Browse all articles

Home Get the app

Brand-quality audit Published Mar 27, 2026 Recalibrated Jun 14, 2026

GNC (General Nutrition Centers), Supplements Division

Mass-market supplement giant with solid sports-formulation pockets, but weaker transparency, safety history, value, and service sentiment than true premium brands.

GNC (General Nutrition Centers), Supplements Division brand audit

Composite trust

54 /100 Poor

Quality

58 /100

Poor

Formulation

84 /100

Strong

Transparency

62 /100

Mixed

Safety

44 /100

Poor

Value

46 /100

Poor

Sentiment

31 /100

Poor

Top strengths

  • Formulation quality is strongest in sampled sports products: creatine, LIT V2, and Wheybolic show meaningful doses and transparent active amounts.
  • Some third-party verification exists through Informed Choice and ConsumerLab-related monitoring disclosures.
  • GNC has broad availability, long operating history, and clear product-page pricing/serving information.

Key concerns

  • No public batch COA portal or broad USP/NSF product verification was found.
  • Recent 2025 undeclared-fish-allergen recall materially weakens safety confidence.
  • Older DOJ/state regulatory history shows past failures in products sold through GNC channels.
  • Independent review platforms show a strong recent pattern of shipping, refund, rewards, and customer-service complaints.

Badges

Third-party tested Effective dosing Premium ingredients Research-backed Transparent pricing Recent safety issue Poor value Community warnings

Axis by axis

What the evidence shows

Quality

58/100 Poor

GNC has above-basic quality signals for a mass-market brand, especially ConsumerLab monitoring disclosures and Informed Choice listings for sports products. The quality case is weakened by lack of public batch COAs and a recent 2025 undeclared-fish-allergen recall affecting Women’s 30+ Vitapak. Overall, quality evidence supports a middle-of-the-market to slightly above-average view for selected sports products, not a blanket “premium quality” conclusion across the whole supplement division.

Formulation

84/100 Strong

Formulation is GNC’s strongest axis, especially in sports nutrition. Sampled flagship products often disclose full active amounts and include credible doses for creatine, beta-alanine, citrulline, protein, and caffeine, with some product-linked clinical evidence. The main caveat is unevenness across the broader vitamin/wellness catalog, where older-style multivitamins still use cheaper mineral forms such as magnesium oxide and zinc oxide.

Transparency

62/100 Mixed

GNC is more transparent than a no-testing-disclosure brand, but less transparent than best-in-class COA-portal brands. Shoppers can verify some Informed Choice product certifications and see detailed labels on many flagship items, yet cannot routinely pull batch COAs or full sourcing details. Ownership is publicly traceable after the Harbin acquisition, but current facility-level QA certifications are not as easy to verify.

Safety

44/100 Poor

GNC’s safety record is mixed. Recent undeclared-allergen recall activity prevents a clean-record assessment, and older DOJ/state actions show a history of problems with the legality/safety of products sold through GNC channels. The strongest mitigation is recency: the most severe stimulant/adulteration issues are 9-13 years old and often involved third-party products, but the 2025 recall is recent enough to materially affect the safety score.

Value

46/100 Poor

GNC is not a value leader. It can be fair value when a shopper buys clinically dosed, Informed Choice-listed sports products during promotions, but commodity products like creatine are materially more expensive than comparable alternatives before discounts. Service and rewards complaints also reduce practical value for online shoppers.

Sentiment

31/100 Poor

Social sentiment is GNC’s weakest axis. Product familiarity and some flagship product loyalty are real, but independent review platforms and recent Reddit complaints show a clear pattern of online fulfillment, refund, rewards, and customer-service frustration. This does not prove the supplements are ineffective, but it materially affects the shopper trust experience.

The rubric

How every score was built

Each axis opens at a category baseline, then moves only on dated, cited evidence, never a gut call. That is the whole difference from a star rating: every one of these 39 adjustments is a receipt you can check.

