Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Photo
- - - - -

Source Naturals?


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 superpooper

Posted 28 September 2007 - 05:34 AM


What can you tell me about this company? Because there website didn't say much.

Do you know if they follow GMP?

#2 ajnast4r Re: Source Naturals?

  • Location:Sacramento, California

Posted 28 September 2007 - 01:51 PM

they are decent... not one of the first brands i look to.
i consider them to be a second tier brand.

sponsored ad

#3 chennai01 Re: Source Naturals?

Posted 28 September 2007 - 02:21 PM

They seem pretty good to me. Personally, I prefer Life Extension (though a lot of their products tend to have a lot of potential allergens in them), but Source Naturals appears to be pretty good (especially in lacking allergens) and some of their products are sold by Life Extension (they have told me they only sell a few brands that they consider having good quality). Of course, I haven't seen consumer labs results so I could be wrong.

#4 tintinet Re: Source Naturals?

  • Location:ME

Posted 28 September 2007 - 10:18 PM

IIRC, ConsumerLabs.com has reported some deficiencies or other problems with some of their supplements in the past....

I don't trust 'em entirely.

#5 quicksilver Re: Source Naturals?

Posted 29 September 2007 - 02:11 PM

IIRC, ConsumerLabs.com has reported some deficiencies or other problems with some of their supplements in the past....

I don't trust 'em entirely.


Unless you can link or quote a source thats just bs.

#6 ajnast4r Re: Source Naturals?

  • Location:Sacramento, California

Posted 29 September 2007 - 07:40 PM

IIRC, ConsumerLabs.com has reported some deficiencies or other problems with some of their supplements in the past....

I don't trust 'em entirely.


Unless you can link or quote a source thats just bs.


you must have missed the consumerlabs.com part

#7 tintinet Re: Source Naturals?

  • Location:ME

Posted 30 September 2007 - 02:54 AM

One report on SN supplements @ ConsumerLab.com:


"Source Naturals® St. John's Wort 450™ (450 mg standardized extract per tablet, 2 per day)
Ingredients Dist. by Source Naturals, Inc

NOT APPROVED

Only had 84% of claimed hypericin"

#8 tintinet Re: Source Naturals?

  • Location:ME

Posted 30 September 2007 - 02:57 AM

Another:


"Source Naturals® Magnesium Chelate 100 mg
Ingredients
Dist. by Source Naturals, Inc.
Magnesium Chelate

100 mg/ tablet (1-4 per day)


APPROVED*

*: Maximum suggested serving size exceeds Upper Tolerable Intake Level (UL) for magnesium (350 mg/day) for adults when taken within range of recommended daily servings and should be used with awareness of potential side effects, particularly diarrhea."

#9 tintinet Re: Source Naturals?

  • Location:ME

Posted 30 September 2007 - 03:00 AM

Still more:

"Source Naturals® Male Response, 100 mg horny goat weed extract (10% icariin) per tablet, 3 - 5 per day
Ingredients Dist. by SourceNaturals, Inc.
300 - 500 mg Horny Goat Weed

30-50 mg © icariin


NOT APPROVED


Found only 52% of claimed icariin"

#10 quicksilver Re: Source Naturals?

Posted 01 October 2007 - 12:32 AM

One report on SN supplements @ ConsumerLab.com:


"Source Naturals® St. John's Wort 450™ (450 mg standardized extract per tablet, 2 per day)
Ingredients  Dist. by Source Naturals, Inc 

NOT APPROVED

Only had 84% of claimed hypericin"



Consumerlab is not a accurate source of anything. Just a bunch of former FDA officals looking for new work. (1) According to them LEF, Jarrow, and every company fails at something.

(1) http://www.iahf.com/...x/20001011.html

#11 ajnast4r Re: Source Naturals?

  • Location:Sacramento, California

Posted 01 October 2007 - 12:57 AM

Consumerlab is not a accurate source of anything. Just a bunch of former FDA officals looking for new work. (1) According to them LEF, Jarrow, and every company fails at something.

(1) http://www.iahf.com/...x/20001011.html



most companies simply are garbage, theres no denying that. the difference between a company like jarrow and source naturals is their response to the failure.


source naturals response to a failure... do nothing
jarrows response... recall every single bottle containing said ingredient



go all conspiracy theory all you want, source naturals is only a 'decent' brand... not top tier. consumer labs is not in the business of faking results, i assure you...


and just so you know i believe jarrow has only failed once, and over the past few years has sunk *millions* of dollars into their facilities. jarrow is a top tier brand, end of story.

