Quality
Gelatine Sculpt testing, seals and quality claims
Ten seal marks were supplied with this stock. A seal is artwork, not a certificate. No certifying body, certificate number or audit date was supplied for any of them, and 'Doctor formulated' arrived with no doctor named. We show them because they are on the seller's material and we say this because it is true of all ten. The label also prints the sentence “This product has been manufactured in an FDA registered facility.”, which names no facility, no registration number and no address, and it carries the FDA disclaimer in a box on the same panel. No extract on this label is standardised to a marker compound, which is why the ceilings worked out from the 200 mg blend cannot be converted into catechins, capsaicinoids, forskolin or glycyrrhizin, and why the published trial doses cannot be lined up against this bottle. No published trial on the finished Gelatine Sculpt formula was supplied with this stock and none appears in any source we opened. Every reference on this site describes a single named ingredient or the regulation, not this bottle.
By the Gelatine Sculpt Editorial Desk · Last updated September 24, 2026
The marks
Ten seals
Shown, with the same sentence printed against all ten
A seal is artwork. It is a picture that stands for a claim, and the claim is only worth what the document behind it is worth.
Ten seal marks were supplied with this stock. A seal is artwork, not a certificate. No certifying body, certificate number or audit date was supplied for any of them, and 'Doctor formulated' arrived with no doctor named. We show them because they are on the seller's material and we say this because it is true of all ten.
GMP certified
Good Manufacturing Practice is a manufacturing standard. A certificate against one names the facility, the standard and the body that audited it. None of those three was supplied.
FDA-registered facility
The label carries the same claim in words. Registration is a listing of a facility, not an assessment of a product, and no registration number or facility name was supplied.
Non-GMO
A claim about ingredient sourcing. No certifying scheme, certificate number or audit date was supplied, and the label says ingredients are globally sourced.
Made in the USA
The label's own origin line is fuller than the seal: Made in the USA with globally sourced ingredients.. Those are two different claims and the longer one is the one printed on the bottle.
60-day money-back
The only one of the ten that is checkable, because it describes a commercial term rather than a property of the product. 60 days from purchase, unless the sales page prints a longer window. It is a purchase policy, not a medical promise.
Natural ingredients
The Other Ingredients line on the label carries sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate and xylitol, and the blend carries seven synthesised amino acids and GABA. No source we opened says any of those is unsafe; the point is that the seal and the label describe different bottles.
Gluten free
An allergen claim. No testing, threshold or certifying scheme was supplied for it, and the label itself makes no allergen statement at all.
Dairy free
The same position as the gluten mark. Nothing was supplied behind it and the label carries no allergen line to check it against.
Vegetarian
A claim about the source of every ingredient in a blend whose members are named but not quantified. Nothing was supplied to support it.
Doctor formulated
No doctor is named anywhere in the material supplied. The photograph that arrived with it shows an unnamed model holding a bottle labelled LIPO SCULPT, a different product, and this site does not show it.
Read down those ten and a pattern appears that is worth naming. Nine of them are claims about the product or the way it was made, and not one of the nine arrived with a certifying body, a certificate number or an audit date. The tenth, the money-back mark, is a commercial term, and it is the only one of the ten a reader can act on: 60 days from purchase, unless the sales page prints a longer window. It is a purchase policy, not a medical promise.
None of that makes any individual claim false. What it makes them is unchecked, and a page that reprinted ten marks without saying so would be handing over the reassurance without the evidence.
The facility sentence
What the label says, and what it does not
Printed below the Supplement Facts box on the label, in full: “This product has been manufactured in an FDA registered facility.”
What that sentence names is nothing. No facility, no address, no registration number and no date. There is no string in it a reader can take away and look up.
What it describes is a facility rather than a bottle. It is a statement about where something was made, not a finding about what is in it, and it is not an approval of the product. The label itself settles that on the same panel, in the disclaimer box: “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.”
The origin line on the left panel is worth reading beside it: “Made in the USA with globally sourced ingredients.” Made in the USA and globally sourced ingredients are both in that one sentence, and the seal that says only the first half is the shorter claim.
