# Has anyone else read this article?



## gigisiguenza (Nov 18, 2015)

I'm curious if anyone else has read this and/or has knowledge of its validity. If it's something I shouldn't share here, please let me know and delete, but I'm very interested in what the gurus think. 

G 

 http://www.danielkidwell.com/wordpress/?p=92


----------



## Muskette (Nov 18, 2015)

Wow. Just wow. 
Something doesn't sit right with me about this. The fact that the test results somehow got leaked to Facebook (?!) is very odd. I don't know who Dr. Pappas is, but if they leaked the results, what does that say about their integrity and the reliability of their tests? Even if Dr. Pappas wasn't the source of the leak, maybe a second test from a different lab to confirm the results would have been in order before publicly airing the situation all over the internet. 

And this line here, "At first, we thought maybe we were being set up by the competition to try and discredit us."
Why would THAT be someone's first thought, upon finding out their oils are bad? Interesting (and telling) to say the least. 
It kind of puts a shady cast on this whole thing. If everything the author states is true, I do feel bad for him. However, I feel he took a big risk putting his trust and his company name in the hands of a wholesaler without doing his homework first.

Just my opinion.


----------



## gigisiguenza (Nov 18, 2015)

Muskette said:


> Wow. Just wow.
> Something doesn't sit right with me about this. The fact that the test results somehow got leaked to Facebook (?!) is very odd. I don't know who Dr. Pappas is, but if they leaked the results, what does that say about their integrity and the reliability of their tests? Even if Dr. Pappas wasn't the source of the leak, maybe a second test from a different lab to confirm the results would have been in order before publicly airing the situation all over the internet.
> 
> And this line here, "At first, we thought maybe we were being set up by the competition to try and discredit us."
> ...



Something sits wrong with me too, which is why I shared it here. And your questions are right along the same lines mine are. If it's legit, then I do indeed feel bad for him, but I'm not sure he is helping his legal case by writing this type of article.


----------



## lenarenee (Nov 18, 2015)

I didn't have many misgivings, until "please donate $15" and "5 ml bottle doTerra eo".
There's little if any money left after cost and  shipping.


----------



## Obsidian (Nov 18, 2015)

I've not seen this before but I don't go to FB groups or travel in EO circles. I will say that when I first started soaping, I heard bad things about essential depot in regards to their customer service and how they change their web site around to protect themselves if issues arise. I decided right then and there that they are shady and will never purchase from them or purchase their products through a third party.

If you reread the article, you will see it was a customer of the articles author who had the tests done and posted the results. You can learn more about Dr. Pappas and his testing here https://essentialoils.org/

Personally, I'm glad people post articles like this. We always hear about the good but rarely the bad and this is very bad. I'd like to see test results for other vendors. EO purity is a concern for most people who use them, I'm more likely to trust independent lab results then some bogus sounding promise on a vendors website without some kind of documentation.

You would think if ED or any other company went through the trouble of visiting a EO producer, they would have some pictures or documentation of the event. Overseeing/testing EO through 3 stages of production sounds very impressive and very fake. I hope this company get their money and reputation back. If ED really did this then they need to be exposed.


----------



## amd (Nov 18, 2015)

It's interesting that they refer to themselves as "mom and pop" but yet do 20k in sales each month? This seems like a lot of money (240k/year) to not have done your own testing prior to building a company. It was very emotional (and just plain "bad") writing so I confess I did a lot of skimming through the article.


----------



## cmzaha (Nov 18, 2015)

amd said:


> It's interesting that they refer to themselves as "mom and pop" but yet do 20k in sales each month? This seems like a lot of money (240k/year) to not have done your own testing prior to building a company. It was very emotional (and just plain "bad") writing so I confess I did a lot of skimming through the article.


Yep I did the same, and I find it quite interesting they are giving DoTerra oils with the donation and not their own Earth Love (therapeutic grade) Essential oils. As we all know there is no therapeutic grade recognized by FDA. So they purchase from the same suppliers as us, repackage an essential oil such as Frankincense and re-sell it for $22.50 for a 10ml bottle. Let's talk about rip-off. Essential Depot is not my favorite go to supplier but I have purchased a few eo's from them. At one time they were the only supplier I could find for a small bottle of tumeric. Hopefully FDA will get to them as they did DoTerra.


----------



## dixiedragon (Nov 18, 2015)

I do think this guy is kind of iffy and I would not buy from him...but after hearing about the Essential Depot lye issue, I give his complaints some credibility.

My dad is a business owner and I can tell you that $20,000 a month may SEEM impressive, but that's not his profit, that's his sales. Assume he upcharges by double on his products (which I think is fairly standard for retail) that's $10,000 profit. Assuming he and his wife are paid $10/hr, 40hr week, 4 weeks a month, that's $1600 each ($3200). That leaves $6800 per month. Out of that comes insurance, rent, salaries for other employees, etc. 20k a month is small potatoes.


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Nov 18, 2015)

I do feel for him, but he needs to realize that he is to blame - he trusted them, and he based his reputation on that trust. While ED have acted shamefully (allegedly) and illegally (allegedly) and he should certainly sue them for lying or at least selling a product as one thing when it is actually something else (doing so knowingly or unknowingly, that is a crime), he is to blame for his reputation situation


----------



## MissBee (Nov 18, 2015)

dixiedragon said:


> I do think this guy is kind of iffy and I would not buy from him...but after hearing about the Essential Depot lye issue, I give his complaints some credibility.
> 
> My dad is a business owner and I can tell you that $20,000 a month may SEEM impressive, but that's not his profit, that's his sales. Assume he upcharges by double on his products (which I think is fairly standard for retail) that's $10,000 profit. Assuming he and his wife are paid $10/hr, 40hr week, 4 weeks a month, that's $1600 each ($3200). That leaves $6800 per month. Out of that comes insurance, rent, salaries for other employees, etc. 20k a month is small potatoes.



Lye issue? Do tell, as I have a bottle of their lye under my sink. Now you got me all worried! =P


----------



## Arimara (Nov 18, 2015)

I guess I need to be more careful. I'm not selling what I make but I am buying lye and soon enough, essential oils. I had no idea essential depot had such a controversy.


----------



## dixiedragon (Nov 18, 2015)

MissBee said:


> Lye issue? Do tell, as I have a bottle of their lye under my sink. Now you got me all worried! =P


 
Some posters here (among other customers) were having issues of their time-tested recipes failing. Some of them sent in samples of their lye to be tested and it not pure. Something like it was only 50% lye or something?


