Bulk Powders feedback?

Sniper said:

Who knows, but does it all not fall under the same flag of protein testing = war, is there ever a winner in a war....!

I believe Bulk Powders knew all along what was going on but didn't want to get involved, who knows how many of their customers have received results, that are misleading in some form due to the lack of education on this topic. (I've commented on this in the past)

My understanding is one supplier is offering to test the protein powders purchased from other labels / suppliers. Once a test is done the person who supplied the sample receives the results. Now some labels have failed massively and other are been belittled by it.

All these test have been carried out on an "as is" therefore every single protein product worldwide will fail by a minimum of 4-6% due to moisture, as its apparently industry standard across the board to state on labels "dry" protein results.

Yet the one company who's paying for the show, has the highest results, hmmmm........ and why are the results higher, it not because of minimal added flavour or sweetener it because they are testing their own products on a "dry" result.

That's my understanding of it all so maybe the term "Protein Peace" is more equipped in referencing Bulk Powders.

Click to expand...

This is not true!

Every single test we have done on our products or customers have done on other companies products are exactly the same test.

NMI laboratories have one standard protein test. All tests are done based on an "as is" basis, and we have not heard anyone else specifying anything else.

They couldn't even if they wanted to, as we get a copy of all the results too.

You can actually see yourself that all lab results are done using the same method at NMI - VL229, so if anyone specified a different test (including us) it would be evident.

By encouraging everyone else to test our products at any time, and the fact we include the exact batch numbers of our proteins tested, it should be quite obvious that we are being as open here as possible. Please purchase them and test them, using your own account or ours, we welcome it.

FYI, our proteins are not higher than other accurately labeled proteins. Quite a few products have come back from other companies with similar levels to ours, and incidentally all the "good" companies are within a few percent of spec.
Sadly it is clear that there is a large number of companies who are supplying under dosed protein and yes, there is quite a bit of frustration from some within the industry that we provide people the means to do this.

Many companies have provided excuses for poor lab results by suggesting protein levels degrade over time (which Fonterra have released a statement saying is incorrect - protein levels are very stable despite temperature, time and humidity) and other companies have even claimed they were provided a under dosed raw product (which the protein supplier in question released a statement also stating it was untrue) - Californian Cheese company, anyone, lol? (That was one for those who have been following from the start! )

Basically, any excuses offered have been debunked. Including this latest excuse in this very thread!

Once again, the tests on our products are exactly the same as the tests people are conducting on other companies products (assuming they are using NMI laboratories), all are based on an "as is" basis.

Your suggestion that this is not the case and that we are misleading people is completely untrue.

Finally, the industry standard is NOT to label a product based on the "dry" content, as this is not an accurate way to display the actual protein content of a product.

The legislation is quite clear on this, and given that the "dry" protein ratio is based on a theoretical reading (once moisture has been removed!) it would be a very inaccurate way to label a product.

I question the knowledge of the person who passed on this information to you.
It's unfortunate if you have mixed up your facts as you have just made the company that you say emailed you this information look completely amateur on the topic.

We're open for discussion on any questions you or any one else may have.

#1. The same method is used in a “dry” or “as it” tests.
NMI-VL229 = Kjeldahl
Kjeldahl method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#2. Upload the latest Fonterra WPI COA

#3. Upload a test from NMI-VL229 on the same batch and request 2 test to be displaced .
a) Dry
b) As is.

And then let’s question the knowledge of the information!

Sniper said:

#1. The same method is used in a “dry” or “as it” tests.
NMI-VL229 = Kjeldahl
Kjeldahl method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#2. Upload the latest Fonterra WPI COA

#3. Upload a test from NMI-VL229 on the same batch and request 2 test to be displaced .
a) Dry
b) As is.

And then let’s question the knowledge of the information!

Click to expand...

Sniper,

I'm actually a bit confused what you're asking for.
The notes about VL229 being the same is irrelevant.

If you wanted a protein tested "dry" people would either have to remove the moisture themselves, or ask the lab to do it.

You'd assume if the lab did this it would've reflected on the test results, ie a mention about the test being dry.