Points What moved the score
Quality baseline 50 58 Poor
+8 Third-party independent testing disclosed for parts of the line: GNC states branded products are regularly screened by ConsumerLab.com for label-panel parameters, heavy-metal contamination, and “free from/no” claims; separate GNC sports products are listed in the Informed Choice certified-products directory. This is broader than a single SKU but not a public batch-level COA program, so I applied a mid-range +8 rather than +12. Calculation: standard range +8 to +12; partial-public / certification-directory evidence = +8. 345 Current disclosures and current certification directory; full weight. · full weight
+5 Banned-substance testing / athlete-oriented quality controls on a subset of sports products: GNC Pro Performance and AMP products are listed by Informed Choice, and GNC’s Pro Performance page claims testing for 200+ banned substances. Because this appears concentrated in sports nutrition rather than the entire supplement line, I awarded +5 at the low end of the sport-testing range. Calculation: +5 to +10 range × subset of portfolio = +5. 56741 Current product-directory evidence; full weight. · full weight
+4 Heavy-metal testing is disclosed, but not with batch-level public results: GNC says it tests every batch of raw ingredients for lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury and describes third-party monitoring for heavy-metal contamination. Because no public COA portal or batch reports were found, this receives +4 rather than the high end of +6. Calculation: +3 to +6 range; disclosed but not batch-public = +4. 3 Published within the last year; full weight. · full weight
+3 Manufacturing footprint partly documented: GNC’s 2019 annual report stated that, other than powders, chewables, and liquids, nearly all proprietary products were produced at the Nutra manufacturing facility in Greenville, South Carolina. This is useful facility transparency, but it is pre-Harbin acquisition and not a current facility-certificate disclosure, so it receives +3 only. Calculation: +3 to +6 in-house/manufacturing context × 50% age/ownership uncertainty = +3. 28 2019 disclosure, 5-10 years old; 50% temporal weight and ownership-change discount. · 50% weight
−12 Recent quality-control failure: GNC recalled 144,430 units of Women’s 30+ Vitapak in April 2025 because the product contained undeclared fish allergen parvalbumin. Although this is one product/SKU family rather than a line-wide pattern, allergen mislabeling is a serious batch-release/control issue, so it scores in quality as well as safety. Calculation: quality-complaint/contamination-type range -15 to -25; isolated but large-lot and recent = -12, below range due to Class III/allergen-disclosure mitigation and subsequent product-page allergen warning. 2324 2025, within last 2 years; full weight. · full weight
+0 No public COA portal found for GNC-brand supplements. Per transparency calibration, absence of a public COA portal is not penalized because roughly 95% of supplement brands do not publish public COAs; this is recorded as a non-scoring quality limitation rather than a negative adjustment. 135 Current; neutral per rubric. · full weight
— Not scored No public batch-level COA portal was found. Current post-2020 manufacturing facility certificates, current ownership-level QA disclosures, and complete SKU-level third-party-testing coverage were not publicly verifiable.
Formulation baseline 50 84 Strong
+15 Clinical trials or clinical substantiation on some GNC products/formulas: GNC cites product/formula-specific clinical evidence for Wheybolic’s whey-leucine core, Lean Shake 25, and Mega Men; the underlying leucine-whey study was an 8-week randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial in 33 healthy men. Because the research is concentrated in selected flagship products and some trials are small/older, I awarded +15 rather than +20. Calculation: +15 to +20 range; multiple product-linked studies but limited portfolio coverage = +15. 211121342 Mixed: current claims, older studies; formulation evidence still relevant but not full-line. Applied full to the existence of product-linked research, low end of range for age/scope. · full weight
+11 Effective dosing in sampled sports products: of 5 sampled sports/nutrition products, 4 had clearly meaningful doses by common clinical/ergogenic benchmarks, Creatine Monohydrate 5 g, LIT V2 beta-alanine 3.2 g plus citrulline 5 g plus creatine 3 g, Wheybolic high-protein/leucine core, and Lean Shake 25’s 25 g protein meal-replacement format. LIT legacy pages showed lower creatine/citrulline on older versions, and general wellness products were less consistently premium. Calculation: majority sampled effective = +10 to +15; 4/5 sports products strong but not whole-line = +11. 9101113 Current product pages; full weight. · full weight