----------



## dixiedragon (Nov 18, 2015)

The Efficacious Gentleman said:


> I do feel for him, but he needs to realize that he is to blame - he trusted them, and he based his reputation on that trust. While ED have acted shamefully (allegedly) and illegally (allegedly) and he should certainly sue them for lying or at least selling a product as one thing when it is actually something else (doing so knowingly or unknowingly, that is a crime), he is to blame for his reputation situation


 
Totally disagree. He wasn't buying EOs out of somebody's trunk in a sketchy neighborhood. He bought EOs from a well-known company that claimed it tested the EOs it sold. ED is absolutely to blame for (morally speaking, I can't speak to legal) about the damage done to this guy's business b/c of their shady practices.


----------



## Soapmaker145 (Nov 18, 2015)

I find reading the responses to this article quite interesting.  There are questions about this guy's honesty and motivation similar to his initial questioning of the individuals who posted the results of the tests performed on the EOs he supplied (as supplied to him by ED).  I think his article is truthful for the simple reason that he running the risk of a huge lawsuit (from a company with an in-house counsel) if any of the information he posted can be misinterpreted in any way.  He doesn't have to post a straight out lie about ED.   ED just needs to twist his post to appear malicious and they can bury him.  The person doing the testing is a leading expert on EOs.  Questioning his integrity would be very difficult for anybody.  Essentially, ED is selling FOs and labeling them as EOs.  I wonder if they even knew that what they received was not the real thing.  They seem like a marketing scam.

It is easy to blame him for not doing more due diligence. It is prohibitively expensive for a small business to do the type of testing needed to verify the ingredients they buy from suppliers.  It would be the equivalent of asking everybody who sells scented soaps to do testing to verify the accuracy of the IFRA information and the composition of the oils they are using.  It's impossible.  This is why we all rely on the information provided with the product.  I think this is a guy that started a small business after being downsized like so many others.  I agree that $20K a month in sales is not much.  I'm not surprised that he is asking for help.  His lawyer fees will be way more that he can ever hope to get back from ED.  If ED loses the lawsuit, they just declare bankruptcy, shut down and restart the same business under a new name.  Even if the government fines them for deceptive advertising, the penalty is minimal compared to the profits they already made.  These are the unfortunate realities of doing business in the US.  

I'm wondering now about the last sale that ED had.  It looks like they were trying to dump all of their fake supply.  I bought some food grade lye from them and added some EOs that I wanted to test for soap.  I have no doubt now that what I have is an overly priced FO without an IFRA that can guide usage rate.  Essentially, it is all trash.   I also don't think the food grade lye they sell is 95% pure like they state.  I've use high grade 95% lye before and the lye I got from ED is nothing like it.  I'll be looking for another supplier once the stuff I have is depleted. Live and learn.

Thanks to the original OP for sharing the information.  I was starting to wonder about their lye but doubted myself because they provide a COA on their website.  Now I know it isn't in my head.  Thankfully I haven't touched the "EOs".  I don't sell but I give my soaps to people I care about.  I would hate to be a seller who used anything from ED in their product.


----------



## lenarenee (Nov 18, 2015)

In order to make the world go around in a healthy and happy manner, people should behave.

When we walk out the door with car keys in hand and head down the road, we have to believe that other drivers have not only their welfare, but ours in mind.  Otherwise, we'd treat driving with the same fear/respect as skydiving.

Please don't remind me that there are addicts, sociopaths, careless, mean, etc. people in the world. I'm very aware of that.  It also doesn't negate the fact that we  should expect and require people to behave well. I need all the other drivers on the road to care that they don't crash into me. I also need to drive in a manner that protects them as well as me.

A business should be honest and fair. Despite the common adage that "business is business, it isn't personal", it absolutely is personal. Anything that involves people, is personal.

I'm not advocating that anyone trust blindly, because there is lots of dishonesty in the world. The problem is we've come to expect it - we alter our expectations and become skeptical detectives. So when dishonesty happens...we blame the victim?  

In order to change that, we need to keep high expectations. Trust, but verify and always hold accountable. 

(strange but true; when I needed my first car serviced, I found a respected business and blankly told them I knew nothing about cars and needed them to honest with me because I didn't have extra money to waste. They bent over backwards to prove themselves to me,  and gave me a  small discount too.)


----------



## TeresaT (Nov 18, 2015)

MissBee said:


> Lye issue? Do tell, as I have a bottle of their lye under my sink. Now you got me all worried! =P



I'm not judging, but this struck me as an odd place to keep your lye.  Aren't you afraid the lye will absorb some moisture (due to "sweating pipes" not necessarily leaks) and lose its effectiveness?  Even if you have the cap screwed on tight, I would _think_ there is still a possibility of it happening. (I have no proof or data to back that up.)  I live in TN and we've got humidity issues and I worry about my lye going "off" because of that.  I keep mine on a shelf with my other supplies. 

I read this article earlier today and thought it was interesting.  Right up to the "doTERRA" and plea for funds (as someone else mentioned).  It does make me much more reluctant to use EOs for my soap unless someone specifically requests them.  With FOs, at least I know everything in there was created in a lab and is supposed to be fake.  (The more research I do, the more my opinions of things change.  I used to think EOs were da bomb and FOs were evil. Not so much anymore.)


----------



## MissBee (Nov 18, 2015)

TeresaT said:


> I'm not judging, but this struck me as an odd place to keep your lye.  Aren't you afraid the lye will absorb some moisture (due to "sweating pipes" not necessarily leaks) and lose its effectiveness?  Even if you have the cap screwed on tight, I would _think_ there is still a possibility of it happening. (I have no proof or data to back that up.)  I live in TN and we've got humidity issues and I worry about my lye going "off" because of that.  I keep mine on a shelf with my other supplies.



Well I'd have to hear what other soapers have to say. I haven't noticed anything personally. It already housed cleaning supplies and I figured I might as well keep other things that could kill/injure babies in the same ultra baby proofed spot. I don't have many other places to put it in my tiny city apartment.

About the Essential Depot essential oils, a soaper in my city was telling me about how he felt their EOs weren't as good of quality as from other vendors. He didn't elaborate on his reasoning, but I'm definitely sending him this article to check out.


----------



## gigisiguenza (Nov 18, 2015)

TeresaT said:


> I'm not judging, but this struck me as an odd place to keep your lye.  Aren't you afraid the lye will absorb some moisture (due to "sweating pipes" not necessarily leaks) and lose its effectiveness?  Even if you have the cap screwed on tight, I would _think_ there is still a possibility of it happening. (I have no proof or data to back that up.)  I live in TN and we've got humidity issues and I worry about my lye going "off" because of that.  I keep mine on a shelf with my other supplies.



In Houston we have humidity issues year round, so I worry about the same thing. My first two bottles of lye were bought at Lowe's. The very first one was small and used up very quickly, so there was no time for it to get clumpy or show signs of moisture impact. But the second bottle, which was used more slowly, definitely began showing signs of moisture impact as the muggy summer heat managed to infiltrate everything, despite the AC being on at all times. As soon as I saw the crusty lye on the rim of the opening, the clumps when I poured, etc, I disposed of it and ordered more.

