Two reference numbers, and an honest account of what sits behind them. Which is not a laboratory report.
The SodaSlim material we were given records lot SOD-26/SO-6271 and certificate reference SOD-6271-26-SO. The same document states that both are draft labels rather than lab proof. No laboratory report, testing house or analytical result was published to us behind either reference, and we have published no test data because there is none to publish. To match a number on your bottle to an order, call the order desk on +1 (302) 200-3480 with your order ID.
| Reference | Value | What sits behind it |
|---|---|---|
| Lot | SOD-26/SO-6271 | A draft label reference. No production record was published to us |
| Certificate | SOD-6271-26-SO | A draft label reference. No certificate of analysis was published to us |
| Testing laboratory | Not published | No laboratory is named anywhere in the material |
| Test date | Not published | |
| What was tested | Not published | No assay, no potency result, no contaminant screen |
| Expiry / best before | Not printed | Check the base of your own bottle |
On their own, nothing about what is in the capsule.
A lot number is a production reference. It lets a manufacturer trace a batch and, if something goes wrong, recall it. That is genuinely useful and it is not a quality claim.
A certificate of analysis is a different object entirely: a laboratory document stating what was tested, by whom, on what date, with what result. A reference number that looks like a certificate number is not a certificate. We were given a reference and no document.
The brief is unusually candid about this, and the candour is worth quoting: it says the lot and the certificate reference are draft labels, not lab proof. We have taken it at its word and published no test data, because there is none.
We will not produce a certificate of analysis, name a laboratory, or print a test result that nobody gave us. A fabricated lab document is worse than no document, because it converts a gap into a false reassurance.
The brief says the lot and best-before appear on the base of the bottle when the bottle shows them. That is the only place your own batch reference will be.
This is the one we would most like to hear about. If your bottle carries a Supplement Facts panel, photograph it and send it to [email protected]. We will publish it and correct this site.
The label says do not use if the safety seal is damaged or missing. If it is, photograph it and call before you open the bottle.
+1 (302) 200-3480 with your order ID. That desk can connect a bottle to a purchase; this website cannot.
the order desk, printed on the label for Gex Corporation LLP in Ogden, Utah. Different company, different job — product questions rather than orders.
The listing carries ten marks. Exactly one of them has a number behind it that we could confirm, and exactly one of them is supported by the printed panel. They are not the same badge.
The money-back guarantee is the one with a number: 60 days from purchase, given in the brief, and the only guarantee we can state.
There is no second badge we can support. The vegetarian mark would be the easiest to confirm on any normal product — a capsule is vegetarian or not according to its shell — and no other-ingredients line was published, so the shell material is unknown.
The rest — FDA-registered facility, GMP certified, made in the USA, GMO free, gluten free, dairy free, natural ingredients, doctor formulated — have no certificate, no certifying body and no named laboratory behind them in anything we were given. Several are plausible. None is verified, and the doctor-formulated one names no doctor at all.
The best-evidenced mark here. The brief gives 60 days from purchase unless the sales page prints a longer window, and a second gold roundel in the same pack agrees. A purchase policy rather than a medical promise, and the only claim with a number behind it.
Two graphics agreeing on one policy. Internal consistency is worth crediting because so often there is none.
The mark carries its own qualifier in smaller type underneath, which is better practice than most. It matches the label's printed wording: manufactured in the USA with globally sourced ingredients. That is the qualified construction the FTC describes, and we have nothing to criticise in it.
Also printed as a small mark on the label itself rather than only on the listing. A sourcing claim about raw materials, with no certifying body named and no certificate supplied.
Rules about how a product is made, recorded, traced and kept clean. A statement about process rather than contents: a GMP factory can perfectly well make a capsule containing 65 mg of HCA. No certifying body is named and no certificate was supplied.
The factory is on a list. The FDA states that it “does not have the authority to approve dietary supplements before they are marketed”, and facility registration is an administrative filing under the 2002 Bioterrorism Act. Not an inspection result and not an endorsement. No facility is named.