+7 Branded/premium ingredients and delivery technologies appear in multiple flagship products: LIT V2 uses branded ingredients such as Cognizin, Senactiv, and AstraGin; GNC Mega Men uses timed-release technology; Wheybolic uses a whey-leucine clinical core and branded performance ingredients in some variants. Because this is meaningful but not universal across the entire line, I awarded +7. Calculation: premium ingredients +5 to +8; multiple flagship products but not full portfolio = +7. 10111214 Current product pages; full weight. · full weight
+4 No broad proprietary-blend concealment pattern found in sampled flagship labels: the sampled creatine, LIT V2, Wheybolic, Mega Men, Lean Shake, and Women’s Vitapak pages generally disclose active ingredient amounts or direct labels. Because some small blends exist and the sample is limited, I awarded +4 rather than the +5 to +7 high end. Calculation: +5 to +7 range × limited sample and minor blend caveat = +4. 91011121314 Current product pages; full weight. · full weight
−3 Cheap mineral forms in sampled multivitamins: Mega Men lists magnesium as magnesium oxide and zinc as zinc oxide; CVS label data for another GNC Mega Men product also lists magnesium oxide and zinc oxide. This is a recurring issue in the sampled multivitamin subset, but not a full-line formulation failure. Calculation: cheap ingredient forms range -8 to -12; found in 2 sampled Mega Men-style products, roughly 2/8 sampled products = 25% prevalence; 25% × -10 ≈ -2.5, rounded to -3 because it exceeds the 2-point scoring threshold. 1234 Current/recent label data; full weight. · full weight
+0 Older/legacy LIT formula underdosing context: older LIT labeling showed 3 g L-citrulline and 1.5 g creatine, while the current V2 page shows improved dosing at 5 g citrulline and 3 g creatine. Because the current product has been upgraded, this is not scored as a current underdosing pattern and is kept neutral. 10 Current version mitigates older concern; neutral. · full weight
— Not scored This was a sampled product audit, not a complete audit of every GNC SKU. Full clinical-study reports for all GNC-cited studies were not always publicly accessible from product pages.
Transparency baseline 50 62 Mixed
+8 Third-party testing and verification are disclosed, but not as batch-level COAs: GNC discloses ConsumerLab.com screening and Informed Choice listings for sports products. This is above a no-testing-disclosure brand, but below a public COA portal. Calculation: third-party testing disclosed +8 to +12; credible but non-COA and partial portfolio = +8. 345 Current; full weight. · full weight
+7 Ownership is publicly traceable: after Chapter 11, GNC announced acquisition of substantially all assets by Harbin Pharmaceutical Group Holding Co., Ltd. and emergence as GNC Holdings, LLC. Because this is available through official/press-release and bankruptcy reporting, but not prominently explained on every shopper-facing product page, I awarded +7. Calculation: ownership disclosure +8 to +12; public but not highly shopper-facing = +7. 2728 2020 ownership change, 5-10 years old but still current structure; 50% temporal age offset by current relevance; final +7. · 50% weight
+6 Clinical data and substantiation are shared for selected products: GNC posts study summaries for Wheybolic and Lean Shake 25 and labels some claims with qualifying footnotes. Because full study PDFs are not always linked and coverage is product-specific, this receives +6 rather than +12. Calculation: clinical data shared +8 to +12, discounted for summary-only/selective coverage = +6. 2111342 Current pages using older studies; partial credit. · full weight
+4 Manufacturing location information is partially disclosed historically: 2019 filings described proprietary-product production at the Nutra Greenville, South Carolina facility, but current post-bankruptcy facility ownership/certification details are not clearly surfaced. Calculation: manufacturing locations disclosed +6 to +10; historical and incomplete = +4. 28 2019, 5-10 years old; 50% temporal weight. · 50% weight
+0 No public COA portal found. Per the user’s calibration, this is not penalized by itself because most brands do not publish public COAs. It remains a data gap, not a negative adjustment. 135 Current; neutral per rubric. · full weight
−6 Ingredient sourcing/supply-chain transparency is limited for a brand of GNC’s size and premium pricing: I found general quality/testing claims and product ingredient panels, but not routine country-of-origin or supplier-level sourcing disclosure across the line. Calculation: no sourcing info if premium brand -6 to -10; applied low-end -6 because absence is common but GNC is large and often premium-priced. 1391014 Current; full weight. · full weight
−3 Current product pages include a disclaimer that manufacturing changes to packaging/ingredients may be pending website updates and advise reading actual labels. This is legally prudent, but it weakens shopper verification when relying on online labels. Calculation: vague/limited label verification issue -2 to -5; applied -3 because it is disclosed and not evidence of deception. 14 Current; full weight. · full weight