My solution since then is to store my lye bottles in giant Ziploc bags. Whether I've opened them or not, I put the bottle in the Ziploc, push the air out, and zip closed. This has proven to be effective for me at least. No more crusty lye or clumps.


----------



## TeresaT (Nov 18, 2015)

gigisiguenza said:


> In Houston we have humidity issues year round, so I worry about the same thing. My first two bottles of lye were bought at Lowe's. The very first one was small and used up very quickly, so there was no time for it to get clumpy or show signs of moisture impact. But the second bottle, which was used more slowly, definitely began showing signs of moisture impact as the muggy summer heat managed to infiltrate everything, despite the AC being on at all times. As soon as I saw the crusty lye on the rim of the opening, the clumps when I poured, etc, I disposed of it and ordered more.
> 
> My solution since then is to store my lye bottles in giant Ziploc bags. Whether I've opened them or not, I put the bottle in the Ziploc, push the air out, and zip closed. This has proven to be effective for me at least. No more crusty lye or clumps.



That's an excellent idea.  I'll probably need to get rid of the lye I have at home now (or just use strictly for drain cleaner!) because of the humidity.  If they're OK, I'll put them in the heavy duty black trash bags.  My bottles are 10# each.  I went through 2# so fast, I thought I'd get the larger size.  I'm not using the "bulk" lye as fast as I thought I would.


----------



## kchaystack (Nov 18, 2015)

I bought a 5 gallon bucket and a gamma seal lid.  I put my lye in the bucket with a tub of damp-rid  Works really well.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FNSUS6U/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0029EGUNG/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20


----------



## gigisiguenza (Nov 18, 2015)

TeresaT said:


> That's an excellent idea.  I'll probably need to get rid of the lye I have at home now (or just use strictly for drain cleaner!) because of the humidity.  If they're OK, I'll put them in the heavy duty black trash bags.  My bottles are 10# each.  I went through 2# so fast, I thought I'd get the larger size.  I'm not using the "bulk" lye as fast as I thought I would.



I know they make gigantor Ziploc bags, if I can find a link I'll share. I dunno if a trash bag would seal well enough. Let me know if it works please 

10#?? Good grief I thought I was living dangerously buying 2 whole pounds at a time LOL. Now I'm kicking myself for not investing in the buy 5 get 1 free when I originally ordered and had the extra cash.


----------



## gigisiguenza (Nov 18, 2015)

kchaystack said:


> I bought a 5 gallon bucket and a gamma seal lid.  I put my lye in the bucket with a tub of damp-rid  Works really well.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FNSUS6U/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0029EGUNG/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20



I never would have thought about a bucket and damp rid. That's brilliant. Now t learn what a gamma seal bucket is LOL


----------



## kchaystack (Nov 18, 2015)

gigisiguenza said:


> I never would have thought about a bucket and damp rid. That's brilliant. Now t learn what a gamma seal bucket is LOL



Gamma seal is a lid for the bucket.  There is a ring that snaps on to the rim of the bucket, and then a piece that screws on that fits in the ring.  It is designed to keep most of the air out of large buckets of paint.


----------



## gigisiguenza (Nov 18, 2015)

kchaystack said:


> Gamma seal is a lid for the bucket.  There is a ring that snaps on to the rim of the bucket, and then a piece that screws on that fits in the ring.  It is designed to keep most of the air out of large buckets of paint.



Ooooo I've seen those many times. Had no idea they were called that. TY


----------



## TeresaT (Nov 18, 2015)

I'M GETTIN' THE ORANGE ONE!!!  Wahoo!!!

Uh, sorry about that display of excitement.  Doesn't take much to make me happy, does it?


----------



## gigisiguenza (Nov 18, 2015)

TeresaT said:


> I'M GETTIN' THE ORANGE ONE!!!  Wahoo!!!
> 
> Uh, sorry about that display of excitement.  Doesn't take much to make me happy, does it?



Hahahahahahaha the orange what??


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Nov 19, 2015)

dixiedragon said:


> Totally disagree. He wasn't buying EOs out of somebody's trunk in a sketchy neighborhood. He bought EOs from a well-known company that claimed it tested the EOs it sold. ED is absolutely to blame for (morally speaking, I can't speak to legal) about the damage done to this guy's business b/c of their shady practices.




Absolutely - but HE based HIS reputation on that trust. ED apparently lied, but bear in mind that he was buying these to resell rather than use, so to blindly believe marketing is one thing, but when you are reselling.....?

While testing each and every batch would be cost prohibitive for him, did he contact ED about their claims before he used them as a supplier? Did he ask for some verification of these claims? Did he visit his potential supplier to see this in action? 

No. 

At the very least, if you are reselling something that YOU are claiming is something based purely on the claims of others, test a random sample occasionally. 

Again, while the supplier is fully at fault for lying and knowingly selling bad oils, you should never base your reputation on unverified claims of another.


----------



## Dharlee (Nov 19, 2015)

Phooey. Well this is what I get for trying to save money. I ordered several EOs from them, but now I am afraid to use them. 80.00 down the drain. I also got my Tallow from them. I have used it and it seems fine, but I honestly I don't know what to do about that now either.

I _should_ have known better than to order from them. I called to find out about usages for the EOs and after I finally got them to answer the phone- (took me two days of calling) they didn't know. I thought, OKAY I will just get that information on the IFRA site, but I certainly should have thought more of it. 

I shouldn't complain, not really. It could be so much worse. I feel bad for that guy.


----------



## Susie (Nov 19, 2015)

Its 2 am here, but I won't believe anything until I follow back (after more sleep) whoever this Dr. Pappas is, and figure out what he has to gain by saying ED's EOs are bad.  I smell rotten fish right now, with Earth's Love now selling DoTerra.  It just stinks, folks.  As they say, follow the money.  And with DoTerra recently being spanked by the FDA, this doubly stinks.


----------



## jade-15 (Nov 19, 2015)

It also seems off to me... But perhaps that is just the way it's written, and my cynical nature?
I tried to find a chromatogram of frankincense to compare, and what I found after a quick google search looked incredibly different... I might spend more time investigating (googling) in the morning. 

I read through the emails and it seems like pretty poor customer service. Although his first email was pretty unclear (to me, anyway), being "reassured" that their oils are 100% pure is of little comfort without some sort of evidence.
He does seem to have mis interpreted... He claims "You will notice in the second image it states that they test all their oils not once, not twice, but 3 times."  But what I read said "typically" they are QCd three times... Which I don't interpret as every oil, every time at every stage.  Just some (or most or a %).
Similarly, I can't see any issue with them having previously sent testing to a lab off-site in the past, but now deciding to build their own lab... To be honest, I would trust results from an independent lab over on-site any day :-|
Interesting the other companies didn't want to send to Dr. Pappas without getting their own tests done first... (If I have read this correctly).  Do they not trust their product or Dr. P?

