MadaFacor
Well-known Member
I wanted to share an observation from the peptide user groups, which I feel is relevant to this community.
As a harm reduction community, the members here value the purity and quality of our substances, and many of us rely on the 3rd party certificates of assurance provided by labs like @janoshik. These certificates are crucial for verifying the substances we utilize. However, there's a specific practice in the industry that we need to be aware of and on the lookout for.
These certificates can sometimes be reissued under different company/lab name for the batch/test results for a substance. This scenario is common when companies buy in bulk together or when they want branded test results. While the practice itself isn't inherently flawed, it does raise some questions about the authenticity of the product and who actually tested that product.
A particular concern is the potential mismatch between tested samples and the actual products distributed. We have observed instances where test results that appear to have been third-party tested, were in fact, from the Chinese manufacturer or distributor that originally sold the distirbutor this product. These results are then presented as third-party results by the company in the US reselling these products. This situation highlights an unlikely but real scenario of identical test results appearing across various companies – a red flag and dead giveaway given the variability in production and results.
Janoshik has stated he allows the buyers to rebrand the COAs for an additional fee. I understand why this is reasonable when multiple affiliated companies purchase in bulk together. It becomes questionable when a reseller is representing the results of the manufacturer as its own independent testing.
While manufacturer certificates provide baseline assurance, verifying the specific batch you receive through independent, 3rd party, testing is important for harm reduction. Labs representing the manufacturers/distributors COAs as their own 3rd party results is not acceptable. This approach isn't just about thoroughness; it’s about ensuring the safety and efficacy of these chemicals.
I have been aware of this practice for about a month and have been keeping an eye out for it. At this time, I have only witnessed two US peptide sellers using the manufacturers COAs and in one instance each other’s. They appear to be affiliated and have been called out on some of the discord and peptide user groups. So the word is out that the community is looking for this.
I am not sure if the members of this board were aware of this practice. But you should be. Smaller UGLs reselling bulk purchased Chinese products should be cross-checked against the large manufacturers' COAs to ensure they are not simply repackaging and reselling without independent verification of the quality and purity of the products. This step is crucial to confirm that the substances meet the high standards we expect and rely upon for our research and usage.
As a harm reduction community, the members here value the purity and quality of our substances, and many of us rely on the 3rd party certificates of assurance provided by labs like @janoshik. These certificates are crucial for verifying the substances we utilize. However, there's a specific practice in the industry that we need to be aware of and on the lookout for.
These certificates can sometimes be reissued under different company/lab name for the batch/test results for a substance. This scenario is common when companies buy in bulk together or when they want branded test results. While the practice itself isn't inherently flawed, it does raise some questions about the authenticity of the product and who actually tested that product.
A particular concern is the potential mismatch between tested samples and the actual products distributed. We have observed instances where test results that appear to have been third-party tested, were in fact, from the Chinese manufacturer or distributor that originally sold the distirbutor this product. These results are then presented as third-party results by the company in the US reselling these products. This situation highlights an unlikely but real scenario of identical test results appearing across various companies – a red flag and dead giveaway given the variability in production and results.
Janoshik has stated he allows the buyers to rebrand the COAs for an additional fee. I understand why this is reasonable when multiple affiliated companies purchase in bulk together. It becomes questionable when a reseller is representing the results of the manufacturer as its own independent testing.
While manufacturer certificates provide baseline assurance, verifying the specific batch you receive through independent, 3rd party, testing is important for harm reduction. Labs representing the manufacturers/distributors COAs as their own 3rd party results is not acceptable. This approach isn't just about thoroughness; it’s about ensuring the safety and efficacy of these chemicals.
I have been aware of this practice for about a month and have been keeping an eye out for it. At this time, I have only witnessed two US peptide sellers using the manufacturers COAs and in one instance each other’s. They appear to be affiliated and have been called out on some of the discord and peptide user groups. So the word is out that the community is looking for this.
I am not sure if the members of this board were aware of this practice. But you should be. Smaller UGLs reselling bulk purchased Chinese products should be cross-checked against the large manufacturers' COAs to ensure they are not simply repackaging and reselling without independent verification of the quality and purity of the products. This step is crucial to confirm that the substances meet the high standards we expect and rely upon for our research and usage.