−4 Historical labeling/misbranding allegation: a 2019 proposed class action alleged certain GNC dietary supplements lacked required FDA disclaimers or were deceptively presented. Outcome was not verified here, so it is treated as an allegation, not proof. Calculation: claims cannot be verified/misleading-label concern -10 to -15; alleged, older 5-10 years, and outcome unclear → 50% × low-end -8 = -4. 22 2019, 5-10 years old; 50% temporal weight and allegation-status discount. · 50% weight
— Not scored No batch COA portal, supplier-level sourcing map, current full facility certificate list, or comprehensive SKU-by-SKU testing matrix was found.
Safety baseline 90 44 Poor
−14 Recent voluntary recall for undeclared fish allergen: ConsumerLab reported that on April 25, 2025, GNC Holdings LLC recalled 144,430 units of Women’s 30+ Vitapak because they contained undeclared fish allergen parvalbumin; the notice warns fish-allergic consumers should not consume the product because reactions may be potentially life-threatening. Calculation: voluntary serious recall -12 to -18; Class III but major allergen and large unit count within 2 years = -14. 2324 2025, within last 2 years; full weight. · full weight
−9 DOJ non-prosecution agreement / regulatory reform after USPlabs OxyElite Pro issue: DOJ stated in 2016 that an agreed statement of facts said GNC’s acts and omissions allowed a misbranded USPlabs product to be sold at GNC stores in 2013; GNC agreed to pay $2.25 million and reform vendor controls. This is a serious regulatory history item, but it is 9.5 years old and involved a third-party product. Calculation: regulatory/legal safety issue analogous to -15 to -25; selected -18 × 50% temporal weight = -9. 1516 2016 agreement, 5-10 years old; 50% temporal weight. · 50% weight
−5 2013 DOJ seizure action involving DMAA-containing supplements at GNC warehouse: DOJ reported seizure/destruction of 1,500 cases of adulterated dietary supplements containing DMAA located in a GNC Leetsdale, Pennsylvania warehouse, following FDA adverse-event reports involving DMAA-containing supplements. This is historical and tied to third-party products, so it receives a discounted safety penalty. Calculation: contamination/adulterated-product issue -20 to -30; third-party and 10+ years old → -20 × 25% = -5. 17 2013, 10+ years old; 25% temporal weight. · 25% weight
−5 Oregon 2015 lawsuit allegations over BMPEA/picamilon products: Oregon’s attorney general alleged GNC sold supplements containing ingredients not approved for sale in the U.S.; reports say GNC contested the allegations and removed products after FDA statements. This is an allegation and now more than 10 years old, so only a small historical penalty is applied. Calculation: class/regulatory lawsuit -15 to -25; selected -20 × 25% age × allegation/third-party context = -5. 2021 2015, 10+ years old; 25% temporal weight. · 25% weight
−6 2016 voluntary recall for undeclared milk allergen in one lot of GNC Women’s Ultra Mega Time Release manufactured by Nutra Manufacturing: serious allergen issue but old and apparently one lot. Calculation: voluntary serious recall -12 to -18; one lot, handled voluntarily, 9.6 years old → -12 × 50% = -6. 25 2016, 5-10 years old; 50% temporal weight. · 50% weight
−2 2011 CPSC recall for women’s multivitamins due to failure to meet child-resistant closure requirements: old product-safety packaging issue involving iron-containing products. Calculation: minor voluntary recall/packaging safety issue -5 to -10; selected -8 × 25% because 15 years old = -2. 26 2011, 10+ years old; 25% temporal weight. · 25% weight
−5 2019 proposed class action alleging misbranding / missing FDA supplement disclaimers on certain GNC products. This is not treated as proven wrongdoing, but it is a regulatory-compliance concern involving consumer understanding of claims. Calculation: class action -15 to -25; lower severity labeling-disclaimer allegation, outcome unclear, 5-10 years old → -10 × 50% = -5. 22 2019, 5-10 years old; 50% temporal weight and allegation-status discount. · 50% weight
+0 No recent FDA warning letter found for GNC-brand supplements in this review. Because absence of evidence is not scored as positive unless a clean 10+ year verified record is established, no clean-record bonus is awarded. 152344 Current search context; neutral. · full weight
— Not scored I did not verify final outcomes for every class action or state lawsuit. No complete FDA adverse-event causality analysis or current GNC-wide recall dashboard was found.
Value baseline 50 46 Poor
