Renew31: one gummy a day for gut and skin support

Part A

What the label prints, line for line

Not the advert and not the product page. The Supplement Facts panel is the one document in this pack that is legally required to be accurate, so everything in this part is transcribed from it rather than paraphrased from anything else. The transcription is at the top of this page, across the full width of the hero, because on this label the panel is the argument.

Tap to enlarge

Read it from the top. The serving is 1 Gummy and the container holds 30, which is the one division that makes every other figure on this site quotable in days rather than in servings. Then the nutrition lines. Then a line reading Bacillus coagulans 500 Million CFU with a dagger against it, and a line reading Proprietary Blend 430 mg with a dagger against that, with 9 names indented beneath it and an amount against none of them. The footnotes, as printed: **Percent Daily Values (DV) are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your daily value may be higher or lower depending on your caloric needs. and † Daily Value Not Established

Several things on this panel are done properly and this page says so before it says anything else. The blend is declared in descending order of predominance by weight, which is what 21 CFR 101.36(c)(2) requires and what makes any of the arithmetic below possible: “shall be declared in descending order of predominance by weight, in a column or linear fashion” ^{21 CFR 101.36} The dagger convention is used correctly against both lines that have no established Daily Value. And the allergen line is volunteered rather than required. What the panel does not do is reconcile with itself, and the next four parts are each one instance of that.

Point 1: 1Point 2: 2Point 3: 3Point 4: 4

Select a number on the label, or use the arrow keys.

01The blend total

One weight, 430 mg, for 9 botanicals. 21 CFR 101.36(c)(3) is explicit about what that number is: “shall be the total weight of all other dietary ingredients contained in the proprietary blend” ^{21 CFR 101.36}

02The nine names, in weight order

The order is the information. Heaviest first, as a matter of regulation rather than house style, which is the whole reason a maximum can be put on each one.

03The CFU line

500 Million CFU of Bacillus coagulans, quantified in colony-forming units and in no weight at all. Part E works through it.

04The Other Ingredients line

10 more substances, none of them in the blend and none of them with a weight. The first and third are the reason the sugar lines read as they do.

The Other Ingredients line reads: Glucose Syrup, Water, Sucrose, Natural Flavors, Apple Pectin, Critic Acid, Trisodium Citrate, Black Carrot Extract (Color), Vegetable oil, Carnauba Wax. One of those is a misprint, reproduced here exactly as it is printed on the bottle: Critic Acid is citric acid. A transcription that tidies the label is no longer a transcription, so the panel is quoted as printed and the correction is made here, beside it, rather than in silence. The same applies inside the blend, where the panel writes Lemon Balm leaf Extract with a lower-case leaf. Then the line No Allergens, which is the manufacturer’s own affirmative statement rather than a declaration format FDA prescribes.

That is the whole instruction, and it comes from the seller's FAQ rather than from the panel. One amount, one frequency, one window before a meal, a glass of water, and a clause pointing at a clinician. There is no second serving size, no loading phase and no missed-dose instruction. Where the label is silent this site is silent: how to take it says so at greater length rather than filling the gap, and the label page prints the panel again with every line annotated.

Part B

Five on the sales page, ten on the label

This is the thing a reader notices first, and it needs no regulation to see. The label declares 10 things: 9 botanicals inside the blend and one organism counted in CFU. The sales material supplied with this stock names 5 of them. The label wins. All ten are published here, and the 5 the sales page never mentions are named on every page that lists ingredients.

Supplied, not verified

The seller's own ingredient panel, as supplied

Named here: Bacillus coagulans, chicory root inulin, babchi powder, lion's mane powder and ginger root extract. Declared on the label and absent from this graphic: fennel seed powder, fenugreek powder, lemon balm leaf extract, slippery elm bark powder and dandelion leaf powder.

Reproduced from the stock pack supplied with this product; not verified here.

A graphic has finite room and nobody puts ten cards on one image, so the count on its own is not the finding. The finding is what the ordering rule does to the 5 that are there. Because 21 CFR 101.36(c)(2) makes the blend list run heaviest first, ginger root extract and lion's mane powder sit at positions 5 and 7 of 9, in the bottom half of the blend by weight, capped at 86 mg and 61.5 mg respectively. Two of the ingredients the sales page leans on hardest are among the lightest things in the bottle, and the label is what says so.

21 CFR 101.36(c)(2) requires the ingredients in a proprietary blend to be declared in descending order of predominance by weight. That ordering rule is the only quantitative information this blend carries. Nothing inside the 430 mg carries a figure of its own, so the bound on the ingredient at position n is the blend total divided by n, and nothing published narrows it further.

