Three modest claims on the label. A great deal more around it.
Prepared by the Sodatidedaily Editorial Desk · Medically reviewed by Dr. Pascale Carbonara, MD · Updated
The Sodatide label makes three modest claims, all ordinary structure and function wording.
They are metabolic and digestive support, appetite control and satiety, and energy production from fats. Bigger promises appear only in five bonus e-books, not on the label.
See how much of each ingredient is in a capsule on the ingredients page.
On most products in this aisle these panels carry the benefit claims that the Supplement Facts box cannot support: energy, stamina, vitality, confidence, each with an asterisk. They are where a label goes to promise things.
Both of this brand’s panels decline to. They are navigation, pointing back at the formula, the facts panel, the directions and the format. The recurring instruction across both is Follow Label Directions.
That leaves the entire promise of this product resting on two words printed on the front of the bottle, which is what the cards below are about.
The headline claim, printed under the product name with an asterisk that points at a properly boxed FDA disclaimer on the same panel. Metabolism and digestion are normal body processes and <i>support</i> is the permitted construction for describing an effect on one. No disease is named. This is how a structure and function claim is supposed to be written, and it is worth saying so before anything else.
Also correctly constructed, also asterisked — and the one claim on this label that a published trial has tested head-on. A twelve-week randomised trial gave 68 adults 45 grams a day of resistant starch and concluded it “did not increase satiety or reduce appetite and food intake”. A systematic review of inulin-type fructans found five trials reporting no effect on appetite sensations. This capsule carries 100 mg and 211 mg of those two ingredients.
Fat oxidation is a normal metabolic process, so the wording is permitted. What it is not is a weight-loss claim, and the label is careful never to make one. Nothing on this bottle says it causes weight loss.
The same middle icon on a second version of the front panel in the same asset pack reads <b>SUPPORTS APPETITE CONTROL AND SAFIETY</b>. Nobody is harmed by a misspelling. It is worth publishing because a typo on a production label is a signal about how carefully the rest of the label was checked, and because we cannot tell you which version you would receive.
Present, correctly worded, and boxed on the same panel as the asterisked claims. 21 CFR 101.93 requires the disclaimer on each panel bearing a statement of nutritional support, linked to the claim by a symbol. This label does it properly, which is more than several others on this desk.
A badge on the listing. No doctor is named on the label, on the listing, or anywhere in the material we were given. The only photograph of a clinician in the pack is a stock image whose hospital badge reads <b>Generic / Name Sanme</b>. We have excluded that photograph from this site and we have not put a name on the doctor it implies.
Because it would be dishonest not to. The three claims on the front of this bottle are written the way the regulations intend.
Metabolic & Digestive Support. Metabolism and digestion are normal body processes. Support is the permitted construction for describing an effect on one. No disease is named.
Supports Appetite Control And Satiety. Same construction, same permitted shape.
Promotes Energy Production From Fats. Fat oxidation is a normal metabolic process; promotes is again the permitted verb.
Each carries an asterisk. Each asterisk points at a disclaimer printed inside its own box on the same panel: These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. 21 CFR 101.93 requires that disclaimer on each panel bearing a claim, linked by a symbol. This label does it correctly.
Nothing on this bottle says it causes weight loss. That is a discipline several products on this desk have not managed, and it deserves saying before anything else.
This is unusual and it is worth its own section. Most structure and function claims cannot be shown to fail, because support has no defined threshold. This one is different, because a randomised trial tested exactly it, on exactly this ingredient.
A twelve-week trial gave 45 grams a day of high-amylose maize resistant starch to 68 adults with prediabetes. Its conclusion: “RS2 supplementation did not increase satiety or reduce appetite and food intake in adults with prediabetes.” It also found “no effect on subjective measures of appetite” and “no effects of RS2 supplementation on appetite-related gut hormones”.
Forty-five grams is 450 times the 100 milligrams in this capsule.
The other fibre is in a similar position with a smaller multiplier. A systematic review of inulin-type fructans across fifteen adult trials reports “five RCTs found no effect of ITF supplementation on appetite sensations” and “eleven RCTs found no effect… on daily energy intake”.
So the claim is lawfully worded and, on the evidence we could find and read, not supported at any dose, let alone this one. Those are two separate statements and both are true.
A claim being permitted is a statement about regulation. A claim being supported is a statement about evidence. This label gets the first right and, on the appetite claim specifically, the published evidence does not back the second — at 45 grams or at 100 milligrams.
Ten marks appear around this product, and they are not all of one kind.
The guarantee is the best-evidenced. Two separate graphics in the pack agree on the same policy, and the brief gives the number: 60 days from purchase unless the sales page prints a longer one. It is a purchase policy rather than a medical promise, and it is the only claim here with a figure behind it.