#12 quicksilver Re: Source Naturals?

Posted 01 October 2007 - 01:00 AM



Consumerlab is not a accurate source of anything. Just a bunch of former FDA officals looking for new work. (1) According to them LEF, Jarrow, and every company fails at something.

(1) http://www.iahf.com/...x/20001011.html



most companies do at one point fail at certain tests, the difference is the response...

source naturals response to a failure... do nothing
jarrows response... recall every single bottle containing said ingredient



go all conspiracy theory all you want, source naturals is only a 'decent' brand... not top tier.

consumer labs is not in the business of faking results, i assure you...


Actually ConsumerLabs has been wrong on several occasions. They despite their name do zero testing of their own. They use 3rd party labs.


ConsumerLab.com Attempts to Refute Independent Lab’s Results -- TRIMSPA Sets Record Straight

In late November, 2005, an independent third party laboratory refuted the trivalent and hexavalent Chromium results on TRIMSPA X32 reported in ConsumerLab.com’s Product Review: Chromium. ConsumerLab.com, in a press release issued yesterday, continued to stand behind their Report with the argument that the third party results, from American Analytical Chemistry Laboratories Corp. (AACL), are questionable due to a FDA warning letter on operating procedures and the lack of an EPA Certification.


(PRWEB) December 8, 2005 -- In late November, 2005, an independent third party laboratory refuted the trivalent and hexavalent Chromium results on TRIMSPA X32 reported in ConsumerLab.com’s Product Review: Chromium. ConsumerLab.com, in a press release issued yesterday, continued to stand behind their Report with the argument that the third party results, from American Analytical Chemistry Laboratories Corp. (AACL), are questionable due to a FDA warning letter on operating procedures and the lack of an EPA Certification.

TRIMSPA’s representative commented, “Dr. Obermeyer, of ConsumerLabs.com, is painting only a partial picture in his attempt to refute the results of an independent laboratory. He [Dr. Obermeyer] cites a warning letter issued by the FDA but neglects to mention that the warning was issued in February of 2003 and that, since that time, no additional warnings have been issued and all standard operating procedures have been closely adhered. The laboratory, in other words, is fully compliant with current GLP (Good Laboratory Procedures) as stated in the Code of Federal Regulations.”

“Furthermore,” added the TRIMSPA representative, “Dr. Zhen-Chang Charlie Li, Ph.D. and President of American Analytical Chemistry Laboratories, Corp., has retained a FDA consultant for more than 2 years to ensure compliance with all federal regulations. AACL operates according to EPA/FDA GLP guidelines, and QA/QC and SOP programs have been incorporated to ensure both consistency and accuracy of their results.”

According to the TRIMSPA, Obermeyer has not revealed the names of the Laboratories conducting their tests or their history of FDA compliance. Said TRIMSPA’s representative, “ConsumerLab.com has failed to provide a validated GLP assay under which these tests were performed, or the limits for detection. The question is not whether TRIMSPA is hiding anything, but is ConsumerLabs.com?”

The release issued by ConsumerLab.com also noted that, “Laboratories with expertise in testing for chromium and hexavalent chromium are generally EPA certified. American Analytical Chemistry Laboratories Corp. is not listed an EPA certified laboratory.”

According to Dr. Li, AACL, EPA certification was maintained by the lab from 1996 to 1999. With less than 1% of the Lab’s business requiring EPA certification, Li said, “The decision to drop the certification was purely a business one; certification costs thousands and thousands of dollars annually.”

Since its inception in 1994, AACL has been serving the Nutraceutical, Nutrition Supplement, Pharmaceutical, and Cosmetic industries. The Lab’s background was ideal for confirming or dispelling the ConsumerLab.com report findings. The Lab is professionally affiliated with and/or certified by the American Association of the Advancement of Science, AOAC International (Association of Analytical Chemists), American Botanical Council, American Chemical Society, American Oil Chemical Society, Institute of Food Technology, and is FDA Registered.

TRIMSPA agrees with Obermeyer that Chromium testing requires special techniques and highly experienced technicians testing. Said TRIMSPA’s representative, “Testing Chromium improperly can cause erroneous results (1) – including the false assumption that trivalent Chromium in supplements could include hexavalent chromium. Obermeyer failed to note that hexavalent Chromium is a man-made material that is not present in supplements. More important, none of the manufacturing processes for X32 introduce processes or ingredients that would oxidize the trivalent Chromium to a hexavalent state.”

