That COA does not have a company of manufacture on it. Companies can write whatever they please on a COA -- and will -- how would they sell it otherwise? The supplement market is unregulated, so no one is forced to prove that the information on a COA is accurate before selling it for human consumption. Do you think the products manufactured by Bluebonnet, Canadian Sun, Country Life, GNC, Food Science of Vermont, Futurebiotics, Herbal Select, Jarrow, KAL, Life Extension, Metabolic Maintenance, Nature's Answer, Nature's Bounty, Pharmanex, Puritan's Pride, Schiff, Vitamin World, and Whole Foods, etc. would actually bottle a product with measurable levels of lead or 71% purity?
Well, obviously someone sent the company in question a COA that claimed it had a certain purity, but it in fact did not. It would be silly to assume that these problems only appear in MAJOR supplement companies due to lack of quality control and trusting a COA from a supplier from an unindustrialized nation. I'm not saying anything about the green tea you have on hand, except that it appears to be a Chinese imported dietary supplement, and you might want to consider the implications.
http://www.consumerl...ne_selenium.asp[quote name='consumerlabs.com']Certain foods and nutrients are associated with a reduced risk of cancer. Many of these are anti-oxidants, scavenging free radicals that can otherwise damage cells. Supplements containing three popular ingredients — green tea, lycopene or selenium — were purchased and tested. [See separate reports on this site for other ingredients used for cancer prevention: folate, garlic, isoflavones, vitamin C, vitamin D, and vitamin E.]
But problems were detected in three green tea products: Two were contaminated with lead and another contained only 71% of its claimed level of EGCG, a key compound in green tea. One selenium supplement contained only 38% of its ingredient.Brands covered in the review include those from
Bluebonnet, Canadian Sun, Country Life, GNC, Food Science of Vermont, Futurebiotics, Herbal Select, Jarrow, KAL, Life Extension, Metabolic Maintenance, Nature's Answer, Nature's Bounty, Pharmanex, Puritan's Pride, Schiff, Vitamin World, and Whole Foods. [/quote]
What do you think the COAs for these products read?
Toxic levels of lead? 71% of its claimed level of EGCG? A study of ginseng products found tremendous variability, with
as little as 12% and as much as 328% of the active ingredient in the bottle, compared to the information on the label (Am J Clin Nutr. 2001. 73. 1101-1106).*A study of 59 Echinacea products from retail stores analyzed by thin layer chromotography showed that
6 contained no measurable Echinacea and only 9 of the 21 preparations labelled as standardized extracts actually contained in the sample the content listed on the label. Overall, the assay results were consistent with the labelled content in only 31 of the59 preparations (Arch Intern Med. 2003. 163. 699-704).*When the FDA announced in 2003 a proposed rule to establish good manufacturing practices for supplements, the FDA cited data that
5 of 18 soy and/or red clover supplements contained only 50-80% of the quantity of isoflavones stated on the label, and 8 of 25 probiotic products contained less than 1% of the live bacteria claimed on the label.*
A 2002 Bastyr University study of 20 probiotic supplements found that
16 contained bacteria not listed on the label, 6 contained organisms that can make people sick, and 4 contained no live organisms.PC-SPES was removed from the market in 2002 after it was determined that it was adulterated with the prescription blood thinner, warfarin.*
*source:
http://www.acsu.buff...etyefficacy.htmPeace.
[quote name='http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~shlevy/dietsuppqualitysafetyefficacy.htm']
Consumer Reports (May 2004) and the “Dirty Dozen” unsafe herbs still readily available
· “CONSUMER REPORTS has identified a dozen (supplements) that … are too dangerous to be on the market. Yet they are.” Introductory paragraph in red ink.
· Factors contributing to unsafe supplements on the market.
· “ ‘The standards for demonstrating a supplement is hazardous are so high that it can take the FDA years to build a case,’ said Bruce Silverglade, legal director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington D.C., consumer advocacy group”(pg. 12).
· “The FDA’s supplement division is understaffed and underfunded, with about 60 people and a budget of only 10 million “dollars)…” (pp. 12-13).
· “…Overwhelming opposition from Congress and industry forced it to back down” when the FDA first tried to regulate ephedra in 1997 (pg. 13).
· The public assumes a greater degree of government regulation than exists – in a 2002 Harris Poll of 1010 adults, 59% of respondents believed that supplements must be approved by a government agency before they can be sold to the public, 68% thought the government requires warning labels on supplements with regard to potential dangers, and 55% thought that supplement manufacturers could not make safety claims without solid scientific support.[/quote]
Edited by nootropikamil, 23 May 2006 - 07:07 PM.