At least that is what they say. I am not a believer of 100:1, 200:1 or 1000:1 extracts, where nobody knows what is in there. You can only make educated guesses about the active ingredients.
Anyhow, I guess SNS is using plain powder then? Full spectrum in supplement language?
I'm staying out of the part of this where they claim that theirs is stronger than the one used in the study or OL's, etc. I do believe that the 5:1, 10:1, 100:1 does make a difference IF you're talking about the same thing(s) that the herb is being extracted for. Note that I'm talking about any herb, not KME specifically.
And please don't make assumptions about what we are or aren't using. The thread revealing the ingredients was meant to be a fun interactive guessing game with consumers and forum members. It wasn't supposed to turn into a company vs. company thing or meant in any way to reveal everything about the ingredients. So please respectfully wait for us to release product information without making assumptions.
Note: OL nor BLR state the exact extracts of KME that they use on their labels and the reason for this is most likely for the reasons that I state in my reply below, especially the bolded part. As much as companies may want to provide info to consumers, the FDA is starting to dictate more and more the processes for what can and cannot be specified and rules for if it is (on labels).
Well, the reason specifics are not mentioned regarding extracts of BLR ingredients is the same reason some like to hide specifics within a prop blend. To give an edge to BLR. So, those that poo poo on the fact that the specific extract and extraction method are not specifically listed, you are calling Brundel liar. He for.ulated products he personally would use first, and who short changes themselves?
There are a number of reasons that companies don't use more specifics and for using proprietary blends:
- There are companies that don't specify extracts because they want to use the cheapest thing possible.
- There are ingredients that the raw material supply &/or pricing isn't constant on so companies don't want to obligate to a specific one in case the price were to dramatically change they don't want to have to change their price or run the risk of losing money in labels to have to reprint them with a new extract/dose.
- There are companies that do feel like its a competitive advantage to keep their extract specifics to themselves.
-
Now here's a big one that most consumers aren't aware of - the FDA is really cracking down on companies being able to PROVE that their extracts are 100:1 if that's what the label says and if the FDA decides to be harsh that can cost companies thousands of dollars per batch. That's why you already see many and will see more going into more detail on their write ups but not listing it on their supplement facts. (For example, the supplement facts I see for Vector doesn't list the % but they do in their write up I believe).
- There are companies that use prop blends as window dressing to add in a lot of ingredients for show but have very little active ingredients; basically to fool customers and keep costs down.
- There are companies that do use prop blends bc they don't want their ingredient combinations to be copied.
No one knows the true intentions of BLR or any company besides the people doing it. I don't think that any company should be attacked for their business decisions like that; on the other hand, its at the discretion of the consumer whether to buy products like that. For example, I myself do understand not specifying the herbal parts but I typically don't buy products with prop blends in them but that's absolutely personal choice.
. 
newrepublic.com