Read the third column as a column of maximums and nothing else. The real amounts are not published: Nothing inside the 430 mg blend carries a figure, so the printed order is the only quantitative information there is. Read the fourth column as the gap between two documents that describe the same bottle. Every figure of that kind on this site is a ceiling. It is the most an ingredient could possibly weigh, never the amount that is in the gummy, and the real amount could be very much smaller. the ingredients page sets each of the 9 against its own source, one card at a time.

Part C

Finding one: “Calories 4” is not a value this panel may print

Every proprietary blend hides its individual amounts, and this one is no exception. What makes this panel worth a page of its own is that it does not agree with itself. Four of its lines can be set against a quoted federal regulation and arithmetic on printed numbers, and four times the two do not meet. The first of the four needs no arithmetic at all. It is a comparison between one printed digit and one sentence of regulation.

21 CFR 101.9 governs how calories are declared, and 21 CFR 101.36(b)(2)(ii)(A) applies that rule to a Supplement Facts panel. The sentence is this: calories are “expressed to the nearest 5-calorie increment up to and including 50 calories” ^{21 CFR 101.9}, with the further provision for the other end of the scale that declarations run in a “10-calorie increment above 50 calories, except that amounts less than 5 calories may be expressed as zero.” ^{21 CFR 101.9}

So below 50 calories a panel has three available values and this one is not among them. Zero, if the serving holds less than 5 calories. Five. Ten. The panel prints 4.

There are only two readings of that, and the page is going to give both rather than pick one. Either the serving genuinely holds under 5 calories, in which case the lawful declaration is 0 and the panel has printed a figure it was entitled to round away. Or the serving holds more than 5 calories, in which case the lawful declaration is 5 or 10 and the panel has printed a figure below the increment the regulation sets. Either way 4 is not on the list.

This is a labelling finding and not a safety one, and this page is not going to inflate it. Four calories a gummy is four calories a gummy, and over a 30-day bottle it is 120. Nobody is harmed by the difference between 4 and 5. What it tells a reader is something narrower and more useful: this panel was not set by someone working from 21 CFR 101.9, which is worth knowing before trusting the rest of it to be exact. And it matters a second time, because that same digit is the only thing that makes the missing fibre line a contradiction rather than an omission. the label page carries the whole panel annotated line by line.

Part D

Finding two: the missing Dietary Fiber line and the 4 calories cannot both be right

No Dietary Fiber line is printed on this panel. That absence is lawful under one condition, and the condition is contradicted by the calorie figure beside it.

The condition is in 21 CFR 101.9(c)(6)(i), which requires dietary fibre to be declared “except that if a serving contains less than 1 gram, declaration of dietary fiber is not required” ^{21 CFR 101.9}. Under a gram, the line may come off. So the missing line is a statement in its own right: it says this serving holds less than a gram of fibre.

Now work the calories. The panel declares 2 g of total carbohydrate. 21 CFR 101.9(c)(1)(i)(C) sets the factors: digestible carbohydrate counts at 4 calories a gram, and for the non-digestible part, “A general factor of 2 calories per gram for soluble non-digestible carbohydrates shall be used.” ^{21 CFR 101.9} The regulation sets no express factor for the insoluble part, so this page carries it separately and treats it as zero, and says plainly that the last step is a reading of the quoted text rather than a figure the regulation states. Every split of the declared 2 g, and what each one would have forced the panel to declare:

Only one row lands on 4, and it needs a full gram of insoluble non-digestible carbohydrate. A full gram is not less than a gram, so that row is the one row in the table that would have required the Dietary Fiber line the panel does not print. The nearest alternative, half a gram of each kind, produces 5 calories, which is a lawful value this panel does not print. With no fibre at all, 2 g of carbohydrate is 8 calories, which is double what the panel declares.

At 4 calories per gram for digestible carbohydrate, 2 g is 8 calories. Reaching 4 requires about a gram of non-digestible carbohydrate - which would have required a Dietary Fiber line the panel does not print. The two statements are each defensible on their own and they are not defensible together. This page does not resolve which one is wrong, because nothing published settles it, and guessing would be worse than leaving it open. What it does is name the fact that makes the question answerable at all: the first ingredient in the blend is chicory root inulin, which is a non-digestible carbohydrate, and the first of the Other Ingredients is glucose syrup, which is not.