Also... Surely having an article saying "do not buy from this FRAUDULENt company" could land someone in legal trouble for defamation?? One thing to list the facts (these two oils were tested... Not what they're meant to be... Got them from ED) but the article goes a lot further? (I'm not a lawyer though...)

I don't sell, so I wonder if insured sellers can answer this question... Can insurance cover this type of thing? Or do they put the onus on the supplier? 
I'm sleepy, so I hope my rants make some sense haha.


----------



## Susie (Nov 19, 2015)

This Dr. Pappas works for DoTerra.  I would not believe a single thing anyone associated with that company says.  This is apparently their new campaign, since claiming their EOs cured EVERYTHING, and getting spanked by the FDA did not work, they are going to besmirch the reputation of other EO suppliers.

jade-15, you label your products with what you buy from other companies already.  How do you "know" the lard is pure lard?  You trust the company that made it and supplied it.  Same goes for EOs.


----------



## jade-15 (Nov 19, 2015)

Susie said:


> jade-15, you label your products with what you buy from other companies already.  How do you "know" the lard is pure lard?  You trust the company that made it and supplied it.  Same goes for EOs.



Susie, is this in response to my last question about insurance? Or something else I've said?  Yes, if you buy lard, EO, soap, chocolate... Anything... It should be what you've bought - completely agree with you. (I'm just trying to work out what I've written that may make it seem like I don't!)
My last question i dont seem to be able to explain right now. But by "supplier" I meant ED, in this situation.


----------



## galaxyMLP (Nov 19, 2015)

Susie said:


> This Dr. Pappas works for DoTerra.  I would not believe a single thing anyone associated with that company says.  This is apparently their new campaign, since claiming their EOs cured EVERYTHING, and getting spanked by the FDA did not work, they are going to besmirch the reputation of other EO suppliers.
> 
> jade-15, you label your products with what you buy from other companies already.  How do you "know" the lard is pure lard?  You trust the company that made it and supplied it.  Same goes for EOs.


Susie, ha! I knew it. Ive been typing this up since yesterday:

I don't think he's being truthful. There are some red flags. I have a feeling this is an attempt to make companies selling EOs labeled as "theraputic grade" (other than DoTerra) look bad and discredit them. There are a few reasons why. 

1: look at the companies he's going to be reviewing. They include ED, BA and WFmed. Both ED and BA claim to have theraputic grade EOs. WFmed says that theraputic grade EOs don't exist and pretty much discredits and exposes Young living (and thus DoTerra) while talking about it.

2. He uses FB posts and communication to explain what he did when contacting the company, ect. He doesn't include screenshots of real emails. That's shady in every way. He also mentions talking to this "Dr. Pappas" over FB messenger. No reputable chemist or Dr would discuss results like that over FB. 

Plus, he says he first heard of the results on FB?? That's unheard of. That would never happen. 

3. I think those GC/MSs are fake! You'd know if your "frankincense" was 26% camphene! That stuff is soooo strong. It would almost smell like lemony camphor-y oil with what they put down. No way. Sorry. It would smell totally fake. Plus, DEP (diethylphthalate) is usually used at a MUCH higher percent. Not at <1%. Ive seen it used at around 10-72%.

ETA: I re-read the chromatogram and realised that DEP was at 4% I was going from memory and got it mixed up with benzyl benzoate. Oops.


----------



## Susie (Nov 19, 2015)

jade-15 said:


> I don't sell, so I wonder if insured sellers can answer this question... Can insurance cover this type of thing? Or do they put the onus on the supplier?
> I'm sleepy, so I hope my rants make some sense haha.



My previous answer was in response to this.  I seem to have misunderstood the question.  My apologies.

I knew there was something wrong with this whole thing as soon as I saw it was on FB.  Then I simply Googled Dr. Pappas, and "Dr. Pappas Essential Oils" came up, with an immediate tie to DoTerra.  I "followed the money" to track back where he gets funding for all that research, and guess who employs him...

I must apologize to anyone on this forum that sells DoTerra.  I am not accusing _you_ of being dishonest.  Just the company you sell for.   But, like my Daddy used to say, you are known for the company you keep.  So, while I am sincerely sorry for offending you with my comments, I have nothing positive to say about DoTerra.


----------



## dixiedragon (Nov 19, 2015)

I live in Alabama, also have humidity issues! I buy my lye in 50# bags. I have a bunch of 1 gallon mayo jars saved from a restaurant. I distribute the lye into these jars and seal the jars shut with duct tape. My lye lasted 5+ years in the basement this way.


----------



## dixiedragon (Nov 19, 2015)

The Efficacious Gentleman said:


> Absolutely - but HE based HIS reputation on that trust. ED apparently lied, but bear in mind that he was buying these to resell rather than use, so to blindly believe marketing is one thing, but when you are reselling.....?
> 
> While testing each and every batch would be cost prohibitive for him, did he contact ED about their claims before he used them as a supplier? Did he ask for some verification of these claims? Did he visit his potential supplier to see this in action?
> 
> ...


 
That's simply not feasible for a small business owner. My dad doesn't go visit each of his suppliers. He's busy running his business. I doubt ANY small business person has the time and means to visit EACH of their suppliers to make sure they're doing what they say they're doing. The responsibility is on ED for out-right lying to this writer and to all of their other customers. I don't know if he asked to see documentation. But would that have helped? He decides he'd like to do business with ED, he asks for proof of these tests, they provide it...yay! Then a few years down the road, ED stops doing the tests. 

He chose to base his business reputation on ED's claims. If I have a nut allergy and I buy products that are nut-free, I'm choosing to trust my health to that company's claims. If I get sick b/c of nuts because they LIED about it, am I at fault b/c I didn't go inspect their factory? Because I didn't demand proof of nut-free-ness each time I bought their bread?


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Nov 19, 2015)

dixiedragon said:


> That's simply not feasible for a small business owner. My dad doesn't go visit each of his suppliers. He's busy running his business. I doubt ANY small business person has the time and means to visit EACH of their suppliers to make sure they're doing what they say they're doing. The responsibility is on ED for out-right lying to this writer and to all of their other customers. I don't know if he asked to see documentation. But would that have helped? He decides he'd like to do business with ED, he asks for proof of these tests, they provide it...yay! Then a few years down the road, ED stops doing the tests.
> 
> He chose to base his business reputation on ED's claims. If I have a nut allergy and I buy products that are nut-free, I'm choosing to trust my health to that company's claims. If I get sick b/c of nuts because they LIED about it, am I at fault b/c I didn't go inspect their factory? Because I didn't demand proof of nut-free-ness each time I bought their bread?




No - but if you decide to resell it, so you are the one then telling people it is nut-free, you're basing your reputation on just a promise, which is bad business. 

