and its photo-read panel agree; this is internal consistency, not independent testing.
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 152 on 2026-01-25 to 180 on 2026-07-15 (net +28). Count movements can reflect sales, listing variants, collection resets, or moderation; this history does not establish whether reviews are authentic.
What to ask and check
Ask the brand or seller
Answered by the panel: 0.75 g of the 0.75 g headline is gaba. Which independent lab can confirm that amount in this product?
The panel resolves the front-label arithmetic. The remaining question is lot-specific contents and stability; published category testing gives context, not a test of this product.
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 810014672786.
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.