A second FDA-facility graphic in the same pack, in a different style. Neither carries a registration number or a facility name, so neither can be checked.
Natural has no regulatory definition for a dietary supplement. This capsule contains <b>caffeine anhydrous</b>, which is a manufactured, dehydrated, concentrated powder, and four standardised extracts. All are ordinary and all are disclosed. The roundel is a mood rather than a specification.
No doctor is named on the label, on the listing, or anywhere in the material we were given. The pack does contain a stock photograph of a man in a white coat pointing at the bottle; nobody is named in it, no institution is named beside it, and we have published it captioned as exactly that rather than invent a clinician.
Four small marks carried through from the front panel onto the listing: craving control and satiety, energy production from fat, healthy weight management, and the headline metabolic and appetite support. Each is assessed one at a time on our claims page.
Do not take it. Photograph the seal, the panel and the base of the bottle, then call the order desk on +1 (302) 200-3480 with the order ID. A bottle that does not match the panel published here is a question for the distributor on the order desk as well.
Because a lot number and a certificate reference look like evidence, and a reader who sees them on a listing deserves to know what sits behind them. On this product the honest answer is a pair of reference strings and no laboratory document, and the material we were given says so itself.
A laboratory name and address. A date. A sample identifier that ties the document to a specific batch. A list of what was tested for. The method used for each test. The result of each test, with units. And a signature or an authorising name.
None of those exists in anything we were given for this product. What we have is a Lab Tested mark with a microscope icon on the label, a reference string of the shape a certificate number takes, SOD-6271-26-SO, and a note in the same document describing it as a draft label rather than lab proof.
That note is unusually honest and we have taken it at face value. The alternative — printing the reference on a page under a heading like Lab Verified — would convert an absence of evidence into the appearance of evidence, which is the single most common dishonesty in this category.
If a certificate is ever published for this product, this page will carry it, with the laboratory named and the date printed. Until then this page carries the honest version, which is shorter and less impressive.
Lot SOD-26/SO-6271 and certificate reference SOD-6271-26-SO. The same document that supplies them describes both as draft labels rather than lab proof, so we publish them as references and not as evidence. No laboratory is named and no certificate of analysis was supplied.
None appears in anything we were given. The brief says the lot and best-before appear on the base of the bottle when the bottle shows them, so the base of your own bottle is the only place to look.
No dietary supplement is. The FDA states that it “does not have the authority to approve dietary supplements before they are marketed”. The registered-facility badge means a factory filed a registration, which is an administrative requirement rather than an inspection result or an endorsement. We never write FDA approved on this site and this label does not either.
Nobody is named. Not on the label, not on the listing, not anywhere in the material we were given. The pack does contain a stock photograph of a man in a white coat pointing at the bottle, with no name, no institution and no credential beside it. We have published it captioned as exactly that, and we have not invented a formulator.
+1 (302) 200-3480 for anything about an order: tracking, changes, refunds. [email protected] for anything about this website: pages, typos, privacy, press, Monday to Friday, 9:00 am to 5:00 pm ET. The website address cannot see your order. The label also prints the distributor's number, +1 (507) 448-8190.
The label says <i>distributed for</i> Gex Corporation LLP, PO Box 12730, Ogden, UT 84404, with a telephone number and [email protected]. No manufacturing facility is named. 21 CFR 101.5 asks for a street address, city, State and ZIP unless the firm is listed in a current city or telephone directory, and a PO Box is not a street address.
One bottle is 30 capsules at one a day, so a bottle is exactly thirty days and the front of the label says so. The 60-day guarantee runs from purchase, not from delivery, and the price is shown at checkout.
Order NowRead the label firstNo price was published to us. We print no figure we have not seen ourselves. · 60-day guarantee from purchase · Not for under 18, pregnancy or nursing