Comment · Thu, November 1, 2018
Question about Terpene/Polyphenols testing
Original post in this thread
obliviron · 3 points
Hi, I have bought Lion's Mane in the past and I was wondering why the Terpene content isn't tested. Beta-Glucans are important, but they are likely secondary to the alkaloids in terms of importance for the effect profile of Lion's Mane. Can this be tested for? I understand other companies wanting to sell a lesser or shady product and not even test for B-Glucans, but now that Nammex is providing standardized B-Glucans every vendor that sources from Nammex is advertising B-Glucan content. Knowing the Terpene and the content of alkaloids unique to Lion's Mane would be more indicative of the quality of the extract.
What they were answering
Kostya93 · 2 points
Do you not trust in-house lab results because you don't have an in-house lab, and don't understand that analytical chemistry enough to know how to verify the validity of the methods?
No, I don't trust them because there's a major conflict of interest. And confirmation bias, potentially. In-house testing is a great tool for a vendor to check he's getting the proper raw materials and such.
But as a consumer I prefer to see third party test results issued by certified labs that do not have a financial interest in the product or company. And like I said before, as a consumer I want to see these results on the supplement facts panel as well to minimize the chance of deception.
I have not checked the CFR regulations in detail but I'm confident they won't tell you anywhere you can lie without repercussions, anywhere. But that's not the point.
Something tells me that all those banners and other blurbs seen on the front label like 'New Formula !' or 'Freshly Squeezed !' or 'Contains PSK/PSP!' (to include a mushroom-related phrase) can be printed in general without actually using a new formula, etc. Most people interpret those phrases as mere marketing anyway.
Vendors appear to have some leeway in what they print on the front label but ZERO leeway in what they print on the supplement facts panel, that's obvious. There are very strict regulations regarding formatting and how inf…
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb
No, I don't trust them because there's always a financial interest involved.
There is always a financial interest involved.
But as a consumer I prefer to see third party test results issued by certified labs that do not have a financial interest in the product or company.
I am going to tell you a story. I am not going to name names, but this is a real lab that many people around the world use. We will call them Lab A. They had very strict protocols for confirming the identity and purity of extracts. They would always err on the side of caution, and if everything was not perfect, they would give a negative result. This led to many batches being rejected, even though some of them were actually the correct species and plant part. It's just the extraction method or cultivar was a bit different, and it did not perfectly fit the reference materials. This led to Lab A rejecting a lot of batches from large companies. These companies started also sending out the samples to another lab, Lab B, and that lab was approving the batches. So they started to get upset with the Lab A, and they pulled their business from them. They then started sending all their business to Lab B. Lab A really started to feel the loss in revenue from these vendors going elsewhere, so they decided to loosen up their standards so that they could approve more batches that came through. That way they could at least stop the loss in business they were experiencing, and possibly get some of those large vendors back. So now Lab A modified their methods and standards to be less strict for monetary reasons. There is always a chance for money to influence people's decisions, even if it might first seem that they have no vested monetary interest in the results.
To top it off, for a long time industry standard for identity and content analysis of natural plant extracts was using UV-VIS. This is what everyone did, and all labs conformed to those standards. Well people started analyzing those same extracts via HPLC, and they were finding that the % of the active ingredients was actually HALF what they were claiming from the UV-VIS results. Literally half the amount of active ingredients where in the extracts than they claimed. However, both the vendor and the labs were legally covered, as UV-VIS was considered the industry standard method. It did not matter that the numbers were all inflated. The labs ran the industry standard tests, the vendors listed the numbers given to them by the lab, and everyone turned a blind eye to the fact that things were completely inaccurate because they had no reason to be the first ones to start claiming the more accurate and lower numbers. This went on for DECADES! Nobody really cared, as the numbers looked better than they really were, and consumers were non the wiser about the inaccuracies. The industry standard resulted in everyone being misled for decades. This is also a big reason why I have an in-house lab, and why I am spending what I am on equipment and personnel. Sometimes the industry standard is bullshit, and we need to force drastic change to advance things. If we just keep sending off to labs, getting a result back from them, then accepting that as fact, nothing will ever change for the better. THAT'S the financial interest you should be concerned about. The financial interest of "not my problem" leads to more issues than willful deception. When it really is not the labs problem, then the status quo continues on and on and on...
Something tells me that all those banners and other blurbs seen on the front label like 'New Formula !' or 'Freshly Squeezed !' or 'Contains PSK/PSP!' (to include a mushroom-related phrase) can be printed in general without actually using a new formula, etc. Most people interpret those phrases as mere marketing anyway.
That's incorrect. Those statements have to be true just as much as anything else, or the FTC will go after you. There have been a number of very large lawsuits surrounding scenarios just like you mentioned. Just because many people thwart the laws and regulations doesn't mean they are not still there and need to be followed.
You can print a mushroom there without having mushroom in your product, etc etc.
You really can't. That's a big no no, and the fact that Host Defense does it is a big problem. They are going to have a big lawsuit on their hands soon; that is if they have not already settled one quietly in the background.
There are also supplement sellers that use 'nutrition facts' instead of 'supplement facts' on their product because -my educated guess- it gives them also more room to deceive.
There are regulations regarding which to use. Nutrition Facts panels need to be used for things with RDIs, or recommended daily intakes. This is why most foods have a Nutrition Facts panel. Supplement Facts panels are used for things with no RDIs.
As for Aloha Medicinals, see this blog, the bottom paragraph. Not only are they using a known dry lab but also a pretreatment with chitinase (thus creating an extracted version of their product) to improve the test results. An example of a COA : http://www.supplement-facts.org/images/AlohaM-Chaga%20CoA.pdf
Very interesting. Again, I am not surprised. Many vendors out there are sketchy as hell, and are only in it to make as much money as they can. Apart from that, ignorance is a big factor as well. People don't know what they don't know, and often times they do things incorrectly not out of purposeful maleficence, but because they are not knowledgeable enough to know that they are doing wrong. A healthy level of skepticism is good to protect yourself, but you also need to be sure to not venture into cynicism. Not everyone out there is a scammer, and there are people trying to change things for the better.