“ConsumerLab.com,” said TRIMSPA’s representative, “would like the public to believe that a FDA warning letter issued in 2003 and the lack of an EPA certification makes AACL’s results less credible. The truth is, it doesn’t.”

TRIMSPA has a proven track record of compliance with all industry standards and stands by all its products and claims. The Company plans to take proper legal action where appropriate to help rectify the situation.

References:
1. Dietary Chromium: An Overview by Barry Mennen, M.D. Available at: http://www.luminet.n...ker.htmAccessed November 15, 2005






New Chapter had to correct their testing flaws.

http://newchapter.co...rlab_coq10.html





FTC Urged to Investigate Purported Consumer Watchdog
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- The Council for Responsible Nutrition
(CRN) has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate deceptive business
practices by ConsumerLab.com and take appropriate action.

The CRN complaint states that ConsumerLab.com -- which represents itself as a consumer
watchdog testing dietary supplements -- is in reality a for- profit company that solicits money
from the makers of products it plans to have tested. Those that pay have positive results
highlighted and negative results quashed; those that don't pay have negative results highlighted
and positive results obscured.

"Until now, nobody has looked behind the curtain and exposed ConsumerLab.com's tactics,"
said CRN President Annette Dickinson, Ph.D. "It is a business, not a watchdog -- one that
intimidates manufacturers to pay for its services. We ask the FTC to lift the veil this company
uses to disguise its true nature."

ConsumerLab.com promotes itself as "a leading provider of consumer information and independent
evaluations of products that affect health and nutrition." Contrary to the image it projects of an actual
testing facility, ConsumerLab.com essentially is a three-person operation, and its business address
is a UPS drop box in White Plains, N.Y. It farms out product testing, but does not make public the
identity of the laboratories it uses.

Here is how it works: ConsumerLab.com approaches dietary supplement makers requesting that
they enroll in its "voluntary" testing program -- for a fee. Those that pay are guaranteed that products
failing the subsequent testing will not be identified publicly. Companies that do not pay risk having their
products tested anyway and, if they fail, being publicized on ConsumerLab.com's Web site and in the media.

Meeting ConsumerLab.com's standards is no guarantee that a manufacturer will be treated fairly.
Only products from companies that pay up and pass are mentioned on the free portion of ConsumerLab.com's
Web site. Products that pass but are made by companies that don't pay are listed only on the private portion
of the site. These products are absent from the public site, giving the impression to non-subscribers that they
must have failed because they aren't listed. And even the 20,000 Web subscribers, who pay
$24 a year for "full access" to product tests, aren't told that ConsumerLab.com has agreed to suppress failing
results for companies that paid up.

CRN and its member companies recognize the value and importance of legitimate third-party testing
programs -- such as those run by U.S.
Pharmacopeia and NSF International -- that operate in an honest and aboveboard manner and help
consumers select high-quality products. The ConsumerLab.com business model, by contrast, is unfair
and deceptive.

CRN is asking the FTC to make ConsumerLab.com: 1) make public all future test results regardless of
whether companies have paid money to ConsumerLab.com; 2) release testing criteria and methodologies
in advance;
3) identify the contract laboratories that actually do its testing; and 4) change its name to one that does
not falsely imply that it does its own testing.

"ConsumerLab.com's entire business model is based upon threat and deception," Dr. Dickinson said.
"Forcing it to come clean will take away its ability to mislead the media and the public."

Founded in 1973, CRN is a Washington, D.C.-based trade association representing dietary supplement
industry ingredient suppliers and manufacturers. CRN members adhere to a strong code of ethics, comply

with dosage limits and manufacture dietary supplements to high quality standards under good manufacturing
practices. For more information on CRN, visit <http://www.crnusa.org>.

SOURCE Council for Responsible Nutrition

01/13/2005 09:05 ET

http://www.michaelmo...onsumerLabs.htm

#13 tintinet Re: Source Naturals?

  • Location:ME

Posted 01 October 2007 - 02:33 PM

Ya, ya, ya.....

