Sheni Labs · Methodology v1.0 · October 2026
How Sheni Labs evaluates a product
Sheni Labs is a desk-verification laboratory. We do not test products chemically; we check what a product claims against the public record — ingredient databases, evidence, regulators’ notices, and the registries behind every certificate, logo and laboratory report printed on a label. A claim that can be verified is verified; a claim that cannot be verified is said to be unverifiable; a claim shown to be false is said to be false. That is the whole method, and it is applied the same way to every product.
1. What we ask
- Is what is inside what the label says? Ingredient identity, form and dose, checked against SupplementIndex and the regulatory databases; proprietary blends without quantities are a gap.
- Does the evidence support the claim? Each claim graded: strong (consistent systematic reviews or multiple randomised trials), moderate (some trials, mixed results), weak (observational or mechanistic only), none (no published evidence or evidence against).
- Is the ingredient legal where the product is sold — and where the buyer lives? The same ingredient can be permitted in one country, restricted in a second and prohibited in a third, and products bought online cross those borders. For every active ingredient we record its status in Georgia, the EU (and France and Germany where national rules differ), the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan and the Gulf states, and we say so when a product that is lawful at its point of sale contains something banned elsewhere. Examples that recur in alerts: DMAA and DMHA (prohibited in the EU, US, Canada and Australia); ephedra; yohimbine (prohibited in the EU, Canada and Australia, sold in the US); kava (restricted in several EU countries); melatonin (a supplement in the US, a prescription or dose-limited medicine in much of the EU); red yeast rice monacolin K (dose-limited in the EU since 2022); titanium dioxide E171 (banned in EU food since 2022, still permitted elsewhere); hydroquinone (banned in EU cosmetics, sold over the counter at 2% in the US); CBD (novel food in the EU, legal status varying by country); high-dose vitamin D and vitamin A products above national upper levels. The status table for each ingredient is maintained on SupplementIndex for 14 jurisdictions.
- Is the claim legal? Against the EU register of authorised claims, medicinal-product rules, cosmetics claims criteria and the Georgian rules.
- Is every certificate, logo and report real? ISO certificates, GMP claims, third-party testing marks (NSF, USP, Informed Sport), organic, halal and kosher logos, “clinically tested” and “dermatologically tested” claims, certificates of analysis and the laboratories that issued them — each traced to the issuing body’s public register. A logo with no matching record is reported as unverifiable; a logo with a record that contradicts it is reported as false.
- Does the company exist? Manufacturer, responsible person and distributor checked in company and trademark registers.
- Has it been flagged? Product, brand and ingredient searched in regulator alert and recall systems and in the Sheni Labs alert collection.
- Who should not use it? Interactions, contraindications and vulnerable groups from the evidence and the regulators’ guidance.
2. The registries we check
Every verification names the registry used and the date of the check. Ingredient status is checked jurisdiction by jurisdiction, because permitted lists, maximum doses and prohibited substances differ between Georgia, the EU and its member states, the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and the Gulf.
| Registry or database | What we verify with it | |
|---|---|---|
| IAF CertSearch | Whether an ISO 9001, 13485, 22000 or 14001 certificate shown on a product or website is genuine, current, and issued by an accredited body | Open |
| National accreditation bodies (UKAS, DAkkS, COFRAC, ANAB, A2LA, GAC Georgia) | Whether a testing laboratory named on a certificate of analysis is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025, and for which tests | Open |
| ILAC and ILAC MRA | International recognition of laboratory accreditation | Open |
| FDA registration and listing; FDA warning letters; FDA tainted products | Whether a US manufacturer or product has the regulatory status claimed; past enforcement; hidden-ingredient findings | Open |
| EU Cosmetic Products Notification Portal (CPNP) — via the responsible person | Whether a cosmetic sold in the EU has a notified responsible person (the portal itself is not public; the responsible person must be named on the label) | Open |
| CosIng | Whether each INCI ingredient is permitted, restricted or prohibited in the EU | Open |
| EU Register of nutrition and health claims | Whether a health claim on a supplement is authorised | Open |
| EMA, MHRA, Health Canada and TGA product databases | Whether a product described as a medicine or a registered herbal product is actually authorised | Open |
| NSF, USP, Informed Sport, Informed Choice, BSCG, ConsumerLab | Whether a third-party certification mark printed on a label is real: each scheme publishes a searchable list of certified products and facilities | Open |
| GMP: FDA, EU EudraGMDP, NSF GMP, Health Canada site licences, TGA, UNIDO | Whether a “GMP certified” claim corresponds to an inspection or certificate by a named body | Open |
| Organic: USDA Organic Integrity Database, EU TRACES/organic operator lists, Ecocert, Soil Association | Whether an organic logo is backed by a current certificate for that operator and product category | Open |
| Halal and kosher certifiers’ registers (JAKIM, MUI, OU, OK) | Whether a halal or kosher mark is issued by a recognised certifier for that producer | Open |