Part E

Finding three: the probiotic is quantified in CFU and in no weight at all

The panel prints Bacillus coagulans 500 Million CFU. That is a count of living cells. It is not a weight, and the regulation that governs this line asks for a weight.

21 CFR 101.36(b)(3)(ii)(A) covers the amounts of other dietary ingredients on a Supplement Facts panel, and the sentence is short: “These amounts shall be expressed using metric measures in appropriate units.” ^{21 CFR 101.36} A colony-forming unit is not a metric measure of quantity in that sense. NIH ODS describes exactly what it is instead: “The number of viable cells in a probiotic supplement is indicated by the number of colony-forming units (CFU) listed on the label.” ^{NIH ODS} NIH ODS also describes the labelling position as it stands: “Current labeling regulations only require manufacturers to list the total weight of the microorganisms on probiotic products’ Supplement Facts labels” ^{NIH ODS}.

The industry asked FDA to change that. In September 2018 FDA issued draft guidance on the labelling of dietary supplements containing live microbials and denied the request to let CFU replace weight; what it offered instead was enforcement discretion for declaring CFU in addition to weight, in the case where the quantity is first listed in terms of weight. On this panel the quantity is not first listed in terms of weight. It is listed only in CFU.

Two things have to be said about that guidance and this page says both. It is draft and it is non-binding, so it is not a rule this panel has broken. And the underlying regulation it offers discretion against is binding, and that regulation asks for a metric weight that this panel does not carry. The weight of Bacillus coagulans in a Renew31 gummy is not published: The panel quantifies it in CFU and in nothing else. 21 CFR 101.36(b)(3)(ii)(A) requires other dietary ingredients to be expressed in metric measures.

The CFU figure, against the only federal description of CFU this desk could open

500 Million CFU is 500,000,000 colony-forming units, which is 5 times 10 to the power 8. NIH ODS describes what is on the market: “Many probiotic supplements contain 1 to 10 billion CFU per dose, but some products contain 50 billion CFU or more.” ^{NIH ODS} On that description 500 Million CFU sits below the lower end of the band, by a factor of about 2. And in the same fact sheet, in the sentence immediately after, NIH ODS says: “However, products with higher CFU counts are not necessarily more effective than products with a lower CFU count.” ^{NIH ODS}

Both halves of that comparison travel together on this site, always. 500 Million CFU sits below the band NIH ODS describes, and NIH ODS says in the same fact sheet that a higher count is not necessarily better. Neither sentence is a verdict on this product. A band that describes what products contain is not a threshold and it is not an effective dose. NIH ODS is explicit about why a reader cannot work backwards from a label at all: “it can be difficult to determine which products offer verifiable health benefits due to the wide variety of probiotic strains and doses found in probiotic products and inconsistent labeling practices” ^{NIH ODS} NCCIH puts the same gap more bluntly: “We also don’t know how much of the probiotic people would have to take or who would be most likely to benefit.” ^NCCIH

And then the fact that settles it. No federal source this desk opened publishes any dose for Bacillus coagulans. The species appears in no federal source this desk opened. NIH ODS and NCCIH name the genus Bacillus in passing lists and nothing more: no dose, no finding, no safety statement and no interaction for this organism. So there is no figure to compare 500 Million CFU against for this organism, in either direction, and no comparison on this page licenses a verdict about it.

Part F

Finding four: added sugars at 0% against total sugars of 1 g

The fourth finding is the shortest. The panel prints Includes Less Than 1g Added Sugars with 0% against it, under a total sugars line of 1 g, and the ingredient list names two added sugars.

The Daily Reference Value for added sugars is 50 g, set in 21 CFR 101.9(c)(6)(iii). A declaration of 0% therefore means the serving holds less than about 0.25 g of added sugars, because 0.25 g of a 50 g Daily Value is 0.5 per cent, which is the boundary at which the rounding to a whole per cent stops producing zero.

Now the ingredient list. The first Other Ingredient is Glucose Syrup and the third is Sucrose. Both are added sugars by definition. The total sugars line is 1 g. For the added sugars line to be right at 0%, those two ingredients together would have to account for under about a quarter of a gram of the 1 g, with the rest arriving from somewhere else. Nothing else in the ingredient list is a sugar.

The only sugar sources in the ingredient list are glucose syrup and sucrose, and both are added sugars by definition. 0% of a 50 g Daily Value is under about a quarter of a gram.

A gummy has to be made of something, and this page is not going to dress a gram of sugar up as a hazard. At 1 gummy a day a bottle is 30 g of total sugars across 30 days, and a reader counting sugar for any reason should have that figure rather than a percentage. What the panel does not let a reader have is the added-sugars figure itself, because the line that should carry it is declared at a percentage the ingredient list does not support.

