Barcode confirmed in an outside database
Open Food Facts resolves 810014673165 to "Chromium Picolinate" (Nutricost) — consistent with this listing.
The useful read · Nutricost
Nutricost Chromium (1000mcg) 240 Tablets - Gluten Free
An outside barcode record corroborates UPC 810014673165.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 22, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
What this means for you · The useful read
What the public record can establish
Open Food Facts resolves 810014673165 to "Chromium Picolinate" (Nutricost) — consistent with this listing.
Panel, decoded
The 1 mg chromium (from chromium picolinate) claim matches the panel
MARKETING1 mg — per-serving claim
PANELChromium (from chromium picolinate) 1 mg — same amount
matches panelWe did the comparison: the listing claims 1 mg of chromium (from chromium picolinate), and the listing-image panel shows 1 mg chromium (from chromium picolinate) 1 tablet. Those amounts agree. This is internal consistency, not independent lab testing.
| Panel row | Amount | %DV | What to notice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chromium (from chromium picolinate) | 1,000mcg | — |
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.
Review history
–/ 5
not shownvisible ratings
Review counts rose gradually. Written-review counts rose from 179 to 193 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?
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.
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.
Confirmed
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.
“Lab tested” claimed, but no lab or report named
The listing claims third-party testing without naming any lab or certifier, so the claim can't be verified as stated.
Listing claim matches the label panel
The listing claims 1 mg; the photo-read Supplement Facts panel shows Chromium (from chromium picolinate) at 1 mg per serving — the listing text and its photo-read panel agree; this is internal consistency, not independent testing.
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 179 on 2026-02-05 to 193 on 2026-07-17 (net +14). 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 810014673165.
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.