As a consumer, even if that business is a consumer, it is one thing. But a reseller is in a different position. If I am a mechanic and I buy and use a wrench rated for a certain torque, I have to trust that it is so but will soon find out if it isn't. If I am just a reseller, I am telling MY customers that it is good to use at a certain torque. If I am doing that, I will certainly make sure I do some more due diligence than if I am just using it myself. 

As a reseller, his business ARE these products. The quality of them is very much part of his responsibility. 

Is it right that he should have to do it? Not at all, a supplier should be honest. 

Was he foolish to not do enough checking? Clearly.


----------



## hmlove1218 (Nov 19, 2015)

I'm just curious, let's apply this to this forum. We have many business people here who sell soaps only scented with EOs. They're trusting their supplier to sell them pure EOs, so if it comes back that the supplier is passing off adulterated or completely synthetic fragrances as pure EOs, would you blame the soaper? Is it the soapers responsibility to test the EOs they use in their soap?


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Nov 19, 2015)

Yes - yes it is.  

Should they HAVE to do so?  No, not all.  But are they ultimately responsible?  Of course they are.  If they have done everything reasonably possible in way of due diligence, they are not to "blame".  But if they just take a supplier at their word that is their choice to do so.  They owe it to theirs customers to do what they can (within reason) to make sure that the product is what they claim it is.  

Again, we shouldn't HAVE to do this.  But this is the real world, not some hugathon.

A while back in the UK (and I think other parts of Europe) there was a scandal where horse meat was being sold as beef.  Now, the supplier had falsely labelled the packets and the supermarkets had taken that at face value.  As it turns out, they could have done more to check, but this super cheap eastern European beef was too good to ignore.  As the supermarkets sold it on to their customers as beef, they are responsible to their customers, not the supplier.  The supermarkets have to go to the supplier for answers and claims, the customers go to the supermarket.

If a soaper is selling soap, they need to do all that they can to make sure that what they are selling is what they think it is, as they are answerable to their customers.  No matter what the cause of the issue, the seller answers to their customers.


----------



## dixiedragon (Nov 19, 2015)

I still disagree. Does the grocery store inspect the factory of every single product in their store that claims to be nut free or gluten free or vegan? No, it's simply not feasible. This man was not foolish, wrong or crazy to trust the published promises of a long-standing and well known company.


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Nov 19, 2015)

He clearly was, as it turns out he was wrong.  Would anyone one of us do exactly the same thing?  Most likely, but then that would also make us foolish for doing so when it turned out that we were wrong to trust them at their word.  Was it unreasonable for him to do so?  I don't think so.  But it is still his responsibility that he decided their word was good enough for HIS customers.

In the case of the supermarkets with nuts, I am pretty certain that a third party can check and accredit suppliers as maintaining a reasonable practice in the matter - in the UK it might well be the Trading Standards or some such.  Things do fall through the net, and even in these cases the supermarket can certainly blame the supplier, but they also apologise to their own customers that they let them down.

Just because it is not feasable to do it, does not mean that the responsibility lies elsewhere.  The seller is responsible to their customers.   End of.  You have to do all that feel is required to make sure that your customers are getting what they deserve.  How much that is will vary, of course.  For example, I buy lard from a very well known Austrian brand from a company that supplies to catering and so on.  I am fairly certain it is lard.  If it turns out to be something else, I will be responsible to my customers for that.  I will of course go to my supplier and they will be responsible to me - but my customers are my own responsibility.  It's up to me what I do regarding their expectations and


----------



## Dharlee (Nov 19, 2015)

I see both sides, but I have to lean more toward agreeing with Dixie here. I am a silversmith and sell jewelry. I make some pieces that are gold filled and will eventually work my way into gold. I buy my supplies from whole-sellers I trust and have checked out to the best of my ability, but I cannot afford to have testing done on each and every product I use. For example, if I use Swarovski crystals, they now claim to be made lead free. I have not paid the thousands of dollars to run independent lab tests to confirm that they are indeed lead free, but instead have trusted the company that makes them and makes the claim. If I had to do that I would simply put- be out of business. That is ONE example of many. Suppose I had to test the purity of each item I use? is gold filled actually 20 parts gold and that karat amount 14k? 12k? Is this indeed sterling silver? Argentium? Are these pearl indeed genuine fresh water pearls? The list goes on and on. And must we do this each and every time we purchase? Suppose the wholesale company decides to start cheating their customers in June? In May you had good product, but now that it's June it is sub standard. As a middle man, yes we have some responsibility, but where does it end? Where do we draw the line? This is another reason insurance is so vital to business.


----------



## IrishLass (Nov 19, 2015)

Susie said:


> This Dr. Pappas works for DoTerra.


 
From what I understand, Dr. Pappas wants nothing to do with DoTerra (he actually works for Essential Oil University). I remember reading an article last year or so where he wanted to sue DoTerra because they were fraudulently using his name in their promotion literature in order to give themselves credibility. I think that their actions of throwing his name around makes it seem as if he views them in a positive light, but if I'm remembering things correctly from the article I read, he doesn't view them in a positive light at all. I'll see if I can find the article.

Edited to add, I remembered incorrectly....he had a beef against Young Living (which in my mind is pretty much synonymous with DoTerra in spite of being offshoots from each other): http://www.utahstories.com/2014/08/...-and-doterras-essential-oils-are-adulterated/ 



IrishLass


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Nov 19, 2015)

Again, I'm not saying that you should check each one - but what if a customer asks you to prove they are what you claim? You'd have to go to the supplier. 

As it is, your customers likely trust that you are providing what you say you are. In the EO example, the customer doesn't know who the wholesaler is, so they have to trust reseller. If their trust turns out to be misplaced, it was the trust in you, not in your supplier. 

How much due diligence is enough? Depends on the situation. Parts for planes would require more than parts for coffee grinders to some degree. Should everyone be checking everything to the nth degree? No, that's just not practical. But does the seller have to own the trust placed in them and not just shrug and look at the supplier? Very much so.


----------



## Dharlee (Nov 19, 2015)

Just wow. Oh what a tangled web, huh?

And Gent, yes, I agree with your statement.


----------



## Soapmaker145 (Nov 20, 2015)

I'm with Dixie on this one.  There is no way for a small business person to verify the authenticity of the supplies they get.  For many things, we lack a proper testing method.  The FDA has an extensive validation process designed to ensure that all drugs/devices on the US market meet the established standards that were presented to them at the time of approval.  Even this process is dependent on a good bit of trust.  The FDA holds  companies responsible for any material they import.  They have to validate it before accepting it into their process by doing testing on random samples and maintaining proper and extensive records.  The FDA actually inspects sites and checks anything and everything they want to, not just in the US but also at manufacturing sites overseas.  They stay as long as they feel is necessary and talk to anybody and everybody.  The idea is you won't cheat if you are going to all this trouble.  At the end of the day, people still find a way to cheat.  They only get caught when they kill people because it triggers an immediate investigation with extensive testing to identify the source of the problem which usually uncovers fake tests.  