Not FDA-approved, and the label says so
Dietary supplements are not approved by the FDA before sale, and this label carries the standard disclaimer to that effect. Anyone reading the facility sentence as an endorsement is reading it against the box printed beside it.
Standardisation
The missing word
No extract on this label is standardised, and that is the whole problem
No extract on this label is standardised to a marker compound. That is why the ceilings cannot be converted into catechins, capsaicinoids, forskolin or glycyrrhizin, and why the published trial doses cannot be lined up against this bottle even approximately.
Standardisation is the sentence that says how much of the active compound an extract carries: a percentage, against a named marker. Without it, a weight of extract and a weight of the compound inside it are different quantities.
That gap is what stops four comparisons on this label from being completed, and each of them is a comparison the sources we opened would otherwise allow:
Position 7 in the blend, ceiling 28.6 mg of extract
NIH reports that across its trials “doses of green tea catechins ranged from 141 to 1,207 mg”. Catechins are a fraction of an extract’s weight, so the ceiling sits below the bottom of that range before standardisation is even discussed.
Position 9 in the blend, ceiling 22.2 mg
NIH describes the trial material as “500 mg standardized for 10% forskolin” and reports that “Coleus forskohlii extract had no effect on body weight”. No forskolin percentage is printed here.
Position 10 in the blend, ceiling 20 mg of fruit extract
NIH is specific: “Doses of capsaicinoids ranged from 0.2 mg in a single meal to 33 mg/day for 4 weeks”. That is a range for capsaicinoids, and the ceiling here is for the whole extract, of which capsaicinoids are a small fraction.
Position 18 in the blend, ceiling 11.1 mg
NCCIH records that “Even small amounts of glycyrrhizin from licorice root products have been linked to severe adverse effects in people who consume a lot of salt, in people with hypertension, and in people with heart or kidney conditions.” No glycyrrhizin figure is printed, so nobody can hold this bottle against that sentence.
21 CFR 101.36(c)(2) requires the members of a proprietary blend to be declared in descending order of predominance by weight. With a blend of 200 mg and 22 members, the member in position n cannot weigh more than 200/n milligrams. Every figure of that kind on this site is a ceiling: the most an ingredient could possibly be, never the amount that is in the bottle. Standardisation would turn each of those ceilings into something that could be compared with a published dose. Without it, the comparison stops at the extract.
NIH, Dietary Supplements for Weight LossWhat has been tested
And the difference between an ingredient and a bottle
No published trial on the finished Gelatine Sculpt formula was supplied with this stock and none appears in any source we opened. Every reference on this site describes a single named ingredient or the regulation, not this bottle.
That distinction runs through every page on this site. NIH has a published dose for African mango, for green tea catechins, for coleus forskohlii and for capsaicinoids. None of those findings is a finding about this formula. A trial of 300 mg of one extract tells you about 300 mg of that extract, not about a 200 mg blend containing 22 things.
The seven sources this site opened are listed at the foot of the about page, and every one of them was read on September 24, 2026. Not one of them tested Gelatine Sculpt.
What would change this page
A certificate of analysis for a named lot, a certifying body for any of the ten seals, a standardisation figure for any extract, or a published trial on the finished formula. Any of the four would be published here with its provenance beside it. The batch page
Seals are artwork, and the label is the document
Packs run from $69 for one bottle to $294 for six, with the same 60-day window on each. Everything on this page comes off the label or a source we opened.
See the packs and the guarantee
Order desk +1 (925) 231-0148 · opening hours not published
Questions
Gelatine Sculpt: common questions
Is Gelatine Sculpt third-party tested?
What do the seals on the seller's material mean?
What does an FDA-registered facility mean?
Is anything on the label standardised?
Has the finished formula been tested in a trial?
References
- National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements. Dietary Supplements for Weight Loss: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/WeightLoss-HealthProfessional/
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Licorice Root. https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/licorice-root
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Green Tea. https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/green-tea
- Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. 21 CFR 101.36 - Nutrition labeling of dietary supplements. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-101/subpart-F/section-101.36
Every source above was opened and read on September 24, 2026. None of them tested Gelatine Sculpt itself. They describe the named ingredients and the product category, which is a different thing from testing this finished formula.