Which specific memory‑supplement products have been named in ConsumerLab or GAO testing reports and what were the lab results?
Executive summary
Two federal and independent testing efforts—GAO’s laboratory contract and ConsumerLab’s product reviews—have identified specific memory‑supplement products and classes with quality problems: GAO’s tests of three highly advertised memory supplements found that two failed to contain stated ingredients or quantities (including a Ginkgo biloba product that contained no Ginkgo and was adulterated) [1], while ConsumerLab’s testing has repeatedly flagged individual branded products (including many phosphatidylserine brands it tested and numerous galantamine products sold on Amazon) for containing far less active ingredient than labeled or for contamination that prompted at least one recall [2] [3].
1. GAO’s targeted lab testing: what was tested and what failed
The U.S. Government Accountability Office contracted a qualified lab to test a non‑generalizable sample of three memory supplements selected for high advertising, ingredient popularity, and retail availability; GAO concluded the lab data were reliable for its purposes and reported that two of the three tested products either lacked their stated ingredients or contained lower ingredient quantities than labeled [1]. Most strikingly, the single‑ingredient Ginkgo biloba product tested by GAO was determined by laboratory scientists to contain no Ginkgo biloba at all and appeared adulterated with one or more unidentified substitute ingredients, and a multi‑ingredient product contained lower than labeled amounts for at least two of three ingredients analyzed [1]. GAO’s work focused on a small, non‑representative sample and did not publish product names in the snippets provided here, so the available reporting documents the failures but—based on the provided files—does not supply the explicit brand names tested [1].
2. ConsumerLab’s follow‑up and related product naming
ConsumerLab has amplified these findings by naming categories and specific brands in its publicly accessible coverage: ConsumerLab reported that most galantamine “memory” products purchased on Amazon did not contain anywhere near the amounts listed on labels [3] [4], and in a separate January 2024 testing round ConsumerLab found that one phosphatidylserine product among many brands it tested contained significantly less phosphatidylserine than claimed and was subsequently recalled, with the brands tested including Doctor’s Best, GNC, Jarrow, Life Extension, NOW, Nutricost, Puritan’s Pride, and Swanson [2]. ConsumerLab also linked its coverage to the GAO finding that two popular Ginkgo biloba supplements did not contain the Ginkgo claimed on their labels, reporting on the GAO results in 2018 and noting related FDA actions [5] [6].
3. What the lab results mean for consumers and regulators
The concrete laboratory findings are straightforward where documented: GAO’s lab found a Ginkgo product with no detectable Ginkgo and evidence of adulteration, a multi‑ingredient formula with at least two components below label claims, and overall that two of three tested supplements failed to meet label expectations [1]. ConsumerLab’s independent testing corroborated widespread problems across categories—galantamine products underdosed, at least one phosphatidylserine product significantly underdosed and recalled, and recurring contamination concerns such as lead in older memory‑enhancement supplements [3] [2] [7]. These results underline a systemic quality control gap in the supplement market, where manufacturers are responsible for label accuracy but FDA and FTC generally do not pre‑approve claims or test every product before sale [8].
4. Limitations, alternative views, and industry responses
The evidence is compelling but limited: GAO’s sample was intentionally small and non‑generalizable, so its failures cannot be extrapolated to all memory supplements without further testing [1]. ConsumerLab’s reports are more expansive and include specific brand testing and recalls, but ConsumerLab is a private testing organization that charges for full reports and has industry‑engagement mechanisms [9], which critics sometimes cite when disputing methods; industry groups argue that legal marketing claims need not be pre‑approved and that isolated failures do not prove widespread fraud [8] [10]. Both GAO and ConsumerLab, however, converge on the core finding: consumers can encounter products that do not contain the ingredients or amounts their labels promise [1] [2].
5. Bottom line and where reporting is incomplete
Documented lab results name classes and, in ConsumerLab’s case, many brand‑level tests showing underdosing and at least one recall [2] [3]. GAO’s published testing identifies specific product failures—including a Ginkgo product with no Ginkgo—but the provided snippets do not reveal the exact product names GAO tested, a reporting gap that limits the ability to cross‑reference specific brand reputations or regulatory follow‑up in this package of sources [1]. Regulators and independent testers have repeatedly found examples of mismatch between label and content in memory supplements; naming the exact products tested is available in full reports beyond the snippets summarized here, and consulting the full GAO and ConsumerLab reports is necessary to map each failing result to a brand name and regulatory action [1] [2].