There is no way to do the same thing for compounds and materials that are more generic in nature.  Many oils can be mixed without significantly altering their profile.  Idiot companies get caught when they use synthetic solvents. At the end of the day, we have to trust that the people we are buying from have a way to verify the source and quality of the material they are selling us particularly when they claim they do that at multiple stages in their process.  Otherwise, the world just stops.  

That guy is an idiot to get involved with an MLM company regardless of who set up their QC after what he went through with ED.


----------



## coffeetime (Nov 20, 2015)

I saw this guys rant posted on the HSCG Facebook page looking for thoughts, and to me the Doterra "giveaway" at the end was suspicious. 
Also, it terms of liability, doesn't it become a chain of responsibility? Like the soapmaker is responsible to their customers but then the supplier is responsible to the soapmaker(their customer). So everyone takes a piece of the blame, with the bulk of it going to the originator. Does that sound right?


----------



## TeresaT (Nov 20, 2015)

gigisiguenza said:


> Hahahahahahaha the orange what??



Sorry.  The gamma lock bucket.  It's actually a white bucket with a bright orange lid.  They have several colors.  The orange was the loudest.


----------



## Steve85569 (Nov 20, 2015)

coffeetime said:


> I saw this guys rant posted on the HSCG Facebook page looking for thoughts, and to me the Doterra "giveaway" at the end was suspicious.
> Also, it terms of liability, doesn't it become a chain of responsibility? Like the soapmaker is responsible to their customers but then the supplier is responsible to the soapmaker(their customer). So everyone takes a piece of the blame, with the bulk of it going to the originator. Does that sound right?



The chain of responsibility goes to the one with the deepest pockets. If someone sues the soaper the soaper sues the supplier who sues his supplier until you get to the one that actually had intent of wrong doing. So far - as much as I can tell - there are only accusations and rumours flying about. 
The "special grade (r)" of EO's is a registered trademark statement made by companies ( the statement varies from company to company) that allows them to say their oils are different than the competition. If an EO is pure and what it says it is then it is the same from supplier to supplier. There are several different types of cinnamon for example. Some are just not the same tree but to the inexperienced nose the differences may not be detected. If a supplier knowingly substitutes one for the other he would be guilty of blatant fraud. If one of the suppliers workers mistakenly puts the lesser quality product in the wrong bottle the wrong doing is latent rather than blatant.

Hope that completely muddies the water for everyone.:mrgreen:


----------



## lovinglife (Nov 20, 2015)

So I don't trust the guy writing about this, do we know did they test oil already repackaged or straight out of the bottle it came from with ED?  Just wondering if the guy repackaging it actually cut it with something else to make more profit.  Then to cover his rear he is attacking ED.  I don't know, all I know is it smells fishy to me.  I didn't hear about the lye problem, that concerns me as I have two more bottles in my supply room.  So far all my soap has turned out great.


----------



## MissBee (Nov 20, 2015)

lovinglife said:


> So I don't trust the guy writing about this, do we know did they test oil already repackaged or straight out of the bottle it came from with ED?  Just wondering if the guy repackaging it actually cut it with something else to make more profit.  Then to cover his rear he is attacking ED.  I don't know, all I know is it smells fishy to me.  I didn't hear about the lye problem, that concerns me as I have two more bottles in my supply room.  So far all my soap has turned out great.



I didn't see anything when I searched the forum about the lye issue. Perhaps some more people can chime in about that, since apparently a member of ours got it tested?


----------



## Susie (Nov 20, 2015)

Here is what ED said about this whole hullabaloo:


Essential Depot
Yesterday at 3:28pm · 
NOTE: If you see anyone claiming Essential Depot Essential Oils are not 100% pure:
Let them know in no uncertain terms that they are in fact 100% pure, and we would kindly ask that you report them to us at [email protected]
We will be publishing GC (Gas Chromatograph) reports on December 7th as promised. Thanks in advance to our thousands of loyal customers.
Visit http://www.closesttonature.com to understand all about our Essential Oils (and remember they are not intended for internal use).


----------



## Arimara (Nov 20, 2015)

I do not know tha validity of the website I'm looking at but should this raise alarms?

http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/Utah/Salt-Lake-County-UT/Daniel-Eli-Kidwell.6122159.html

I'm not the best for research but I'm starting to really think this guy may not be what he is presenting himself to be. He could very well be someone trying to make a living and getting his life straight but is really lacking in the know how.


----------



## annalee2003 (Nov 20, 2015)

Arimara said:


> I do not know tha validity of the website I'm looking at but should this raise alarms?
> 
> http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/Utah/Salt-Lake-County-UT/Daniel-Eli-Kidwell.6122159.html
> 
> I'm not the best for research but I'm starting to really think this guy may not be what he is presenting himself to be. He could very well be someone trying to make a living and getting his life straight but is really lacking in the know how.



In his "about" section on his website (blog?), he mentions that he had an unfortunate past. Didn't go into detail about it, but that mugshot may have been a part of what he mentioned. Not sure when the article he wrote was published, so I'm not sure if that mugshot was taken before or after.
.... Is there somewhere stating where he is from? Because there are a lot of people with similar names.

Edit: Nevermind. Didn't realize there was a photo of him on his site. Looks like the same guy.


----------



## Arimara (Nov 20, 2015)

annalee2003 said:


> In his "about" section on his website (blog?), he mentions that he had an unfortunate past. Didn't go into detail about it, but that mugshot may have been a part of what he mentioned. Not sure when the article he wrote was published, so I'm not sure if that mugshot was taken before or after.
> .... Is there somewhere stating where he is from? Because there are a lot of people with similar names.
> 
> Edit: Nevermind. Didn't realize there was a photo of him on his site. Looks like the same guy.



That lessens my worries a bit. He may just be in need of life lessons for business owners.


----------



## gigisiguenza (Nov 21, 2015)

He states in the article (which was published just a few days ago) that he's had a bad past and that he straightened his life out, went to school, has a family now, etc. Personally I don't think his past has diddly to do with what his current issue is. He feels he was defrauded and that he has proof that it was intentional, and that this intentional fraud led to the loss of his reputation and business.

Now whether or not he has a case or not, is up to the courts. Whether ED has been internationally defrauding their customers is up to the courts. All I know is this is not the first issue regarding their products that I've seen discussed, not just EOs, and i was leary of buying from them before this. All this did was add to my already existing distrust of them.

Also, in regards to whatever the ED site has put out stating basically if you see someone saying our stuff is fake, tell on them by emailing their identity to X. This in itself is so unprofessional and downright high school that I'm flabbergasted. 

I know I was reluctant to buy from them before this, I was more so after this, and that last bit about sending detractors info to them sealed the deal for me.

