The percentage on a panel is the one number a reader can check without leaving the label. On this product there is no panel, so there is no percentage, and that is the smaller half of the problem.
Written by the Breathizen editorial team·Last updated October 11, 2026·How this page was checked
A percent Daily Value on a Supplement Facts panel is the amount in one serving expressed as a percentage of the Daily Value, a reference figure set for labelling so that every product on every shelf is measured against the same yardstick. It is not a recommended intake for any individual. Because the Daily Values are published, any printed percentage can be rechecked: divide the declared amount by the Daily Value, multiply by a hundred, and compare. Ingredients with no established Daily Value carry a dagger or a double asterisk pointing at the words Daily Value not established, which is correct rather than evasive, and it is the normal case for botanical extracts. All five of this product's named ingredients are botanical or enzyme preparations, so a complete panel would correctly show no percentage for any of them. But this product has no Supplement Facts panel at all, so there is no percentage column to check. The absence of percentages is not the problem here. The absence of amounts is.
It is a reference figure used for labelling. Not a prescription, not a target, and not a recommendation tailored to anybody.
One Daily Value is set per nutrient for the purpose of printing a panel, so that every product on every shelf expresses its amounts against the same yardstick. That comparability is the whole point of it, and it is why a printed percentage is useful even though no individual's requirement is exactly the reference figure.
The Daily Values are not secret and they are not hard to find. The National Institutes of Health publishes a fact sheet for every nutrient that has one, and each fact sheet states the figure in a single sentence, with the ages it applies to. No Daily Value is quoted anywhere on this site, and the reason is the subject of the fourth section of this page.
A Recommended Dietary Allowance is a different thing, and the two often differ. An allowance is an intake estimate for a population group, broken down by age and sometimes by sex. A Daily Value is a single labelling figure chosen so that one number can be printed for everybody over four years old. Both are real and they answer different questions. If you have ever noticed that a percentage on a pack does not match what a clinician told you to take, this is usually why.
Three steps, and you need nothing but the panel and a search engine.
One: read the amount and the percentage off the panel. Make sure you have the serving size right first. A panel declaring two tablets per serving is telling you about two tablets, not one; a liquid panel declaring a millilitre volume is telling you about that volume and no other.
Two: look up the Daily Value. Search for the nutrient plus Office of Dietary Supplements. The sentence you want is usually in the first screen of the fact sheet, and it names the figure and the age range it covers.
Three: divide. Amount divided by Daily Value, multiplied by a hundred. Compare the result with the printed percentage, remembering that panels round to the nearest whole percent and that anything under one percent is printed as <1%.
That is the whole method, and it is the only part of a supplement label a buyer can independently verify from an armchair. It takes about ten seconds a line. On this product it takes none, because there is no line to run it on: the only numeral attached to any ingredient is 10:1 on the mullein, and a concentration ratio has no Daily Value, no percentage and no weight.
Not that the bottle contains what the panel says — nothing printed on a label can tell you that. It tells you the panel was produced carefully, and care in the part you can check is weak evidence about care in the parts you cannot. On a product with no panel, even that weak evidence is unavailable.
It means exactly what it says: no reference figure has been set for that ingredient, so there is no percentage to print.
You will see it marked with a dagger or a double asterisk pointing at a footnote at the bottom of the panel. It appears against almost every botanical, every amino acid and most non-vitamin compounds in this aisle, which makes it the normal case rather than the exception. A reader who treats every dagger as a red flag will end up suspicious of the entire shelf and no better informed.
It is not evasive and it is not a warning. A panel that prints an amount and flags it as having no established Daily Value is doing the correct thing. A panel that invented a percentage for an ingredient with no Daily Value would be doing something much worse. Mullein leaf, ginger root, bromelain, lemon and cordyceps are all in this category: a complete panel for this product would carry a dagger on every one of the five lines, and every one of those daggers would be right.
Which brings up the distinction this whole page exists to teach. No Daily Value is not the same as no amount. An ingredient with a dagger beside it still has a milligram figure printed to its left, and that figure is the thing a reader can actually use: it can be set beside a studied dose, multiplied out across a bottle, or read against a monograph. The dagger removes a percentage. It does not remove the number. On this product it is the number that is missing, for all five ingredients, and no dagger convention has anything to do with it.
In practice, printed percentages are usually right. The error a recheck most often turns up is not arithmetic but units, and it is worth knowing what one looks like, because it is invisible unless you divide.
A microgram (mcg) is one thousandth of a milligram (mg). On a panel the two are set in the same type at the same size, three characters apart, and almost nothing about the layout draws attention to which is which.
