Specific fact confirmed
Testing claim names a recognized certifier
A named certifier/laboratory appears in the listing (registry cross-check pending).
What checks out · Nutricost
Nutricost Glycine Powder 1lb - Non-GMO, Gluten Free
The panel publishes 1 amounts, led by Glycine (Free-Form) 3 g.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 22, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
What this means for you · What checks out
What the record confirms
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
Exact trademark owner identified
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
UPC independently corroborated
Open Food Facts resolves 810014672823 to "Glycine Powder" (Nutricost) — consistent with this listing.
Panel, decoded
What the label discloses
1declared rows
1separately quantified
0combined blend totals
The listing-image panel publishes an amount for each of its 1 declared row. That supports ingredient-by-ingredient review; it does not verify the contents.
| Panel row | Amount | %DV | What to notice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Glycine (Free-Form) | 3 g | — |
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.
Public ownership record
🇺🇸
eSupplements, LLCLimited Liability Company · exact mark owner for NUTRICOST
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 history
–/ 5
not shownvisible ratings
Review counts rose gradually. Written-review counts rose from 150 to 233 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
What would settle the biggest open question?
Do the labeled amounts reconcile with the stated serving and container? Evidence that would settle it: identity-bound Supplement Facts panel.
Open the full evidence trailSources, edge cases, and every unresolved check
Confirmed evidence
What checked out04
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
Testing claim names a recognized certifier
A named certifier/laboratory appears in the listing (registry cross-check pending).
Every ingredient amount is disclosed
The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.
Exact trademark owner identified
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.
Barcode confirmed in an outside database
Open Food Facts resolves 810014672823 to "Glycine Powder" (Nutricost) — consistent with this listing.
Documented concerns
What needs caution00
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
What is still missing05
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
The listing doesn't publish enough to check the math
The retained listing evidence does not establish net weight, unit count, 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.
Photo-read pack math is internally consistent
151 servings × 3 g = 453 g, matching the printed net weight 454 g (NET WT. 16.2 OZ (1 LB) (454 G)). This checks agreement within the photo read; it is not an independent contents test.
No label filed with NIH's public catalog
The NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database has no matching label yet. Ingestion lags the market — recorded as a gap, not a strike.
This item belongs to a catalog variation family
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.
180-day review-count history is on file
Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 150 on 2026-01-25 to 233 on 2026-07-10 (net +83). 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
What would settle the open questions
Why is this shown?
Everything we couldn’t verify is something a person can still ask about. Rather than leave gaps sitting as dead ends, we turn each one into a specific question — the exact document, citation, or number that would settle it — plus the things you can confirm yourself with the bottle in your hand.
Ask the brand or seller
1
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.
2
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
1
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.
2
Scan the barcode on the package and confirm it reads 810014672823.
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.
3
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.