I have no desire to do biz with a company that handles their legal disputes or detractors with the same level of professionalism as the average sophomore.


----------



## snappyllama (Nov 21, 2015)

I agree. ED's response was not how I would expect a reputable company to act. They should come forward to assure their customers that their EOs are unadulterated by providing lab tests. Mud slinging and inviting others to sling mud makes them look just as dirty as their detractors.

I previously steered clear of ED from hearing about how they handled the lye problem. Also their spokesperson on youtube... it makes me question their judgement.

As far as their detractor's blog post goes, I couldn't make it through the whole thing... I guess the gist was: he buys big quantities of EOs and repackages them with a vast mark up into itty-bitty bottles. His beef with ED is that the EOs weren't pure. I checked out his website where he is advising people to use EOs neat while making unsubstantiated health claims and advising people to consume EOs (and I assume ED is not a food-safe facility). 

I hope ED hasn't been defrauding their customers. I hope ED figures out how to handle customer service. I hope Earth's Love goes out of business. Quickly.


----------



## gigisiguenza (Nov 21, 2015)

It's incredibly disappointing to see so much evidence of people's lack of integrity and professionalism, and so much evidence of their blatant greed.

My kids have been teasing me for years about my "hippie" mindset, and how I should go live in a commune LOL. According to them, I'm better suited to living among artists in a barter based environment than I am living among normal folk in a capitalist society.

I used to laugh at them when I was younger, but the older I get the more I think they may be right.


----------



## Dana89 (Nov 22, 2015)

Is anyone still reading this guys blog? He posted a conversation that he taped "secretly" with Doterra's head honchos. It seems that they had a shady deal with The Perfumery, and he is bringing down Dr Pappa's with him. I would post a link to the Conversation but I am sure it is illegally taped convo, but you can hear it if you go to the same page.
My god it is like the E.O business is ran by the mob!


----------



## Steve85569 (Nov 23, 2015)

Me thinks that something is just not right here.
The lye I got in from ED is good so far. I do keep it dry and in a giant zip lock bag.
The EO's from them behave the same as the ones from the two other companies we trade with.
Does this mean that they're all "dirty"?!?


----------



## galaxyMLP (Nov 23, 2015)

Wait just one second now! So, first he throws ED under the bus for selling fraudulent oils that he had tested by Dr. Pappas then he throws said Dr. Pappas under the bus for lying about working in cahoots with doTerra?? I'm inclined to believe his articles about how Dr. Pappas worked for doTerra but, it honestly all looks shady at best. Why would he release that article on ED and then basically say the data its based on is worthless 5 days later?

I think its all a bunch of phooey. We'll see what happens.


----------



## IrishLass (Nov 23, 2015)

Steve85569 said:


> Me thinks that something is just not right here.
> The lye I got in from ED is good so far. I do keep it dry and in a giant zip lock bag.


 
The lye fiasco happened around April 2014 and involved certain lot #'s of their lye. There's a 15-page thread over on the Dish about it. 

Tests were done on some of the problem lot #'s of lye, and even Dr. Kevin Dunn got involved to a certain extent at one point: at least 2 of the problem lot #'s were tested as per Dr. Dunn's instructions via e-mail communications between him and one of the Dish members, and both lots tested out as being 62% purity after repeated tests. 

The same tests were then conducted on lye bought from different vendors to compare, and those from the other vendors checked out at 98% purity. 

So, it seems that something was definitely wrong with certain lot numbers of ED lye being sold at that time.....and the last I heard, ED never really owned up to it, but instead shifted blame onto the soapers using the lye. I can only hope that they changed their attitude about that, but I don't know whether they have or not, seeing as how I haven't kept up with the drama. 

For what it's worth, I bought a bunch of lye from them around that same time without knowing anything about the problems that were being reported, but thankfully, my lye was not amongst the problem lot #'s and has so far been soaping fine for me.


IrishLass


----------



## Susie (Nov 23, 2015)

On Dec. 7th, ED is supposed to release the CG of all their EOs.  That is them putting proof of the purity out there!  

I am shocked that the good people of this forum are so ready to believe the rumors and mud slinging that a person (with questionable motives) puts out on the internet!  How about reserving judgment until proof is given one way or the other?  All we have right now are allegations and rumors.


----------



## galaxyMLP (Nov 23, 2015)

gigisiguenza said:


> Also, in regards to whatever the ED site has put out stating basically if you see someone saying our stuff is fake, tell on them by emailing their identity to X. This in itself is so unprofessional and downright high school that I'm flabbergasted.



Is it bad that I don't think this emailing them is a bad thing? The internet is a big place. It might be difficult to find these articles unless you know where to look. And honestly, from this guys site it really sounded like he had every intention of suing them for losses. 

I'm not saying ED handled things well (then or now). I just don't think that asking for information like that is unprofessional. I don't think they said they were going to bash the person that is reported. It's possible they were going to gather data so they could build a case. I think that's only fair. 

Gathering that much GC documentation takes time. I bet they have to make sure any information of the company that tests their oils is removed from the files and they may even need to annotate them by hand with the hundreds of compounds found in EOs.

Please understand I'm not trying to support either side or argue just to argue. I'm just trying to shed some light on what could be happening in the background. By no means do I know any of this to be the case.


----------



## Susie (Nov 23, 2015)

I think most of us live in countries that have the belief that someone is innocent until proven guilty.  I am reserving any opinions on who is right or not until I see real proof.  I just was having trouble believing that the folks on THIS forum were buying that guy's story with no proof.  I would believe it in a heartbeat about many other groups, just did not expect that here.


----------



## gigisiguenza (Nov 23, 2015)

Susie said:


> On Dec. 7th, ED is supposed to release the CG of all their EOs.  That is them putting proof of the purity out there!
> 
> I am shocked that the good people of this forum are so ready to believe the rumors and mud slinging that a person (with questionable motives) puts out on the internet!  How about reserving judgment until proof is given one way or the other?  All we have right now are allegations and rumors.



I can't speak for others, but my interest in this particular article was generated by my knowledge of their issues with the bad lye and how that was handled. The bad lye issues had already made me very reluctant to purchase from them, and reading this added more distrust. Did I assume when I read this man's story that all of what he said was true? No, that's why I posted it here, to hear from others with more experience with them. But there has to be some truth in what this man has accused them of or how did all the evidence come about? 

I do think this man is on a mission to bring them down, in retribution for what he feels is their responsibility for destroying his business. I don't particularly like his method of blasting all of it on the web, but I'm glad he shared the info. 
I do think that, regardless of his unfortunately flamboyant and rather manic presentation of his experience with them, that there is something shady going on. And as a consumer, I'm interested in exactly what the shadiness is.
I do think that just because they are producing CG tests in Dec to prove their stock is pure, this does not nullify the fact that their previous stock could very well have been fraudulent (based on the tests that were supposedly done at the time). 

