LookCloser record · 810014673219 · 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.
4 of 6 public trust signals found · 1 product-specific concern · $0.65 per serving
The UPC on this bottle of Nutricost Ashwagandha Gummies matches what we found independently. The product highlights that it's made with Ashwagandha Extract, but it does not specify the exact amount per serving from public data. To verify more, you can check if the "Supplement Facts" panel on your bottle details the total extract amount.
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, ashwagandha). 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.
Open Food Facts resolves 810014673219 to "Ashwagandha Gummies" (nutricost) — consistent with this listing.
Documented concerns
These are documented contradictions or claims that need more evidence. They are separate from missing data.
label claims 40 mg/serving — below the range commonly used in research (trials mostly use 250–600 mg/day of root extract). A lower dose is not necessarily useless — but it is not the amount the research used. Sources: NIH NCCIH — Ashwagandha, PubMed search: ashwagandha randomized trial.
Unresolved public record
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
What this means: the listing doesn't publish net weight, dose claim, so the dose claim can't be checked against physics from public data. That's neither a pass nor a strike — but it does mean you're taking the label on faith. Checkable products publish these numbers.
Marketplace rating 4.3★ across 385 ratings. Authenticity not analysed: burst, purge and stockout patterns need price/review history.
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
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.
Why is the ashwagandha amount below the dose used in published research?
There can be good answers — a more bioavailable form, a different intended use. Ask for the reasoning and any data behind 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 810014673219.
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.