weighted chinup, post: 1386063, member: 66851"]I suspect that pretty soon more and more domestic small operations are going to jump on international testing in European labs. You will have to get acclimated sooner or later with this in order to stay competitive. That is speculation on my part, but I've already seen some examples of increased interest in testing thanks to Anaboliclab - labs are starting to realize verifiable testing is available and there is no excuse not to perform analytical testing on raw materials or finished products.
If you aren't motivated to do this now, you will be when your competitors start jumping on international testing.
I agree. There should be nothing fear if honest labs are doing what they are suppose to do be doing. If raws come back very poor they will finally have credible evidence to go back to their suppliers and can help the community out poor raw suppliers. If raws come back acceptable, then they can dose up to the advertised label, or bring the advertised label to the tested purity. If raws come back good, then proceed to use raws for finished product. If finished products do not come back with the same potency as raws, the source needs to look at their brewing practices. Cost is not an issue, the amount of business and satisfied and reassured customers this would break would be tenfold the investment. Please don't get me wrong, I am supportive of this move, there should be accountability. AAS are not cheap, customers spend their hard earned money on products sources produce. These customers should get what they pay for.
If your argument is that you want the raw data to look over the chemists work to check for mistakes or something ridiculous like that then I think you are missing the point of an accredited lab. If you want to raw data just to have more disclosure for the sake of having more disclosure then that is commendable. They will more than likely provide it if you request it. That should be the LAST thing stopping you from moving forward.[/QUOTE]
That is not our intention, I do not doubt the authenticity or testing methods. The reason we ask is because we have had some labs and suppliers send testing results, COAs, etc that could have been either fabricated, done on purified standards that they themselves do not sell, results from another supplier and not their own, etc. By having access to the raw data to results that have been publicly published, it give us something very real, concrete and applicable, if that makes sense. It matches raw data with a real world application and lab, and the method in which they determined the purity would match the current published reports.
Please understand that I am in no way trying to be contentious or resist the idea of quantitative testing - it would only help and improve our operation. My intention of my first responses was to try and give a, albeit limited, look into why in many cases it is not as simple as it may seem for sources. I am hesitant to give much more information in this regard because of the public nature of this forum. Hopefully you understand.
