The headline amount is not tied to a same-name panel row
You are being sold on an ingredient the verified panel does not separately declare. The brand should explain the mismatch.
Exact product checked · GTIN 850015616969Micro Ingredients · observed 2026-07-23
The useful read · Micro Ingredients
Micro Ingredients Electrolytes Powder, 2lbs (139 Servings)
The headline amount is not tied to a same-name panel row
Rebuilt from public sources on July 23, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
The pack says it is tested, but names no lab or certifier.
A testing badge without an issuer or report is a marketing claim, not evidence. Ask for the lab name and lot-specific report.
The barcode identity checks out · 850015616969.
The outside identifier points to this product, so the other checks are less likely to be about a look-alike.
Shopper scorecard
The useful findings, in decision order.
Only product facts and comparisons earn a card. Pipeline gaps stay collapsed.
Is the label honest?
Public contextListing claim vs Supplement Facts
The headline amount is not tied to a same-name panel row
The listing presents 1,000 mg for potassium, but vision:google/gemini-flash-1.5 does not contain a same-name quantified row. The retained image read may be incomplete, so this is a specific question to resolve rather than a contradiction.
Why it mattersYou are being sold on an ingredient the verified panel does not separately declare. The brand should explain the mismatch.
Open the source-linked findingWho is behind it?
Checks outBarcode / GTIN record
The barcode identity checks out · 850015616969.
Open Food Facts resolves 850015616969 to "Electrolyte Powder- Lemon & raspberry Flavor" (Microingredients) — consistent with this listing.
Why it mattersThe outside identifier points to this product, so the other checks are less likely to be about a look-alike.
Open the source-linked findingAny trouble on the record?
Needs explanationCertification / laboratory record
The pack says it is tested, but names no lab or certifier.
The listing claims third-party testing without naming any lab or certifier, so the claim can't be verified as stated.
Why it mattersA testing badge without an issuer or report is a marketing claim, not evidence. Ask for the lab name and lot-specific report.
Open the source-linked findingWill it do what you want?
Public contextNIH / published research
Research links are available for magnesium.
Published sources describe how magnesium have been studied. This is ingredient context only; the record does not establish that this product delivers the studied dose or outcome. Sources: NIH ODS — Magnesium fact sheet, PubMed search: magnesium glycinate supplementation.
Why it mattersUse the linked research to check whether the ingredient and outcome you care about are actually connected. Ingredient evidence does not verify this product.
Open the source-linked findingWhat remains open 1
- Not yet in NIH's public label registry.
These are evidence gaps, not strikes against the product.
Relevant research · quick links
Read the ingredient evidence directly
These links provide the public research context used alongside the captured panel. They do not establish safety, effectiveness, or product quality.
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 out02
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
The dose claim fits the serving — physically possible
Claimed potassium 1,000.0 mg is 15% of the ≈6,500 mg serving (serving size on the label, keyed to UPC 850015616969) — within physical limits.
Barcode confirmed in an outside database
Open Food Facts resolves 850015616969 to "Electrolyte Powder- Lemon & raspberry Flavor" (Microingredients) — 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 missing07
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.
The headline amount is not tied to a same-name panel row
The listing presents 1,000 mg for potassium, but vision:google/gemini-flash-1.5 does not contain a same-name quantified row. The retained image read may be incomplete, so this is a specific question to resolve rather than a contradiction.
Photo-read pack math is internally consistent
139 servings × 6.5 g = 903.5 g, matching the printed net weight 907 g (2 lb (907 g)). This checks agreement within the photo read; it is not an independent contents test.
Research context is available for the listed ingredients
Published sources describe how magnesium have been studied. This is ingredient context only; the record does not establish that this product delivers the studied dose or outcome. Sources: NIH ODS — Magnesium fact sheet, PubMed search: magnesium glycinate supplementation.
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 567 on 2026-01-28 to 694 on 2026-07-22 (net +127). 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
Answered by the panel: the 1 g listing number equals Potas. 1 g + Chloride 15 mg. What lot-specific document confirms those declared amounts?
The panel resolves what the headline number includes. The remaining question is whether the product in hand matches those declared amounts; ask for a lot-specific certificate of analysis.
2
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.
3
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 850015616969.
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 23, 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.