Part G

The gap that matters: 430 mg against 3 to 40 grams

Chicory root inulin is the first name in the blend, so it is the heaviest of the 9, and it is the one ingredient on this panel for which a federal source publishes a studied range. Putting the two side by side is the single most informative piece of arithmetic on this label.

FDA’s 2018 review of the scientific evidence on the physiological effects of certain non-digestible carbohydrates puts the studied intake for inulin-type fructans at “3 to 40 g/day” ^FDA. The entire blend on this panel weighs 430 mg, which is 0.43 g. That is 14% of the lowest dose in that range, and the lowest dose in that range is about 7 times the whole blend. Inulin alone is some part of the blend and cannot be more than all of it, so whatever the real figure is, it is smaller than 14% of 3 grams.

Read that comparison carefully. The effect FDA recognised in that review is on bone mineral density and the absorption of calcium. It is not a gut finding, and nothing on this page treats it as one. The sentence FDA actually published is this: “The strength of the evidence supports that inulin-type fructans extracted from chicory root or extracted inulin-type fructans from all sources, as well as synthetic inulin-type fructans, have a beneficial physiological effect on bone mineral density and absorption of calcium.” ^FDA Bone and calcium. The product is sold as gut and inner-nutrition support, and the federal finding attached to its heaviest ingredient is about neither of those things. A page that quoted the dose range without the finding beside it would have turned a bone-density review into a gut claim, and this one does not.

Two cautions on that arithmetic, both of which hold it down rather than up. The range is an intake studied for a particular endpoint, not a minimum anyone must reach, and falling short of it is not a finding that the product does nothing. And the blend is not pure inulin: it is 9 botanicals, of which inulin is only the heaviest. No published trial on the finished Renew31 formula was supplied with this stock and none appears in any source this desk opened. Every reference on this page describes a single named ingredient, a category of ingredients, or a labelling regulation. That is a different thing from testing this gummy. how it is said to work works through what the seller does and does not say about a mechanism, and the timeline page does the same for the question of how long anything would take.

Part H

What the federal sources say, and the six they say nothing about

Six of the ten things this label declares are addressed by no federal source this desk could open. That is not a verdict on them and it must not be read as one. It is the state of what could be read, and on this label it is the commonest fact there is.

Each of the six was actively checked against the complete NCCIH Herbs at a Glance index, the complete NIH ODS botanical list, and FDA’s Dietary Supplement Ingredient Directory, rather than searched for once and missed. Where a source carries a food-use listing but no finding, that is said as well, because a seasoning status is not a finding about a supplement. And a note on method: this site never cites PubMed or PMC as a federal finding. The National Library of Medicine runs the index; the papers in it are third-party work, and an index entry is not a federal position.

Three of the nine botanicals do have a published finding, and all three are from NCCIH. Not one of the three carries a published dose, which matters more than it sounds: with no dose in the source, the ceiling this page computes cannot be compared with anything, and the comparison that made Part G possible cannot be repeated for them.

Fenugreek carries one more line that belongs on a page a pregnant reader might land on: “Fenugreek is not safe for use during pregnancy in amounts greater than those found in food” ^NCCIH. Dandelion carries a line that cuts the other way: “The use of dandelion in the amounts commonly found in food is considered likely safe.” ^NCCIH Both are quoted because both are published, and neither is a statement about Renew31.

• An amount is printed, in CFU
• Inside the blend - a maximum only
• No federal source we opened addresses it

• One line carries a printed amount. Bacillus coagulans, 500 Million CFU, and that amount is a count rather than a weight. Part E is about it.
• Nine are bounded by the ordering rule and nothing else. Every botanical inside the 430 mg. The most that can be said about any one of them is a maximum.
• Six are federally silent. No dose, no finding, no safety statement and no interaction, in any federal source this desk opened.

Those three groups are not a quality score and nothing on this site treats them as one. They overlap on purpose: Bacillus coagulans is both the one printed amount and one of the six federally silent, and five of the nine bounded botanicals are silent as well. What they record is the kind of statement the documents support, which is a different and more useful thing than a verdict. the ingredients page prints all ten as cards, the bound on the front and the source on the back.

No published trial on the finished Renew31 formula was supplied with this stock and none appears in any source this desk opened. Every reference on this page describes a single named ingredient, a category of ingredients, or a labelling regulation. That is a different thing from testing this gummy.

