Checked against public sources between July 21 and August 31, 2026 · LookCloser does not sell or recommend supplements.
Does the marketing hold up?
Testing claimed — documentation not found. The observed listing claims third-party testing without naming a lab or certifier. No product-bound report is saved, so the claim cannot be verified as stated. …
“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 | 35 |
|---|---|
| Protein | 9 g |
| Sodium | 20 mg |
| Hydrolyzed Fish Collagen | 10 g |
Printed on the package: 100% Natu · Gluten Fre · Fat Fre · Non GMO · 100% · Gluteefre · 100% Grass-Fed · Gluten Free
We read 4 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.
Published research exists for ingredients in this formula. Whether this product’s doses match those studies could not be confirmed.
Ingredient research can support context, but it is not a trial of this exact product.
No named laboratory or lot-specific certificate was found for this exact product. The exact brand page names no testing issuer and links no product-bound report. 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.
Headlines first. Open evidence only when you want the source trail.
Every ingredient shows its real amount — nothing is hidden in a proprietary blend.
The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingThe barcode matches, so we are checking the right product rather than a look-alike.
The brand's store lists this exact barcode as “Premium Marine Collagen Powder 17.6 Oz” (variant: Default Title) — identity confirmed across retailer listings.
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingThese are evidence gaps, not strikes against the product.
Filed address
774 Mays Blvd. #10-427, Incline Village, Nevada 89451, 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.
Not a score. Studies disagree with each other and change over time, so this sits beside the evidence rather than counting toward it — it is here so you can read the sources yourself.
The panel lists 10 g of collagen peptides per serving. Studies we found used 2.5 g–15 g a day, so this sits inside that range.
Study ranges differ between trials and change as research changes. This is background reading, not a pass, a failure, or a recommendation.
$0.96 per labeled serving
matching UPC/GTIN · checked Jul 21, 2026
View on Brand website ↗$0.96 per labeled serving
matching UPC/GTIN · checked Sep 1, 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 ↗Same UPC/GTIN observed across 2 sellers at the same price at check time.
Reference prices only · no affiliate links · every compared seller must publish the matching UPC/GTIN.
The exact brand page is lower by 0.04 points. The brand page publishes 1,897; the retailer surface shows 4,967. Different systems can collect different review pools, so this is a signal to inspect, not proof that reviews were manipulated.
The brand page did not expose a complete star-by-star breakdown in the captured structured data, so LookCloser cannot test whether lower-star reviews were omitted. Source: exact barcode-bound brand product page · retailer surface · counts do not prove authenticity.
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.