As simply as we can put this, just to be clear again - the tests done on our proteins are exactly the same as those done by customers on other brands.

If you don't believe us, you (or like anyone else) are more than welcome to send our products to be tested and we pay. That should surely answer any doubts?

That seems the easiest way to test your theory.

We have never and will never specify our proteins are done in a different way. If you want to go to NMI and specify different tests (on our proteins or others) "dry" or "as is", then you are welcome to? Please go ahead and post the results here. Free of charge to you.

All testing is done using the same method, and NMI use the "as is" basis for all testing.

Please, test our product and prove us wrong? We'll pay for you.
Email in to proteintestingkit@bulknutrients.com.au to take us up on our offer.

Just touching up on the continuous use of the words "Protein war" also.

To say that protein testing = "war" is a very strange way of looking at things.

Think about it. Protein testing (where people can send their products directly to a Government lab for testing) simply gives people the opportunity to verify that their products meet label claims.
Why is this even the slightest bit controversial?
9 times out of 10, people have purchased these types of products based on label claims so knowing you are getting what you pay for seems straight forward.

Is the industry that crooked that simply giving the people the opportunity to verify their products are what they paid for causes a stir?

Funnily enough, we have only had positive feedback from large companies about public testing, as they know they have nothing to worry about at all, and some industry people clearly like the level of awareness that this has created (we have been thanked on a few occasions in person).

One thing you may not be aware of is the changes that have occurred in the last 12 months due to this testing. Really, people shouldn't be fussing about products 2,3 4 or even 5% out, this is about something much more important than that, and unfortunately as the large majority of people who have tests done aren't publishing their results, the public aren't seeing the true extent of the problems.
Serious problems with companies seriously under dosing the products they are supplying.

Last year, testing uncovered one company selling products which contained less than half the protein claimed (42% average protein with WPI when claimed to be 93%). The carbohydrate levels of these products were 100 times higher than labelled, just imagine the effect this had on people. After the controversy died down, it was established at least 6 companies were selling under dosed product all from the one manufacturer and one company had been selling under dosed products for at least 18 months.

Without public testing, there would be thousands of consumers still none the wiser and the companies involved would still be providing this junk.

While those specific issues appear to be largely sorted out, there is still a lot of this happening. Some recent tests showed one company selling "WPI" which was tested at 24% protein. How do you think the guy felt that had spent $6,000 on this over the last year, the fact he was on selling this makes him responsible too.
We provided him with a way to verify the quality of his product, and while he is extremely disappointed that his products were crap, he is very grateful of the service we provided.

One recent companies products have now failed testing after 4 different individuals have sent their goods to the lab. Again we are talking well under spec, protein at 50 - 60% instead of the labeled 90% . How much longer do you think they will sell bunk product now that they know customers are aware?

I honestly struggle to see how anyone could have an issue with this testing unless they worked or were heavily linked to a company who profiteered from selling under dosed product.

We have set the parameters for testing very carefully, customers send their products to a Gov lab (NMI) after signing a declaration stating their product will go "as delivered".
NMI laboratories test all products by the same method (Kjeldahl, Nitrogen x 6.38) and retain the exact samples that the customers have sent in - in the case that anyone has issues with this testing.
The information then goes to the person who sent the sample in and they are free to use this information as they want, under no obligations to do anything with it.

Given the problems in the industry and the number of heavily under dosed products we have seen, we are surprised we aren't inundated with requests for this service, despite this, we still encourage as many people as possible to use this service.

Bulk Nutrients said:

Sniper,

I'm actually a bit confused what you're asking for.
The notes about VL229 being the same is irrelevant.

If you wanted a protein tested "dry" people would either have to remove the moisture themselves, or ask the lab to do it.

You'd assume if the lab did this it would've reflected on the test results, ie a mention about the test being dry.

As simply as we can put this, just to be clear again - the tests done on our proteins are exactly the same as those done by customers on other brands.

If you don't believe us, you (or like anyone else) are more than welcome to send our products to be tested and we pay. That should surely answer any doubts?