"The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), founded in 1973, is a Washington-based trade association representing ingredient suppliers and manufacturers in the dietary supplement industry. CRN members adhere to a strong code of ethics, comply with dosage limits and manufacture dietary supplements to high quality standards under good manufacturing practices. CRN's mission is to improve the environment for member companies to responsibly market dietary supplements by enhancing confidence among media, healthcare professionals, decision makers and consumers."

Uh, huh. "Everybody's got sum'thin' to hide, 'cept for me and my monkey."
-Lenon? Everybody? Bueller?

#14 Mind Re: Source Naturals?

  • Location:Wausau, WI
  • yes

Posted 01 October 2007 - 06:07 PM

I think consumer reports does a pretty good job on a lot of things, however, I have never seen one of their reports about supps.

#15 Anthony_Loera Re: Source Naturals?

  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 01 October 2007 - 06:39 PM

I have contacted ConsumerLabs.com about Resveratrol testing a while back... here is the email I got from them regarding the testing:

Dear Anthony,



Thank you for your e-mail and interest in ConsumerLab.com’s Voluntary Certification Program.  As the leading consumer-oriented testing service company, consumers, health practitioners, and retailers actively use our CL Approved Products Lists to select products.  Our website,www.consumerlab.com, received over 2.7 million visits in the last 12 months and 71,000+ people have joined our e-newsletter. In addition to our individual subscribers, our institutional subscribers include university libraries, public libraries, hospitals, healthcare centers, HMOs, medical practices and government agencies.



The media has embraced CL's work with extensive coverage in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, Health Magazine, Prevention Magazine, Money Magazine, Time Magazine, Better Homes & Gardens, O, The Oprah Magazine, Men’s Health, 20/20, CNN, Good Morning America, and many other consumer/health related periodicals, and newsletters, radio programs and Web sites.  Additionally in September 2003, CL released its first book, a Buyer's Guide, which includes a number of our Product Reviews.  The book has received rave reviews and a second edition is planned for release later this year. 



Benefits of participating in CL’s Voluntary Certification Program include:

    * Online listing as “Approved Quality” on the popular ConsumerLab.com website
    * Listing in a future edition of ConsumerLab.com’s Guide to Buying Vitamins & Supplements
    * Potential mention of your product as Approved in free media coverage

·        Use of the CL Seal in:

                  Business-to-business marketing/sales materials

                                    Presentations

                                    Trade Show displays

                                    News releases

                                    Internal Reports, including Annual Reports

    * Other promotional opportunities through our licensing program -- including use of the CL Seal on labels, displays, and consumer-directed marketing materials





The fee to test a resveratrol product is $3,650.  Attached is information on ConsumerLab.com's Licensing Program.  Please note that a product's testing fee is credited towards its licensing fee.  Also, volume discounts are available for both programs.  If you would like to move forward with testing your resveratrol product, please provide me with the name of the product, your company’s corporate name and address and your phone and fax numbers.



CL's testing and Seal licensing programs would be invaluable, additional marketing tools for your brand.  In this competitive marketplace, independent, third-party testing makes a difference to consumers and helps a product standout on its quality claim.  I look forward to hearing from  you.



Sincerely,



Lisa K. Sabin
VP, Business Development
ConsumerLab.com
609-936-0770 (p)

609-936-1226 (f)
lisa.sabin@consumerlab.com
Web site:  www.consumerlab.com


if you then compare the price against AACL:

Hello Anthony,
Thank you for contacting our lab for your testing needs.

For your powder sample, here is the breakdown of our prices:

Resveratrol- $285
E. Coli- $18
Yeast and Molds- $15
Salmonella Screen- $25
Cadmium- $38
Arsenic- $50
Lead- $50
Acid Digestion Fee (per sample for heavy metals testing)- $25
Mercury- $85


you can see why we didn't go with ConsumerLabs.com, the price was (at the time) a bit excessive. (specially if we needed to test every batch...)
I am pretty sure folks mentioned in ConsumerLabs are not using them to test every batch, it does (in my humble opinion) appear to be geared for marketing rather than safety.

Its just to pricey to consider doing more than once.

Thanks
Anthony Loera

sponsored ad

#16 ajnast4r Re: Source Naturals?

  • Location:Sacramento, California

Posted 01 October 2007 - 08:51 PM

that new chapter thing was very unique to the new chapter style of vitamin, not a huge flaw... and CL did mention and correct it on their website.

screw ups happen..... but what i said still stands in that they are not purposefully going out of their way to make supplements look bad AND source naturals still isnt the best brand around.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users