Part I

The reviews, and the three things in them that recompute

Ten named reviews with portraits, a score of 4.5 on a 5-point scale, a written count of 1,019 and an order figure of 2,637 were supplied to this desk as part of a stock pack. All ten are published on the reviews page, in full and labelled. None of them can be verified: no order ID, no purchase record and no contact details came with any of it. Three things in the material can be checked with arithmetic alone, and all three fail.

One. The distribution produces 4.30, not 4.5. Multiply each star value by its share, add the five products and divide by 100, and the supplied distribution averages 4.30. The figure published beside it is 4.5. The difference is 0.20, the shares add to 100 per cent so nothing is missing from the table, and no weighting is stated anywhere that would reconcile the two.

• Two. Helen R. bought two bottles and kept three. Her card reads 2 bottles. Her text reads “Kept three bottles.” A two-bottle pack contains two bottles.
• Three. Helen R. is on day 61 of a 60-day supply. Two bottles is 60 gummies, and the directions say one a day, so a two-bottle pack is exactly 60 days. Her card reads day 61.

This desk cannot prove who wrote those entries and does not claim to. What it can show is checkable, and it is the kind of thing that does not happen when ten people write about a bottle independently:

• Two reviewers, 1,700 miles apart, both organise their day around the same stack of hymn books - one stores a bottle beside it, the other uses it as a cue.
• The same physiotherapy bands, as a storage place for one writer and as a daily trigger for another.
• Ethel stores the bottle in an apron; Albert hangs one. The object passes between two entries that share nothing else.
• A set of keys is the cue in one entry and the shelf in another.

The same rule governs the byline at the top of this page. A real, living, named physician was supplied with this stock as having reviewed every page, every post, the bottle and the ingredients. A physician’s name was supplied with this stock. Nothing else was - no sign-off, no date, no correspondence - so this site publishes an empty slot instead of a borrowed name. An empty slot is checkable. A name without a review is not. Her name appears nowhere on this site and in no structured data. the about page sets out the whole method.

Part J

Buying it, and the one division that should decide the pack

Three packs, one guarantee window, and a division that nobody puts on a sales page. 1 gummy a day and 30 gummies in a bottle means a bottle is exactly 30 days, so the supply and the 60-day refund window can be compared directly rather than guessed at.

Renew31 pack prices

 

2 Bottles

60 days · 2 x 30 gummies

$79 / bottle

$158 total$358

• 2 bottles · 60 gummies
• 60 days at one a day
• $9.99 US shipping
• 60-day money-back window
• Ends the day the window does

Check this pack

Most popular

3 Bottles

90 days · 3 x 30 gummies

$69 / bottle

$207 total$537

• 3 bottles · 90 gummies
• 90 days at one a day
• Free US shipping
• 60-day money-back window
• 1 bottle still sealed at day 60

Check this pack

Best value

6 Bottles

180 days · 6 x 30 gummies

$49 / bottle

$294 total$1,074

• 6 bottles · 180 gummies
• 180 days at one a day
• Free US shipping
• 60-day money-back window
• 4 bottles still sealed at day 60

Check this pack

Orders ship from the United States unless the sales page says otherwise. Tracking arrives in the order email.

The last column is the finding. On the two-bottle pack it is 0. Two bottles is 60 days of product, the window is 60 days, and the two end on the same day, so a buyer who reaches the end of the supply and wants a refund has nothing sealed left to send back. Three bottles leaves 1 bottle sealed at day 60 and 30 days of product outside the window. Six leaves 4 sealed and 120 days outside.

That is not an argument against the larger packs, which are plainly cheaper per day: with shipping the two-bottle pack works out at $2.80 a day, three bottles at $2.30 and six at $1.63. It is an argument for knowing which of the two things you are buying, the lower daily cost or the clean refund, before you choose rather than after. the pricing page works every figure through and the guarantee page does the same for the window.

In one paragraph

Set against what it was obliged to publish, this label does several things properly. The blend is declared in descending order of weight, which is what makes any of the arithmetic on this page possible. The dagger convention is used correctly. The allergen line is volunteered. Against that: no individual weight is printed anywhere inside the 430 mg, so nine botanicals can only be bounded and never measured; six of the ten things declared are addressed by no federal source this desk opened; the sales material names five of the ten and puts two of those five in the bottom half of the blend by weight; and four lines on the panel do not reconcile with the regulation that governs them. If you are buying it, buy it knowing those things. And if you have a severe illness or a compromised immune system, if you are pregnant or might be, or if you take prescription medicine, read the cautions page and talk to a doctor before you order rather than after.