| Company registers (Companies House, Infogreffe, Handelsregister, Georgian Public Registry, OpenCorporates) | Whether the manufacturer or distributor on the label exists, where, since when, and under whose ownership | Open |
| Trademark registers (EUIPO, USPTO, WIPO Global Brand Database, Sakpatenti) | Whether the brand is registered and by whom; counterfeits and copycats | Open |
| EU Novel Food Catalogue and Union list; EU food additives database | Whether an ingredient is a permitted food, a novel food needing authorisation, or a permitted additive in the EU | Open |
| EFSA tolerable upper intake levels; national maximum levels (France DGCCRF, Germany BfR, UK, Belgium, Italy) | Country-specific maximum doses for vitamins and minerals, which differ widely inside the EU | Open |
| US FDA dietary ingredient and NDI notifications; FDA prohibited and restricted substances; USADA/WADA lists | US status of an ingredient; substances prohibited in sport | Open |
| Health Canada Natural Health Products Ingredients Database (NHPID) and Licensed Natural Health Products Database | Permitted ingredients, doses and claims in Canada; licensed products | Open |
| Australia TGA Permissible Ingredients Determination | Ingredients permitted in listed medicines and their conditions | Open |
| Japan MHLW/CAA food-with-function-claims system and prohibited ingredient lists; Singapore HSA; Gulf SFDA | Status of ingredients in Japan, Singapore and the Gulf states, frequent destinations and origins of products sold online | Open |
| Georgia: National Food Agency and the Agency for Regulation of Medical and Pharmaceutical Activity; Resolution №360 | Classification and permitted status of ingredients and products in Georgia | Open |
| SupplementIndex (supplement.ge), NIH DSLD, FDA GSRS, EFSA | Ingredient identity, dose, form, evidence, safety, upper levels | Open |
| Cochrane, PubMed, EMA HMPC monographs, WHO monographs | The evidence behind each claim, graded by strength | Open |
| Regulator alert systems: FDA recalls, RASFF, Safety Gate, MHRA, Health Canada, TGA, WHO | Whether the product, brand or ingredient has been the subject of an alert or recall | Open |
3. From findings to verdict
RecommendedEvidence supports the use; ingredients, dose and form are right; labelling is complete; no safety signal.
Acceptable with caveatsUsable, but with a stated limitation: weak evidence for a claim, a non-optimal form, an avoidable additive, or a price out of line with equivalents.
Not recommendedA safety concern, an undisclosed or misleading ingredient, an illegal claim, a dose that is ineffective or excessive, or no verifiable documentation.
Not assessableDocumentation insufficient to reach a verdict; we say what is missing.
Automatic “Not recommended”A product fails if any of its ingredients is prohibited for that use in any of the reference jurisdictions — Georgia, any EU member state, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia or Japan — regardless of whether it is lawful where the product is sold. The reasoning is public-health reasoning: a prohibition by one competent regulator is evidence of a safety concern that does not stop at a border, and online sales do not stop at borders either. The verdict names the jurisdiction, the legal basis and the date. A dose limit or restriction elsewhere (as opposed to a prohibition) does not trigger the rule: it leads to “Acceptable with caveats” with the limit stated, or “Not recommended” if the product exceeds it by a wide margin.
A verdict is the balance of the findings, with the reasons listed. One false certificate, one undeclared pharmaceutical, one prohibited substance or one illegal medicinal claim is sufficient for Not recommended. Unverifiable certificates or missing documentation lead to Not assessable or, where the rest is sound, Acceptable with caveats, stating what could not be verified.
4. Limits
- We verify records, not contents: a product with genuine certificates can still fail a chemical test. Where a laboratory analysis is needed, we say so and, with the submitter’s agreement, commission it from an accredited laboratory.
- Registers can lag; a certificate issued last week may not yet appear. We re-check before publishing a negative finding and give the holder a right of reply.
- Some registries are not public (the EU cosmetics notification portal, some national GMP lists); then we rely on the documents the responsible person provides and say that we did.
5. Governance
- Each verdict is prepared by an expert from the independent expert pool, checked by a second, and — for every “Not recommended” or contested case — reviewed by the Scientific Committee; all declare conflicts of interest. Measurements, when needed, come from accredited partner laboratories. Verdicts carry a date, a version and a review date.
- The lab is funded by the Public Health Institute of Georgia and by fees for commissioned assessments. A fee pays for the work of verification, never for its result; commissioned reports state who commissioned them; the lab accepts no sponsorship, retainers or advertising from product companies.
- Right of reply: a company named in a verdict or alert may submit new evidence; corrections are published and the record versioned.
- This method is versioned; changes are listed here with their date.
Method v1.0, published 5 October 2026 (v1.0 includes the cross-jurisdiction ingredient check and the automatic “Not recommended” rule for ingredients prohibited in any reference jurisdiction). Cite as: Sheni Labs (2026). How Sheni Labs evaluates a product, Methodology v1.0. Public Health Institute of Georgia. shenilabs.ge/methodology/.
