Seven checks sort most products: (1) Named ingredients with exact per-serving amounts — "proprietary blend" totals hide doses and usually hide under-dosing. (2) Doses against trial ranges — our ingredient pages list them; 50 mg of an ingredient studied at 500 is decoration. (3) Standardization for herbs (e.g., "5% withanolides") — plants vary; extracts should say what's in them. (4) A real third-party seal — USP, NSF, Informed Choice — not a self-awarded "lab tested." (5) Claim language — "diagnose, treat, cure or prevent" phrasing is illegal for supplements; its presence marks a seller ignoring rules. (6) Serving-size arithmetic — per-day cost and dose at the label's serving, not the bottle's implication. (7) The other-ingredients line — allergens, sugar in gummies, dyes.
Why the label beats the front of the bottle
The front is advertising; the Supplement Facts panel is the only regulated square inch — and because every evidence-based ingredient has known trial doses, that panel converts directly into a verdict. The method:
The seven checks
1. Named amounts, no blend curtains. Each active listed with milligrams per serving. The blend anatomy in the FAQ explains why "proprietary" formats fail this check on contact — and they are the default costume of the fat-burner and nootropic shelves.
2. Doses versus trials. The site's ingredient pages exist for this: ashwagandha studied at 300–600 mg of a standardized extract; berberine at 500 mg two-to-three times daily; melatonin effective at 0.5–3 mg. A product carrying 2% of a trial dose is selling the ingredient's name, not its effect — "fairy-dusting," and the single most common finding in our product reviews.
3. Standardization, for anything botanical. Plants are variable chemistry; serious extracts declare their yardstick — "standardized to 5% withanolides," "24% flavone glycosides," "95% curcuminoids." A bare "herb powder, 400 mg" could be lawn clippings' cousin, analytically speaking.
4. Third-party verification that names its party. The FAQ's seal hierarchy — USP, NSF, Informed Choice — versus the self-congratulation tier. This matters most exactly where testing keeps finding trouble: melatonin's label-accuracy scandal, chondroitin's shortfalls, the spiked sexual-enhancement and weight categories the FDA warns about.
5. Claim language as a character test. Supplements may make "structure/function" claims ("supports immune function") and legally cannot claim to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease — the disclaimer on every honest label says so. A sales page promising to reverse diabetes or cure fungus isn't just wrong on evidence; it's announcing the seller's relationship with rules, which predicts everything else about them.
6. Serving arithmetic. "Per serving" may mean four capsules; the honest number is the per-day cost at trial dose. Bottles advertising "60 servings" of a two-a-day habit are a month, priced as two.
7. The other-ingredients line. Allergens (soy, shellfish-derived glucosamine, fish collagen), gummy sugar loads, dyes, and — for the interaction-minded — the quiet passengers like added caffeine in "energy" anything.
The two-list shortcut
Green flags: exact doses at trial levels · standardized extracts · USP/NSF seal · specific strain/form designations (letters-and-numbers probiotics, "as magnesium glycinate") · claims in modest structure/function grammar · manufacturer with a findable address and batch codes.
Red flags: proprietary blends · fairy-dust doses · invented seals · illegal disease-claim grammar · "doctor formulated" with no doctor named · urgency timers and fake countdowns on the sales page · before-after photos without dates · %DV theater per the FAQ.
Where this fits
Label literacy is necessary, not sufficient — a perfectly labeled product of a refuted ingredient is still a refuted ingredient, which is why every check above leans on the evidence pages (the question-page scorecards and ingredient files) and why our product reviews run this exact protocol against each seller's page, verification dates attached. Ninety seconds with the panel, one cross-check against the trials — that's the whole skill, and it retires most of the aisle before any money moves.
Frequently asked questions
What does "proprietary blend" actually hide?
The individual amounts. US rules require the blend's total weight but not its breakdown — so a "750 mg focus matrix" of six ingredients can legally be 700 mg of the cheapest and sprinkles of the ones on the advertisement. Since trial doses are per-ingredient, a blend makes evidence-checking impossible by design. Honest brands with real doses print them; the format exists to serve the other kind. Blends aren't automatically scams — they're automatically unverifiable, which for buying purposes lands nearby.
Which testing seals mean something?
Three carry weight: USP Verified (pharmacopeia standards — identity, potency, contaminants, dissolution), NSF Certified for Sport (adds banned-substance screening athletes need), and Informed Choice/Informed Sport. These involve real audits and off-the-shelf testing. Meaningless by comparison: "GMP compliant" (legally required anyway, self-declared often), "made in an FDA-registered facility" (registration isn't inspection or approval — the FDA approves no supplement), "lab tested" with no lab named, and award-shaped logos the brand invented.
What's the %DV trap?
Two traps. First, absurd percentages — 8,333% DV biotin — signal marketing, not potency: water-soluble excess exits, and mega-numbers exist because the raw material is cheap. Second, the missing DV: most botanicals and specialty ingredients have no daily value ("† Daily Value not established"), so nothing on the label tells you whether the dose is meaningful — only trial literature does, which is what this site's ingredient pages are for.
Are gummies and liquid formats worse?
Structurally compromised more often: active doses per gummy run low (chewable real estate goes to sugar and pectin), sugar itself arrives in medicine's costume, and stability testing shows some actives — melatonin famously — drifting far from label in gummy formats. Capsules and tablets from tested brands are the boring, higher-fidelity default; gummies are candy that took a health-adjacent job.
References
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dietary Supplements (2024). https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH). Diabetes and Dietary Supplements: What You Need To Know (2021). https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/diabetes-and-dietary-supplements-what-you-need-to-know
This page discusses supplement ingredients or categories. It may mention a commercial product, with disclosure. It is general health information, not personal medical advice. Read our editorial policy and medical review policy.