+8 Premium justified in selected sports products: GNC’s higher-priced sports products often include meaningful doses, Informed Choice listings, and/or clinical substantiation. This partially justifies pricing versus uncertified commodity products. Calculation: premium justified by quality/certs +12 to +18; partial sports-line coverage = +8, below standard range because GNC’s general line is less consistently differentiated. 591011 Current; full weight. · full weight
+5 Frequent promotions and subscribe-to-save offers improve real-world value: sampled GNC product pages displayed BOGO 50% mix-and-match and subscribe-to-save pricing. Because these are promotions rather than everyday low prices, I awarded +5. Calculation: frequent sales +3 to +6; common visible promos = +5. 91437 Current pages/promotions; full weight. · full weight
+4 Transparent product pricing and cost-per-serving are generally shown on GNC pages. This is a standard positive rather than exceptional. Calculation: transparent pricing +6 to +10; visible price/serving but complaints about rewards/fulfillment prevent higher award = +4. 91437 Current; full weight. · full weight
−10 Creatine price is high versus comparable creatine: GNC Pro Performance Creatine Monohydrate was $44.99 for 100 servings ($0.45/serving), while NOW lists 2.2 lb/about 200 servings at $43.99 and no additives/preservatives. That makes GNC roughly double per serving before promotions. Calculation: extremely overpriced 50%+ above market -20 to -30; one sampled commodity category, mitigated by Informed Choice and BOGO promos → -10. 935 Current pricing; full weight. · full weight
−6 Some GNC wellness bundles are expensive per day without equally strong verification: Women’s 30+ Vitapak was listed at $49.99 for 30 servings ($1.67/day) and recently had an allergen recall; this weakens the value case for packetized wellness products. Calculation: premium without full justification -15 to -25; isolated sampled product and recall-specific concern → -6. 1423 Current pricing and 2025 recall; full weight. · full weight
−5 Customer complaints about rewards/cashback, missing shipments, and refusal/delay of refunds reduce realized value. This is not a product-cost issue but affects shopper value. Calculation: hidden fees/subscription-trap analogue -10 to -15; evidence is service/rewards complaints rather than formal hidden-fee finding, so -5. 293031 Primarily 2026/recent complaints; full weight. · full weight
— Not scored Pricing changes frequently. I sampled major products and competitor examples rather than conducting a full SKU-by-SKU price basket across GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, Amazon, Costco, and direct brand sites.
Sentiment baseline 60 31 Poor
−15 Low Trustpilot rating with recent complaint pattern: Trustpilot showed 249 reviews, 1.5/5 TrustScore, and 84% one-star reviews in the crawl, with many 2026 complaints involving missing orders, refunds, and customer service. Calculation: low Trustpilot <3 stars -12 to -18; 249 reviews and recent pattern = -15. 29 Current/recent 2026 reviews; full weight. · full weight
−10 BBB complaint pattern: BBB complaints include recent refund, missing-package, and fulfillment disputes. BBB is a stronger consumer-complaint source than isolated social posts, so this receives a separate service-pattern penalty. Calculation: ignores complaints/customer-service nightmares -10 to -15; BBB pattern but not product safety = -10. 30 Current BBB complaint page; full weight. · full weight
−5 Recent Reddit complaints reinforce a cross-platform fulfillment/support pattern: 2026 posts describe orders not shipping for weeks, wrong products, and refund/replacement difficulty. These are lower-credibility individual reports, but they corroborate Trustpilot/BBB patterns. Calculation: customer service nightmares -12 to -18; Reddit corroboration only, small samples = -5. 3132 2026, full recency but lower credibility. · full weight
+5 Strong official product-review volume for flagship sports products: GNC’s LIT page markets over 11,000 five-star reviews and flagship products have substantial site review counts. Because these are on-brand/platform reviews and may be subject to selection effects, I awarded only +5. Calculation: Amazon/site high ratings analogue +8 to +12; official platform and not independent = +5. 1041 Current official pages; full weight. · full weight
−4 Authentic community sentiment is mixed, not overwhelmingly positive: Reddit threads show some people still trust GNC due to name recognition and brick-and-mortar availability, but supplement-focused communities frequently criticize pricing, service, and old-school formulations. Calculation: mixed community context neither earns community-favorite bonus nor full warning penalty; modest negative -4 for recurring avoid/overpriced sentiment. 313245 Mostly 2025-2026; full weight for recent sentiment. · full weight
— Not scored I did not scrape all GNC.com product reviews or all store-level Google reviews. Social score relies on Trustpilot, BBB, Reddit, and secondary review summaries.