So the tell is a percentage that cannot be reconciled with its own amount. If a line declares a figure in micrograms and claims a full Daily Value that is itself stated in milligrams, one of the two is wrong by a factor of a thousand — and from the panel alone a reader cannot tell which.
What to do about it: look at the other lines. If every other nutrient on the panel sits at or near a full Daily Value, the likeliest reading is that the unit is a typographical error and the percentage is right. That is a judgement rather than a fact, and the honest way to publish it is as a discrepancy with a view attached, not as a finding.
And then check the direction of the risk. For most nutrients a thousand-fold ambiguity at label amounts is harmless in both readings: too little does nothing, and the correct amount is an ordinary Daily Value. It is only worth alarm if the upper reading would approach a tolerable upper intake level, and those are published too.
None of this can be done here, and it is worth being exact about why. There is no unit on this product to be wrong, because there is no amount to carry one. Sit with that for a moment: a label with a thousand-fold unit error on it would still be more informative than this one, because an error can be spotted, argued about and corrected, while an absence cannot be checked at all. The three sums this desk could run on Breathizen are the bottle life — 60 mL ÷ 0.60 mL a day is 100 days, not thirty; the cost per day, $0.89, $0.59 and $0.49 across the three packs; and the rating, where the supplied distribution gives 4.34 against the 4.7 printed while the ten published reviews average 4.10. Not one of those three is about what is in the bottle.
Every figure below it is per serving, and a serving is often two tablets or a measured volume. Getting this wrong halves or doubles everything else you conclude. This product states its serving precisely — 4 pumps, 0.60 mL — which is more specificity than the five ingredients get between them.
Any one. Divide the declared amount by the published Daily Value and compare. If it matches, somebody proofread the panel; if it does not, read the rest of the label more slowly. Where there is no panel, the question becomes the simpler one: how many ingredients carry a weight.
Milligram, microgram, gram, millilitre. Saying them makes the thousand-fold differences audible in a way that reading them silently does not, and it is the fastest way to catch the commonest fault on a panel that has one.
It is a general explainer about a labelling convention, written for readers rather than lawyers, and it makes no claim about what any product does. It is not medical advice. No Daily Value is quoted anywhere on this site, because this product publishes no panel against which one could be checked. The five sources this desk actually opened are listed in full, with links, in the sources section of the home page.
Because there is no Supplement Facts panel to put them on. Separately, most botanical extracts have no Daily Value established at all, so even a complete panel would correctly show no percentage for these five. The absence of percentages is not the problem here; the absence of amounts is.
There isn't one. No Supplement Facts panel was supplied to this desk with this product, and none appears in any artwork we were given — not on the bottle front, and no photograph of the back or wrap was supplied at all. The brand's own How Breathizen Works graphic contains a tile labelled SUPPLEMENT FACTS, illustrated with a generic document icon.<p>This is the largest single absence this desk has encountered, and most of this site follows from it.</p>
Five named ingredients in 0.60 mL of liquid, in quantities nobody has published. The serving size itself is stated — 4 pumps, 0.60 mL, once daily — which is more than the ingredients get.
Not published. Five ingredients are named and not one carries a weight. We cannot tell you, the sales page does not tell you, and without a panel nobody outside the company can. It is worth being exact about what this means: it does not mean the amounts are low. It means they are unknown.
Three things, because three were computable. The bottle life: 60 mL at 0.60 mL a day is 100 days, not 30. The cost per day: $0.89, $0.59 and $0.49 across the three packs once the bottle life is right. The rating: the supplied distribution gives 4.34 against the 4.7 printed, and the ten published reviews average 4.1. We could not recompute a single ingredient amount, because none exists.
One bottle is 100 days against a 60-day window, so no pack can be finished inside it. The smallest is still the smallest bet: $89, $0.89 a day, and the only one that does not commit you to years of a product whose amounts are not published.
The struck-through figures are $179, $537 and $1,074 — which is $179 multiplied by one, three and six. A crossed-out price is a claim about what something used to sell for, and no date is given on which this product sold at $179 a bottle. We print the struck figures because they are on the offer, and we print this note beside them because a reader deserves to know they are arithmetic rather than history. · window runs from purchase · no subscription · not for under 18, pregnancy or nursingWritten and fact-checked by The Breathizenres Editorial Desk, last updated October 11, 2026. A highlighted slot means that value has not been supplied yet and nothing has been invented in its place — why the reviewer line is empty.
