The panel publishes 2 amounts, led by Organic Spirulina (Arthrospira platensis) 300 mg, Organic Chlorella (Chlorella vulgaris) 300 mg.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 22, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.
Specific fact confirmed
USPTO lists Purokraft Private Limited (['CORPORATION', 'CORPORATION']) in ['UNITED KINGDOM', 'DELAWARE, USA'] for the exact brand wordmark. This identifies the USPTO mark owner or applicant; it does not by itse…
We compared the listing claim (500 mg) with the panel row (300 mg organic spirulina (arthrospira platensis)). They do not match within the report tolerance; the source label or serving basis needs checking.
| Panel row | Amount | %DV | What to notice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organic Spirulina (Arthrospira platensis) | 300 mg | — | |
| Organic Chlorella (Chlorella vulgaris) | 300 mg | — |
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.
40 Bloomsbury Way, London, WC1A2SE, UNITED KINGDOM
Filed address
40 Bloomsbury Way, London, WC1A2SE, UNITED KINGDOM
This is the USPTO owner of the brand wordmark. It tells a shopper who is behind the brand, but does not by itself identify the manufacturer or prove where this product was made.
Review counts rose gradually. Written-review counts rose from 169 to 172 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
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.
Confirmed evidence
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.
USPTO lists Purokraft Private Limited (['CORPORATION', 'CORPORATION']) in ['UNITED KINGDOM', 'DELAWARE, USA'] for the exact brand wordmark. This identifies the USPTO mark owner or applicant; it does not by itself prove who manufactures or sells this product.
Documented concerns
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
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
The retained listing evidence does not establish net weight, unit count, per-serving dose, servings per container, so the dose claim cannot yet be checked against serving arithmetic. This is a neutral evidence gap, not a pass or strike.
The listing claims third-party testing without naming any lab or certifier, so the claim can't be verified as stated.
The NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database has no matching label yet. Ingestion lags the market — recorded as a gap, not a strike.
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.
Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 0 on 2026-03-31 to 172 on 2026-07-14 (net +172). Count movements can reflect sales, listing variants, collection resets, or moderation; this history does not establish whether reviews are authentic.
Check digit passes; no third-party database record found yet. Coverage gaps are common — 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.
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 860007304279.
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.
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.