I don't see myself as jumping on any bandwagon or jumping to assumptions in this as I feel it is completely fair to draw logical conclusions based on what's been presented so far. Based on what has been presented so far, this company has a history of selling sub par product (knowingly or unknowingly) to its customers and not owning up to it once it's discovered, choosing instead to dump responsibility for the product's failure on the customer. So, yes, based on what I've read and learned, I feel completely justified in saying I don't trust them or their product, and I won't be buying from them because I am reluctant to play Russian roulette with my money by giving jt to a company that has a proven history of selling poor quality product, bad handling of complaints about poor quality product, and an inappropriate response to detractors (hunt them down).



galaxyMLP said:


> Is it bad that I don't think this emailing them is a bad thing? The internet is a big place. It might be difficult to find these articles unless you know where to look. And honestly, from this guys site it really sounded like he had every intention of suing them for losses.
> 
> I'm not saying ED handled things well (then or now). I just don't think that asking for information like that is unprofessional. I don't think they said they were going to bash the person that is reported. It's possible they were going to gather data so they could build a case. I think that's only fair.
> 
> ...



Galaxy, I'm not on anyone's side either, but I do have my own opinion on it, based on what I've read. And my issue with them asking for detractors info to be turned in is the way it's been done and the way it's perceived. This is not the first company to have a faulty product issue, there have been many, but it's inappropriate to put a call to action out there that charges your viewing audience and supporters to help you hunt down detractors and turn them in. It comes across as arrogant and vigilante, versus concerned and responsive. It doesn't matter what they are trying to find them for, the manner in which they are trying to get the information comes across as suspect and punishment oriented, not caring and restitution oriented.

If your company is currently under fire for supposedly selling a faulty or fake product, a smart response should be to 
1) acknowledge that the issue exists so your customers don't think you're skirting the issue and begin questioning the trust they placed in you,
2) reassure that you are researching to find out if you may have indeed sold a faulty or fake product, so your customers don't feel like you're not going to have their back if they discover they were one of the recipients of said bad product, 
3) create an environment of concern for your customer's shaken trust by establishing a dedicated portal for addressing customer concerns regarding their possible involvement in the suspect purchases, and 
4) encourage any customer who feels they may have indeed been effected by the issue to come forward so they can be contacted directly with updates on the progress and any restitution should the issue prove to be true.

What you don't do is act as though it's impossible for you to have made a mistake in the past, that it's impertinent of people to suggest you may have made a mistake in the past, and ask people to help you hunt down those who have the temerity to speak ill of you. Their current poor handling of the situation has created an overall sense of distrust in the public eye. 

If they are looking for past customers who have been affected by previously sold product that may be faulty in any way, they should be approaching the public with a call to action that speaks to those impacted directly. The more appropriate response to this would be to put a call out to the customers themselves, with language that reassures them that they are trying to gather information to discover how wide reaching the issue is so they can rectify, not punish.

I'm sorry that my opinion on this seems to rub people the wrong way, but that's how I feel. I don't know one way or the other if the things they've been accused of are true or not. But as a consumer, I can only base my overall impression of their company on what I see, which includes past and present experiences of their customers, and their response and handling of past and present issues.

So far, all they've managed to do with their current situation and response is to create a bigger sense of wariness and suspicion in me.

Just my opinion folks, so please take it as that - opinion, not statement of fact.


----------



## Arimara (Nov 23, 2015)

Susie said:


> On Dec. 7th, ED is supposed to release the CG of all their EOs.  That is them putting proof of the purity out there!
> 
> I am shocked that the good people of this forum are so ready to believe the rumors and mud slinging that a person (with questionable motives) puts out on the internet!  How about reserving judgment until proof is given one way or the other?  All we have right now are allegations and rumors.



Been thinking about that. Past aside, I'm still suspicious of the guy.


----------



## jade-15 (Nov 23, 2015)

Susie said:


> I think most of us live in countries that have the belief that someone is innocent until proven guilty.  I am reserving any opinions on who is right or not until I see real proof.  I just was having trouble believing that the folks on THIS forum were buying that guy's story with no proof.  I would believe it in a heartbeat about many other groups, just did not expect that here.



I instantly dismissed everything he had written... Then thought maybe I was too quick in my judgements, and *perhaps* there is truth in what he is saying.  Do I believe it? No... But I am interested to see the outcomes of any law suits.
(If this sounds like a different view to anything I've written earlier, I apologise for my lack of effective communication!)
As I live in Australia, I don't shop from ED anyway. But if this happened with a company I had bought from and was happy with, I would continue to do so.


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Nov 24, 2015)

Aye - while they may or may not have knowingly or unknowingly sold bad oils, they are certainly guilty of handling the whole situation appallingly. While his version of events is not verified, from what I have read about ED and their customer services plus the response since, leads me think it is more than likely how they handled it. 

After the lye fiasco one would think that not only would they NEVER sell something that is not what they claim it is but at the very least they would respond to claims of this type better than they have done. 

In my mind, innocent or not, I wouldn't want to do business with them.


----------



## Soapmaker145 (Nov 24, 2015)

I think what is most problematic to me is the fact that ED is waiting till Dec 7 to post their GC chromatograms.  If they test along the way, why didn't they have them posted already or at least 1 or 2 examples.  This is enough to convince me that they don't have any.  They weren't verifying their supplies.

I would rather trust a supplier until they give me a reason not to.  Overlooking the EO issue, I just had a problem with their NaOH.  I had ordered lye from them earlier this year and everything went well.  So I placed a larger order.  I did 3 batches without any problem and the soaps are fine for now.  I had to abort the fourth because of insoluble material.  I had a precipitate in the lye that wouldn't go in solution.  I didn't have the same "fumes' you normally get when making high concentration NaOH solutions.  

I checked the lot #s.  Every bottle I checked had a different number.  I order chemicals for my job all the time from reputable suppliers.  I've never seen this many lot #s in stock at the same time, particularly for 2 lb bottles.  That seems to be a creative solution around previous problems.  For me, that is enough not to buy from them anymore.  It's a hobby.  I don't want it to turn into a worry like how to dispose properly of a solution when you don't know what it is.


----------



## Aline (Nov 24, 2015)

Agree that the author doesn't have huge credibility but I would not be at all surprised if ED sells/sold adulterated oils. There are unfortunately quite a few companies, big and small, who lack integrity and mislead their customers. Look at Bulk Apothecary and their "synthetic Tuberose essential oil blend" for under $20/lb! (and they have a 'synthetic Honeysuckle essential oil blend'). Whaaat?!!! It sounds from the reviews that they are really nice FO's and I may try them in spite of my disgust at the dishonest labeling. And then there's Nature's Flavors with its 'organic fragrance oils'. Now that's just funny - except that it makes me wonder if anything they sell is really what they say it is....


----------