Best for

  • Shoppers who want widely available sports supplements and can choose GNC products that are specifically Informed Choice-listed or clearly dosed, such as creatine, Wheybolic, or LIT V2 [^5][^9][^10][^11].
  • Deal-focused buyers who shop GNC during BOGO/subscribe-to-save promotions and verify per-serving pricing against competitors before checkout [^9][^14][^35].
  • Consumers who prefer buying from a large brick-and-mortar retailer rather than unknown marketplace sellers, while still reading labels carefully and checking allergen warnings [^24][^27].

Skip if

  • You require public, batch-specific COAs for every supplement you buy; I found testing disclosures and certification directories, not a GNC public COA portal [^1][^3][^5].
  • You have fish or milk allergies and are considering complex GNC multivitamin packets; GNC has had undeclared fish and milk allergen recalls, including a recent 2025 recall [^23][^25].
  • You are highly price-sensitive or dislike customer-service risk; sampled GNC creatine was much more expensive per serving than NOW creatine, and Trustpilot/BBB show recurring fulfillment/refund complaints [^9][^29][^30][^35].

Questions

What shoppers ask about GNC (General Nutrition Centers), Supplements Division

Are GNC brand supplements good quality?

Some GNC products, especially sports supplements such as creatine, Wheybolic, and LIT, have credible dosing and some third-party verification through Informed Choice or ConsumerLab-related monitoring disclosures 3591011. The quality case is not top-tier because I found no public batch COA portal and GNC had a recent 2025 undeclared-fish-allergen recall 23.

What is the most reputable company for supplements?

There is no single universally “most reputable” supplement company; the strongest evidence standard is usually product-level verification such as USP Verified, NSF Certified for Sport, Informed Sport/Choice, or public batch COAs 53940. GNC has some Informed Choice-listed products, but it is not as transparent as COA-first brands and did not show broad USP/NSF product verification in this review 5.

Which is better, vitamin shoppe or GNC?

This score only audits GNC, so I cannot fairly declare Vitamin Shoppe better without running the same rubric on it. For GNC, the best evidence is in selected sports products, while the biggest drawbacks are no public COA portal, recent allergen recall history, and poor online service sentiment 5232930.

Is GNC a trustable brand?

GNC is trustable in a selective, label-checking sense, not as a blanket premium brand. I would trust clearly dosed, third-party-listed GNC sports products more than complex wellness packets, especially if you have allergies or require batch COAs 591023.

What is the #1 most trustworthy vitamin company?

No evidence supports naming a single #1 vitamin company for every shopper. If trust is the priority, compare brands by public COAs, USP/NSF verification, recall history, and transparent sourcing; GNC has some testing signals but lacks public batch COAs and had a recent vitamin-packet allergen recall 233940.

What company sells the purest supplements?

“Purest” should be proven by batch-specific testing, contaminant panels, and independent certification rather than marketing. GNC discloses some heavy-metal and third-party monitoring and has Informed Choice-listed sports products, but I did not find public batch COAs proving purity across the whole GNC supplement division 35.