That seems the easiest way to test your theory.

We have never and will never specify our proteins are done in a different way. If you want to go to NMI and specify different tests (on our proteins or others) "dry" or "as is", then you are welcome to? Please go ahead and post the results here. Free of charge to you.

All testing is done using the same method, and NMI use the "as is" basis for all testing.

Please, test our product and prove us wrong? We'll pay for you.
Email in to proteintestingkit@bulknutrients.com.au to take us up on our offer.

Click to expand...

So after several weeks, i'm thinking the raw suppliers test should be up by now, right...? But no nothing, just all the excuses as to why there not up.

I'll explain why supplying the raw test example is more far valuable and transparent than any other testing of flavoured protein mentioned.

A. Firstly we have the basis of the protein used in the raw state that is the most pure un-touch state direct from the source. Awesome starting point!

B. We can then compare NMI test results with the manufactures spec's report on both a "dry" and as "is basis", thus see how accurate bother the supplier and MNI really are.

C. Next we take those results and compare them to what you have stated in this thread and that your test results are on a "as is" basis

D. With a little math, we can all do our own very simple calculation by subtracting the % additives for flavour / sweetness etc and then hey-presto the forum can see honestly with 100% transparency if

i) the test have been done on your protein and written on your labels is on a "dry". (The same as every other or at least the honest protein labels out there.)

ii) the test have been done on your protein and written on your labels is on a "as is".


E. Then for all the forum users on here that had any protein testing done by NMI and by your funding and the results came in between 4-8% off the product label due to being tested on the cheaper "as is" (moisture not removed) method, will have a much clearer understanding and better knowledge why the results they received where under by 4-8%.


Because when I do the math based on the suppliers COA and your flavour % mentioned on your website your results are clearly done on "dry" - Or the alternative is your have simply submitted suspect samples from you own lab with next to no flavour.


Any reply from here on will be pointless and worth nothing as the fact remains until the above steps are carried out with full transparency and evidence proving otherwise there nothing more to say.

But please feel free to prove me wrong, I'm a big man and can admit when I'm wrong and I hope you can do the same.

Finally - Great the actions of testing protein have eliminated some bad operators, awesome so there is some great positives that have come from this no doubt, but why stop there if your going down this path and if your going to self title yourself as the "protein watch dog" be sure your being 100% transparent and supplying the public with clear information, education and knowledge on the true ins and outs. It would seem you have caused a shit storm for both the good suppliers like Bulk Powders as well as the bad operators due to the lack of clear information, education and knowledge.


Looking forward to seeing a spec sheet of the latest batch of Fonterra WPI and the NMI results from the same.

Sniper said:

So after several weeks, i'm thinking the raw suppliers test should be up by now, right...? But no nothing, just all the excuses as to why there not up.

I'll explain why supplying the raw test example is more far valuable and transparent than any other testing of flavoured protein mentioned.

A. Firstly we have the basis of the protein used in the raw state that is the most pure un-touch state direct from the source. Awesome starting point!

B. We can then compare NMI test results with the manufactures spec's report on both a "dry" and as "is basis", thus see how accurate bother the supplier and MNI really are.

C. Next we take those results and compare them to what you have stated in this thread and that your test results are on a "as is" basis

D. With a little math, we can all do our own very simple calculation by subtracting the % additives for flavour / sweetness etc and then hey-presto the forum can see honestly with 100% transparency if

i) the test have been done on your protein and written on your labels is on a "dry". (The same as every other or at least the honest protein labels out there.)

ii) the test have been done on your protein and written on your labels is on a "as is".


E. Then for all the forum users on here that had any protein testing done by NMI and by your funding and the results came in between 4-8% off the product label due to being tested on the cheaper "as is" (moisture not removed) method, will have a much clearer understanding and better knowledge why the results they received where under by 4-8%.


Because when I do the math based on the suppliers COA and your flavour % mentioned on your website your results are clearly done on "dry" - Or the alternative is your have simply submitted suspect samples from you own lab with next to no flavour.


