Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
aqualung

bulk powders fined

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Jackoffblades said:

Right so from the sounds of it there being done for not having the right amount of protein yet there’s no proof yet of how much protein there is. I’m confused what’s the issue here 

I don’t read it as that - they’re being done for making unsubstantiated marketing claims. Unless I’ve missed something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

switched from bulk powders to protein works a while ago. i seen bulk p where inflating prices during sales. would be 40% off but is actually like 10 to 15%. plus tasted sweet as anything. somthing changed anyways

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to post on here a reasonable amount 10-15 years ago. I'm the Commercial Director at Bulk Powders. 

I wanted to provide some context to the recent prosecution; the press release is a little misleading, as it suggests the prosecution was to do with the nutritional value of the products. That's not the case; all products were tested and found to meet label claim (two had more protein than labelled; one had more fibre, It was natural batch variance on nut butters). 

It was to do with statements on the product descriptions. For example, we said that Pure Whey was low carb. It is low sugar (5g sugar per 100g), but technically there is no European approved claim for low carb. Similarly, we said 'high bcaa.' There's over 5g BCAA per serving (this isn't in doubt), but technically there's no European approved high BCAA claim. 

The protein element was on a handful of nut butters. We used a 'source of protein' claim, based on the grams of protein per 100g. For example, Hazelnuts have 16g protein per 100g. However, the claim should be based on % energy. When the product was tested, it had 19g protein per 100g and 11.4% energy from protein.  The threshold for source of protein is 12%. 

Clearly we've made some technical errors, which were changed long ago. However, the test results from Trading Standards showed that what was in the product is what was on the label. For those of you that have been members for some time, there used to be a thread where a group of members tested loads of different brands for protein percentage and amino spiking. We were consistently one of the leading brands for label accuracy (quite possibly the top brand, if I remember correctly) and nothing has changed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/02/2020 at 8:49 AM, alphafit said:

Pretty much this. 

Also why would you buy cheap chit brands like myprotein or bulkpowders? Just go ahead do yourself a favour and buy some optimum nutrition isolate or  gold standard.

Everything cheap is chit. It's like comparing  Mercedes for 120k with a KIA for 30k.

I'm a fan of ON and use they're chocolate now and then, but i wouldn't say they're better than BP or MP.

Best i've ever used is actually from Musclefoods, but they dont sell it any more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue isn't mislabelling of products or showing misleading nutritional information on the labels, the info is there for everyone to look at. The issue is them making claims that certain products can help mantain or build muscle mass, when in reality those products contain very little protein. Not really an issue for anyone on here or anyone who knows what they are doing.

 

If someone only buys one of their products because they read on the website it can build muscle.... then what do you expect, look at the nutritional info and make the decision for yourself. I really don't see this as a problem and won't stop me buying from them. I know how much protein im getting from the whey powder so im not being mislead at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/02/2020 at 12:33 PM, SuperSi said:

I used to post on here a reasonable amount 10-15 years ago. I'm the Commercial Director at Bulk Powders. 

I wanted to provide some context to the recent prosecution; the press release is a little misleading, as it suggests the prosecution was to do with the nutritional value of the products. That's not the case; all products were tested and found to meet label claim (two had more protein than labelled; one had more fibre, It was natural batch variance on nut butters). 

It was to do with statements on the product descriptions. For example, we said that Pure Whey was low carb. It is low sugar (5g sugar per 100g), but technically there is no European approved claim for low carb. Similarly, we said 'high bcaa.' There's over 5g BCAA per serving (this isn't in doubt), but technically there's no European approved high BCAA claim. 

The protein element was on a handful of nut butters. We used a 'source of protein' claim, based on the grams of protein per 100g. For example, Hazelnuts have 16g protein per 100g. However, the claim should be based on % energy. When the product was tested, it had 19g protein per 100g and 11.4% energy from protein.  The threshold for source of protein is 12%. 

Clearly we've made some technical errors, which were changed long ago. However, the test results from Trading Standards showed that what was in the product is what was on the label. For those of you that have been members for some time, there used to be a thread where a group of members tested loads of different brands for protein percentage and amino spiking. We were consistently one of the leading brands for label accuracy (quite possibly the top brand, if I remember correctly) and nothing has changed. 

What's the company's take on having been warned on this matter 7 times previously? If I was running a business and I'd had a warning from Trading Standards I'd have been inclined to sort it so I didn't risk a fine and more importantly, any reputational damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Fongtu said:

The issue isn't mislabelling of products or showing misleading nutritional information on the labels, the info is there for everyone to look at. The issue is them making claims that certain products can help mantain or build muscle mass, when in reality those products contain very little protein. Not really an issue for anyone on here or anyone who knows what they are doing.

 

If someone only buys one of their products because they read on the website it can build muscle.... then what do you expect, look at the nutritional info and make the decision for yourself. I really don't see this as a problem and won't stop me buying from them. I know how much protein im getting from the whey powder so im not being mislead at all

this article is what i was using as a reference - its says 55 labeling legislation breaches were reported (im assuming this means contents or claims on the labels )

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/sports-nutrition-products-company-fined-after-trading-standards-investigation-1-6500372

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/02/2020 at 12:33 PM, SuperSi said:

I used to post on here a reasonable amount 10-15 years ago. I'm the Commercial Director at Bulk Powders. 

I wanted to provide some context to the recent prosecution; the press release is a little misleading, as it suggests the prosecution was to do with the nutritional value of the products. That's not the case; all products were tested and found to meet label claim (two had more protein than labelled; one had more fibre, It was natural batch variance on nut butters). 

It was to do with statements on the product descriptions. For example, we said that Pure Whey was low carb. It is low sugar (5g sugar per 100g), but technically there is no European approved claim for low carb. Similarly, we said 'high bcaa.' There's over 5g BCAA per serving (this isn't in doubt), but technically there's no European approved high BCAA claim. 

The protein element was on a handful of nut butters. We used a 'source of protein' claim, based on the grams of protein per 100g. For example, Hazelnuts have 16g protein per 100g. However, the claim should be based on % energy. When the product was tested, it had 19g protein per 100g and 11.4% energy from protein.  The threshold for source of protein is 12%. 

Clearly we've made some technical errors, which were changed long ago. However, the test results from Trading Standards showed that what was in the product is what was on the label. For those of you that have been members for some time, there used to be a thread where a group of members tested loads of different brands for protein percentage and amino spiking. We were consistently one of the leading brands for label accuracy (quite possibly the top brand, if I remember correctly) and nothing has changed. 

Arrrrhhh so it’s the EU to blame....well we’re out now pal do all this misunderstanding will get sorted out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 9:58 PM, aqualung said:

this article is what i was using as a reference - its says 55 labeling legislation breaches were reported (im assuming this means contents or claims on the labels )

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/sports-nutrition-products-company-fined-after-trading-standards-investigation-1-6500372

The article says 

'Of that selection, a total of 55 breaches of labelling legislation were reported. The majority of the breaches focused on claims made about the nutritional and health benefits of the food products. The level of protein in some of the products was found insufficient to make the health claim "protein contributes to the growth of muscle mass" or the nutrition claim "source of protein" - significant, particularly amongst the fitness community for whom these types of claims are important when buying a product.'

 

Doesn't say anywhere that the nutritional information is incorrect or wrong. Just that certain products were labelled as a 'source of protein' when they were deemed to have too little protein in to make that claim. Not really significant to anybody with a few brain cells, unlike the article suggests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×