Checked against public sources between July 23 and July 24, 2026 · LookCloser does not sell or recommend supplements.
Does the marketing hold up?
Package and trademark records name different responsible entities. The package says distributed by: Santa Cruz Paleo Inc., Del Mar, CA 92014. USPTO names Santa Cruz Paleo Incorporated as the exact wordmark owner. That can be a normal distributor, manufacturer, or licensing…
“Couldn’t verify” means we looked and found no public proof — not a mark against the product. Most supplement claims cannot be independently verified by anyone, so grey is the normal state of this industry.
| Calories | 0 |
|---|---|
| Total Fat | 0g |
| Sat. Fat | 0g |
| Trans Fat | 0g |
| Cholest. | 0mg |
| Sodium | 800mg |
| Total Carb | 2g |
| Total Sugar | 0g |
| Incl. 0g Added Sugars | 0g |
| Protein | 0g |
| Vit. D | 0mcg |
| Calcium | 40mg |
| Iron | 0mg |
| Potas. | 300mg |
| Mag. | 60mg |
Printed on the package: PALEO · KETO · SUGAR FREE · GLUTEN FREE · THIRD PARTY LAB TESTED · NON-GMO
We read 15 lines from the package photograph. It is our transcript of the label, not the manufacturer’s panel, and it may be incomplete.
The public sources did not settle the marketing promises on this label.
No named laboratory or lot-specific certificate was found for this exact product. No exact brand product page was available for a document check. NSF, IFOS, USP, and Informed-Sport were not checked in this record. This is a public-evidence limit, not a finding that testing did not occur.
We looked and found no public proof. That does not count against the product.
Superior Ingredients
Headlines first. Open evidence only when you want the source trail.
You are being sold on an ingredient the verified panel does not separately declare. The brand should explain the mismatch.
The listing presents 1 mg for potassium, but vision:google/gemini-2.5-flash does not contain a same-name quantified row. The saved image read may be incomplete, so this is a specific question to resolve rather than a contradiction.
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingA count that moves steadily is ordinary. A sudden burst is what deserves a closer look.
Written reviews rose from 42 to 96 between August 6, 2025 and August 17, 2026. The largest rise inside any single 30-day window was about 9, so the count moved in steps rather than in one burst.
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingThese are evidence gaps, not strikes against the product.
Filed address
922 Lundy Ln, Los Altos, CALIFORNIA 94024, UNITED STATES
USPTO identifies the public owner or applicant behind this brand wordmark. This does not by itself identify the product manufacturer or prove where the product was made. Open USPTO source ↗
We could not match an amount on this product to a studied range for the same ingredient, so these links are ingredient background rather than a measurement of this product.
$1.00 per labeled serving
matching UPC/GTIN · checked Aug 29, 2026
View on Amazon ↗We only show a price when the seller publishes the same barcode as the bottle. We haven’t found that match here.
Search iHerb ↗We only show a price when the seller publishes the same barcode as the bottle. We haven’t found that match here.
Search Target ↗We only show a price when the seller publishes the same barcode as the bottle. We haven’t found that match here.
Search Walmart ↗Only one exact price was available at build time; prices change by date, seller, and promotion.
Reference prices only · no affiliate links · every compared seller must publish the matching UPC/GTIN.
The full report shows every source, the exact unresolved question, and the documentation that would settle it.
Record built September 03, 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.