Any reply from here on will be pointless and worth nothing as the fact remains until the above steps are carried out with full transparency and evidence proving otherwise there nothing more to say.

But please feel free to prove me wrong, I'm a big man and can admit when I'm wrong and I hope you can do the same.

Finally - Great the actions of testing protein have eliminated some bad operators, awesome so there is some great positives that have come from this no doubt, but why stop there if your going down this path and if your going to self title yourself as the "protein watch dog" be sure your being 100% transparent and supplying the public with clear information, education and knowledge on the true ins and outs. It would seem you have caused a shit storm for both the good suppliers like Bulk Powders as well as the bad operators due to the lack of clear information, education and knowledge.


Looking forward to seeing a spec sheet of the latest batch of Fonterra WPI and the NMI results from the same.

Click to expand...

We are being completely transparent as to how the tests are done and we have explained this a number of times.
For the final time...

We are not going to deal with your individual issues as you are unsure of how these tests are done. We are very clear on how the tests are done, and even offer you the opportunity to test our proteins yourself free of charge. Whoever is supplying you with information on this is simply not correct.

If our proteins were prepared in any special way then you would be able to determine this as the results you get would be different from ours.
We completely guarantee that all tests are done on an "as is" basis. Whether the proteins sent in are ours or other companies from other customers. They are all done the same way.

Please purchase our protein, and utilise the free lab testing yourself. If your results are more than a 1% variation from ours then you will get a full refund. We even print batch numbers and expiry dates on all the lab forms, so you can in fact test the exact same product if you wish. You are also welcome to call NMI directly if you are not convinced.

An 'as is" basis is used in all the testing as this is what is mandated by law in Australia. A "dry basis" test is one which gives a theoretical measure of protein levels once moisture is removed (so the results would be higher). There is no point conducting any protein test like this if you are trying to determine protein levels of products as purchased. All tests by NMI are done "as is" as that is how customers purchase protein. Whoever has told you that labeling should be done on a theoretical basis "dry" (with moisture removed) is not correct. I recommend rather than believing us or them though, instead ask a legislator yourself. Food Standards reps are available in every state and will clarify this very quickly.

It is a simple question, is the nutritional content of your food based on a theoretical basis (after undergoing treatment), or on the food in the form you purchase it?
The answer is as straightforward as the question.

Just some further information for you as you seem quite confused by this, and it is understandable given the info you have been given. While manufacturers provide spec sheets we have found these are consistently lower than the results by NMI (which are often 1 - 2% higher). That means if Fonterra provide a spec sheet of their raw protein at 79%, it will often test at 80.5%, I suppose manufacturers under quote to protect themselves. Based on this, when we test some of our flavoured WPC's and WPI's (which contain as little as half a percent of flavouring) the results will actually be higher than that found on the spec sheets provided.

I think the easiest way to remove any confusion whatsoever would be for us to simply submit some tests of raw proteins when we send our tests in. We have no issues doing this and will start this soon along with our other tests.

Finally, If any companies (Bulk Powders or otherwise) proteins are coming back significantly lower than advertised, then that is because they are simply lower in protein than advertised. They, like every other company in Australia should label their product based on an "as is" basis, and unless they have clearly written "dry basis" - which sometimes accompanies a protein value of 'as is" then their labeling is inaccurate. Lab tests should perfectly reflect the actual product you buy - I know I have said this a million times.

You seem to be blindly following this idea that protein testing and labeling should be done a certain way, and your information is incorrect. Please test our protein yourself (that way you can determine if it is treated a special way), talk to legislators and NMI yourself, rather than listening to the information you have been given (which is clearly false). It is interesting to note that you are supporting a company which has provided you incorrect information and seem happy to flame a company which is encouraging you to talk to independent legislators and the lab itself to back up any claims. We are also offering to pay for any tests you submit and offer a full refund if the results you get don't equate to the tests we display on the website.

I keep getting these emails from Bulk Powders trying to promote or sell some product. Have to spam them, I don't agree with Bulk Powders representative [MENTION=10451]Sniper[/MENTION]; "stealth advertising" on forums.