Sources

  1. 1. GNC Supplements: Trustworthy Quality for Your Health Goals (2026)
  2. 2. The GNC Protein Difference: Quality, Purity, & Results You Can Trust (2024)
  3. 3. Lead in Protein Powder: A GNC Dietitian’s Hot Take (2025)
  4. 4. GNC Reviews by ConsumerLab.com with Ratings from Quality Tests (2026)
  5. 5. GNC, Informed Choice certified products directory (2026)
  6. 6. AMP Wheybolic, Informed Choice (2026)
  7. 7. AMP Wheybolic Alpha, Informed Choice (2026)
  8. 8. GNC Pro Performance product category (2026)
  9. 9. GNC Pro Performance Creatine Monohydrate (2026)
  10. 10. Beyond Raw LIT Pre-Workout / LIT V2 (2026)
  11. 11. GNC AMP Wheybolic Whey Protein Powder (2026)
  12. 12. GNC Mega Men Multivitamin (2026)
  13. 13. GNC Total Lean Lean Shake 25 label / product evidence (2024)
  14. 14. GNC Women’s 30+ Vitapak Program (2026)
  15. 15. GNC Enters Into Agreement with Department of Justice to Improve Practices (2016)
  16. 16. GNC Non-Prosecution Agreement PDF (2016)
  17. 17. 1,500 Cases Of Adulterated Dietary Supplements Destroyed In Seizure Action (2013)
  18. 18. Agreement between NYAG and GNC Holdings, Inc., SEC Exhibit 99.2 (2015)
  19. 19. NY Attorney General claims GNC, Walmart mislabeled supplements (2015)
  20. 20. Oregon sues GNC over BMPEA/picamilon ingredients (2015)
  21. 21. Martin v. GNC Holdings, Inc., Justia order (2017)
  22. 22. Class Action Lawsuit Zeroes in on Allegedly Misbranded GNC Dietary Supplements (2019)
  23. 23. GNC Women’s 30+ Vitapak Recalled (2025)
  24. 24. GNC Women’s 30+ Vitapak Program, current allergen/warning page (2026)
  25. 25. Nutra Manufacturing recalls one lot of GNC Women’s Ultra Mega Time Release for undeclared milk (2016)
  26. 26. Women’s Multivitamins Recalled by GNC Due to Failure to Meet Child-Resistant Closure Requirements (2011)
  27. 27. GNC Completes Chapter 11 Plan Process (2020)
  28. 28. GNC Holdings 2019 Annual Report (2019)
  29. 29. GNC Reviews, Trustpilot (2026)
  30. 30. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., BBB Complaints (2026)
  31. 31. GNC hasn’t shipped order in over 5 weeks, won’t refund (2026)
  32. 32. GNC delivered the wrong product and is now refusing to replace it (2026)
  33. 33. GNC Reviews, Sitejabber (2026)
  34. 34. CVS ingredient listing for GNC Mega Men One Daily / Energy Essentials (2026)
  35. 35. NOW Foods Creatine Monohydrate Powder (2026)
  36. 36. Optimum Nutrition Gold Standard 100% Whey (2026)
  37. 37. GNC Pro Performance 100% Whey 2.0 (2026)
  38. 38. GNC AMP Wheybolic product/pricing page (2026)
  39. 39. NSF GMP Certification overview (2026)
  40. 40. USP Verification Services / Dietary Supplement Verification Program (2026)
  41. 41. GNC Pro Performance product category, banned substance testing claim (2026)
  42. 42. Effects of Leucine and Whey Protein Supplementation During Eight Weeks of Unilateral Resistance Training (2006)
  43. 43. Effects of whey protein supplementation prior to and following resistance exercise, randomized double blind placebo controlled study (2019)
  44. 44. GNC brand profile, SupplementChecker (2026)
  45. 45. GNC Review, TopConsumerReviews creatine supplement stores (2026)

Recalibrated Jun 14, 2026 · 39 scored adjustments · 36 distinct citations across 45 sources

Want personalized recommendations?

Show me what works for me