Vegetarian is supported by the panel. The other-ingredients line names hypromellose as the capsule shell and nothing else on it is animal-derived. That is a badge you can check against the label, which is rare.
Dairy free and GMO free are plausible and unverified. Nothing on the printed ingredient line is a dairy derivative. What the label does not say is what the three organisms were grown on, and dairy-derived media are common in that industry.
Registered FDA facility and GMP are about process. Registration is an administrative filing required of any facility making supplements for sale in the US. The FDA states plainly that it “does not have the authority to approve dietary supplements before they are marketed”. No facility is named and no certifying body is named.
100% Natural Ingredients is a mood. Natural has no regulatory definition for a dietary supplement, and the panel's own other-ingredients line carries four manufactured excipients. The label is more honest than the roundel.
The label prints: Made in the USA with globally sourced ingredients.
That is a qualified Made in USA claim and it is the correct construction. The FTC describes a qualified claim as one that “describes the extent, amount or type of a product's domestic content or processing”, and it is what a manufacturer should use when a product does not meet the unqualified standard — which requires that a product be “all or virtually all” made in the United States.
Ingredients sourced globally, processing done in the US, and the label says so. We have nothing to criticise there and a good deal to credit.
The roundel on the listing is a different matter. Look at the mark itself: it reads MANUFACTURE IN across the top and MANUFACTURE IN again across the bottom, around a USA shield. It never completes the sentence.
This is the third product on this desk to carry the identical broken stock badge. Nobody is harmed by it. It is a production signal, and we publish production signals because they are cheap to get right and because they say something about what else was checked.
Both columns are long, which is the point of having two.
We read it, we identify what kind of claim it is, and we look for something that could verify it. Where a source exists we quote it, including the parts that do not flatter the product. Where none exists we say so rather than filling the gap. We have never written FDA approved on this site, because no dietary supplement is.
The label never claims that, and neither do we. Its three claims are metabolic and digestive support, appetite control and satiety, and energy production from fats — all ordinary structure and function wording. No published human trial exists on this formula. The two ingredient trials we read used doses 38 and 450 times larger than what is in this capsule, and the resistant-starch one found no effect on appetite at all.
Five were supplied with the pack: 10-Day Metabolic Challenge, Accelerated Metabolism, Facial Rejuvenation, Renova Flora Protocol and Personalized Usage Guide. They are worth noticing because they promise things the regulated label carefully does not — a ten-day timeframe, an acceleration, and a facial outcome on a digestive capsule. We have published the covers and said so.
On its own, nothing. The pack contains a bar of four logos — the International Journal of Obesity, Nature, The Boston Globe and the American Physiological Society — with no paper, author, date, title or finding attached to any of them. A journal logo is not a citation. We have published the bar and said exactly that.
There are two and they are not the same. The label prints <i>Made in the USA with globally sourced ingredients</i>, which is a correctly qualified claim of exactly the kind the FTC describes — one that states the extent or type of domestic content. The roundel on the listing is different: it reads MANUFACTURE IN across the top and MANUFACTURE IN again across the bottom and never completes the sentence. It is the third product on this desk carrying that same broken badge.
Natural has no regulatory definition for a dietary supplement. The panel's own other-ingredients line lists four manufactured excipients. All four are ordinary and all four are properly disclosed — which is the point: the label is more honest than the roundel.
No dietary supplement is. The FDA states that it “does not have the authority to approve dietary supplements before they are marketed”. The listing's registered-facility badge means a factory is on a list the FDA keeps, which is a filing 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 only photograph of a clinician in the whole pack is a stock image of a man in a white coat holding the bottle, and the hospital badge clipped to his coat reads <b>Generic / Name Sanme</b>. We have excluded that photograph from this site rather than publish it, and we have not put a name on the doctor it implies.
This is the sharpest comparison on the site. A twelve-week randomised trial gave 45 grams a day of high-amylose maize resistant starch to 68 adults with prediabetes and concluded that it “did not increase satiety or reduce appetite and food intake”. That is 450 times the amount in this capsule, and it did not do the thing the front of this bottle claims.
Several things, and it would be dishonest to skip them. The Supplement Facts panel carries every structural element the regulation asks for. The caution panel is properly worded. The distributor line is complete, with a street, a ZIP, a phone number and an email. The made-in-USA wording on the label is correctly qualified. The FDA disclaimer is boxed on the same panel as the claims it belongs to. The capsule shell is declared and the vegetarian mark is therefore checkable. And the three front-panel claims are modest structure and function wording that names no disease. The problem is not the label's honesty. It is the size of the numbers the label is honest about.
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