The dose claim fits the serving — physically possible
Claimed melatonin 60.0 mg is 0% of the ≈60,000 mg serving (serving size printed on the packaging (photo-read from listing images)) — within physical limits.
LookCloser record · 810078473053 · methodology v0.1
Vitamatic Sugar Free Melatonin 60 mg Per Serving
Result
MODERATE public verifiability
Caution — unverified claims Melatonin dose is above the studied range. Evidence availability only; this does not establish safety or effectiveness.
3 of 6 public trust signals found · 1 product-specific concern · $0.94 per serving
The short read
This product has 60 mg of melatonin per serving, which is higher than the typical amount used in sleep studies. While the supplement lists the ingredients and their amounts, the exact number of servings per container isn't available to confirm the dosage. You can verify the ingredient list by comparing the bottle's Supplement Facts panel to the information provided here.
Why this result?
We ran this product through public-record checks — label math, barcode registries, FDA recall lists, published lab tests. This banner sums up what those checks could and couldn’t confirm. Green means nothing public contradicted the label — not proof it works or is safe. Gray means the data to check simply isn’t public: a gap, not a verdict. We show the evidence; the conclusion is yours.
Confirmed evidence
What checked out04
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
Confirmed
Taken the way the research studied it
Nothing in this listing contradicts how these ingredients were studied (magnesium, melatonin). 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.
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.
Barcode confirmed in an outside database
Open Food Facts resolves 810078473053 to "Melatonin 60 MG" (Vitamatic) — 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.
Dose is higher than studies used
label claims 60 mg/serving — above the range commonly used in research (sleep trials commonly use 0.5–5 mg; higher doses are not shown to work better and gummy products have repeatedly been found to differ from their labels). Sources: NIH NCCIH — Melatonin, PubMed search: melatonin dose sleep onset.
Unresolved public record
What is still missing03
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
Cost to reach a studied dose
At 3.3 serving(s) a day to reach the low end of the studied range (200–420 mg), this product runs roughly $94 per month. A price observation, not a recommendation.
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.
180-day review-count history is on file
Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 293 on 2026-02-03 to 353 on 2026-07-19 (net +60). 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
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 810078473053.
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.
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.