Barcode confirmed in an outside database
Open Food Facts resolves 860012100644 to "Energy Honey" (HNY+) — consistent with this listing.
The useful read · HNY+
HNY+ Buzz Organic Honey Energy Gel with Electrolytes
An outside barcode record corroborates UPC 860012100644.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 22, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
What this means for you · The useful read
What the public record can establish
Open Food Facts resolves 860012100644 to "Energy Honey" (HNY+) — consistent with this listing.
Panel, decoded
The 50 mg caffeine claim matches the panel
MARKETING50 mg — listing title
PANELCAFFEINE 50 mg — same amountELECTROLYTES 250 mg + Electrolytes 220 mg
matches panelWe did the comparison: the listing claims 50 mg of caffeine, and the listing-image panel shows 50 mg caffeine 0.78oz (22g). Those amounts agree. This is internal consistency, not independent lab testing.
| Panel row | Amount | %DV | What to notice |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAFFEINE | +50mg | — | |
| ELECTROLYTES | 250mg | — | |
| Caffeine | 50mg | — | |
| Electrolytes | 220mg | — |
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.
Dose vs research
0.05 g declared
The panel declares 0.05 g per serving, in the 200–420 mg/day context cited in the research.
Comparison, not a safety verdict
Review history
–/ 5
not shownvisible ratings
Review counts rose gradually. Written-review counts rose from 25 to 85 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
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.
Want the complete evidence trail?
The summary stops at product-specific facts. The full report preserves every source, calculation, limitation, and unresolved check for review or sharing.
Open the full evidence trailSources, edge cases, and every unresolved check
Confirmed evidence
What checked out01
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
Confirmed
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 missing06
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
Listed amounts fit the serving
Technical check only: the panel’s 4 actives sum to 570 mg, which fits inside the ≈22,000 mg serving. This means the numbers are physically possible — it does not mean the formula was validated or the contents confirmed.
Photo-read pack math is internally consistent
12 servings × 22 g = 264 g, matching the printed net weight 264 g (NET WT. 9.36oz (264g)). This checks agreement within the photo read; it is not an independent contents test.
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.
No recall found — which is not the same as being tested
This means only that no enforcement record matched the brand name — it does not mean the product was tested, reviewed, or cleared by FDA. New and untested products also have no recall records.
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 25 on 2026-02-03 to 85 on 2026-07-17 (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 860012100644.
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 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.