Advertised health or performance benefit
Evidence →Published research exists for ingredients in this formula — see Related research below. Whether this product’s doses match those studies could not be confirmed.
Exact product checked · barcode not publishedTHORNE · observed 2026-07-21🇺🇸 USPTO wordmark owner · Thorne Research, Inc. · ['IDAHO, USA', 'SOUTH CAROLINA, USA']
Quick read · THORNE
THORNE - Zinc Picolinate 15 mg - Highly Absorbable Zinc…
Marketing check: 2 remain partly or independently unverified.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 23, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
60capsules
Marketing claims, checked
Does the marketing hold up?
Couldn’t verify means public proof was not found; it is not a mark against the product. Ingredient research is not treated as a trial of this exact product.
◐Partly confirmed1
?Couldn’t verify independently1
“Third-party tested”
Evidence →No named laboratory or lot-specific certificate was found for this exact product. No exact brand product page was available for a document check. Under NSF/ANSI 173, NSF lists Thorne® products, including Thorne® L-Glutamine Powder, but not this exact SKU. 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.
Marketing language, not scored
A well-researched form of zinc that exhibits superior absorption and tolerability
Quick read · 1 useful finding
What is worth knowing.
Headlines first. Open evidence only when you want the source trail.
Needs explanationAny trouble on the record?
Category context: sexual-enhancement products carry documented FDA risk
This is category history, not proof about this product, but it changes how much unsupported claims deserve to be trusted.
Evidence and sources
FDA's health-fraud program documents sexual-enhancement products as the most common supplement category found to contain undeclared prescription-drug ingredients. This is a category-level documented fact from FDA's public database — not a test result for this specific product. So…
Locked evidence record →Open the full source-linked findingWhat remains open 1
- Panel amounts still need a clearer source image.
These are evidence gaps, not strikes against the product.
Who owns the brand wordmark?
🇺🇸
Thorne Research, Inc.['Corporation', 'Corporation'] · exact supplement-class mark for THORNE
Filed address
25820 Highway 2 West, Sandpoint, IDAHO 83864, 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 ↗
Research behind the findings
Dose and research context
Ingredient context used alongside the captured panel. These sources do not test this product or establish safety or effectiveness.
Want to inspect the evidence?
The full report shows every source, the exact unresolved question, and the documentation that would settle it.
Open the full evidence trailSources, edge cases, and every unresolved check
Confirmed evidence
What checked out00
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
Nothing could be independently confirmed from the available record.
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 observed listing claims third-party testing without naming a lab or certifier. No product-bound report is retained, so the claim cannot be verified as stated. Under NSF/ANSI 173, NSF lists Thorne® products, including Thorne® L-Glutamine Powder, but the retained registry result does not cover this exact SKU. IFOS, USP, and Informed-Sport were not checked in this record.
Panel amounts are awaiting a clearer image read
The current image extraction retained 1 ingredient name(s) but no usable amounts. This is a LookCloser processing gap, not evidence that the brand withheld the numbers; dose arithmetic is withheld until the panel is re-read.
Research context is available for the listed ingredients
Published sources describe how zinc 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 — Zinc fact sheet, PubMed search: zinc supplementation trial.
Certified by NSF — contents and contaminants checked
Thorne® appears in NSF’s certified-products registry with 10 certified product(s), but we couldn’t confirm this exact listing is among them. Closest listed product: “Thorne® Zinc Picolinate 30 mg”. Certification covers contents and contaminants — not effectiveness.
This category has documented FDA fraud risk
FDA's health-fraud program documents sexual-enhancement products as the most common supplement category found to contain undeclared prescription-drug ingredients. This is a category-level documented fact from FDA's public database — not a test result for this specific product. Source: fda.gov (linked in Related research).
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 356 on 2026-01-27 to 430 on 2026-07-19 (net +74). 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
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.
2
What is the product’s UPC or GTIN?
The barcode is how a product gets matched to outside records — certification registries, label databases, recall data. Without it, almost nothing can be cross-checked.
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
Look the product up yourself in NSF’s certified-products registry.
Search “Thorne®” at info.nsf.org — certification covers contents and contaminants, not effectiveness.
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.