Home » Consumer Safety Article

Consumer Safety Article

Some Emu oil producers or sellers will claim that their livestock feed and husbandry practices are the key to products that are safe for consumers to use.  Claims of this nature are either amateurish, or they are being made because of ignorance of available technologies.  Or, possibly they are a misrepresentation of facts that are well known and publicized within the Oils industry and throughout scientific institutions.  In either event, feed and farm practices have nothing to due with the purity or wholesomeness of Emu oil or critical consumer safety issues.  These issues can only be address through proper refining procedures.

An American Emu Association (AEA)  approved oil refiner claims that using a special all natural process utilizing heat, vacuum, absorbing clay and/or charcoal, occasionally combined with introducing a caustic chemical followed by steam bleaching, is all that is needed to produce a product safe for consumer use. This current highly touted “special” process has been used for well over 100 years.  This process is effective at removing some of the unwanted moisture and proteins and odor and free fatty acids, which lowers the peroxide value.  This process is adequate at refining for the purpose of improving odor, appearance and extending shelf life.  However, this process does not and cannot remove very serious potential contaminants from Emu oil.  Major companies, such as ADM, Bordens, ConAgra, Hersey Co., Johnson & Johnson, Kraft, and Proctor and Gamble that produce huge quantities of oils derived from animal and fish fats have long since discovered that an additional refining step must be added to extract any possible biological viruses, herbicide and pesticide residues, heavy metals, arsenic or cancer-causing carcinogens.   The limitations within the COA’s provided by the AEA approved refiner are not relative to critical consumer safety issues.

Raw materials from unidentifiable sources are pouring into the US. Over 90% of all Emu oil sold in or from the US comes from countries outside the US.  Some of these countries are listed by the FDA as being suspect of having the H1N1 poultry virus and other serious issues.  Suppliers and processors of many Emus from these “suspected” sources provide no documentation as to identifying the farmer/grower Certificate Of Origin (COO).  There will most likely be no record that a government licensed Doctor of Veterinarian Medicine (DMV) inspected the animals (live and carcass).  There will most likely be no record of  animals Veterinarian Health Certificates (VHC).  There will most likely be no record of the condition of or shipment of, the raw (fat) material.  There will most likely be no records of government approved facility licenses or sanitation certificates.  If any records of these nature are provided, most likely they were fabricated (out of thin air) after the events.  If there is a record of a COA, it will be for very limited categories and will not involve critical issues related to consumer safety. 

The vast majority of this questionable Emu oil is moving into the US through an AEA approved oil refiner and several “straw man” companies set up here in the US by India business men and brokers.

The AEA approved refiner boasts of participation in the AEA Certified Emu Oil program in an attempt to bolster their claims of Emu oil superiority.  The AEA program purports that a testing laboratory, independent of the producer, must perform a Certificate Of Analysis (COA) on each and every batch of refined Emu oil, and the batch’s independent COA must be submitted to the Administrator of the program.  Upon receipt and review of the COA, the program’s Administrator must verify the utilization of an independent testing laboratory and must verify the required results of the COA. Upon verification of all Certified Emu Oil program requirements, that particular batch of refined Emu oil can bear the official Certified Emu Oil seal of approval and be sold as such.  These requirements, if followed, are not relative to critical consumer safety issues. 

The AEA approved refiner claims that the AEA Certified Emu Oil program offers consumers safety.  To an uneducated or uninformed consumer, this sounds great.  However, as the saying goes, the Devil is in the details.  In consideration of the following three factual issues, it appears that the AEA and its approved refiner’s facade is becoming transparent.

Issue One:  The AEA is aware of their approved refiner purchasing rendered or somewhat refined Emu oil from a country of H1N1 virus suspected concern, yet it has no requirements for its approved refiner to acquire or record copies of COO’s, DMV’s, VCH’s, fat handling, storage or shipping records, initial COA’s, government (if required) facilities licenses and/or sanitation certificates.  Further, the AEA has no requirement for any of the aforementioned documents for fat, crude or refined Emu oil procured or produced by its refiner, regardless of the source of raw materials.  Because actions such as these do not address critical consumer safety issues, they most likely will not enhance consumer confidence.

Issue Two:  In violation of the AEA Certified Emu Oil program, the AEA’s approved refiner has been known to fail or refuse to provide an independent COA, but yet, sell Emu oil from that same batch, labeled as being “AEA Certified”.   The Administrator of the AEA is aware of the short-comings of its approved refiner, but fails or refuses to enforce its program or sanction its refiner.  Again, this most likely will not enhance consumer confidence.

Issue Three:  With the exception of the AEA and its only approved Emu oil refiner, the vast animal and fish oil industry fully recognize that the antiquated “all natural” refining process alone, doesn’t guarantee that contaminants such as biological viruses, herbicide and pesticide residues, heavy metals, arsenic or cancer-causing carcinogens are removed from the refined oil.  What the animal and fish oil industry does recognize is that the original refining process, coupled with a final process of Molecular Distillation will fully achieve a pure and wholesome product that is safe for consumers.

In summation there are basically two choices when purchasing Emu oil.  

Choice One is AEA Certified or “straw men” from India: This Emu oil originates from unidentified but hopefully healthy livestock that were raised in a virus “suspected” country, under questionable conditions by an unknown farmer at an unknown location.  There is no identification of a DMV or his or her inspection (live or carcass) or identification of government sanitary inspections or slaughter facility licenses.  There is no record of fat being handled, stored, shipped or processed into a particular batch of oil (rendered or refined).  At best, the refining is limited to an antiquated method that arguably does not remove all potential contaminants.  The refined choice one oil is being marketed by Indian “straw men” businesses and/or as “AEA Certified Emu Oil”.   If there is a health emergency, one would hope that the “straw men” will stay around and accept responsibility.  As for the AEA refiner, it is reasonable to question the validity of their labeled claim and clearly questionable as to the validity or integrity of the AEA oil program itself.  Sadly, there is no ability to re-trace the steps of raw material sourcing in the event of a health emergency.  This oil has not been finish processed with Molecular Distillation Refining (MDR).

Choice Two is fully refined and Molecular Distilled:   This Emu oil started from raw fat that was processed from livestock where the farmer provided a COO.  At the time of processing, every bird was individually identified and its personal fat was cataloged.  At time of processing, the slaughter facility license and approved sanitary certificates were documented.  The DMV provided government approval to perform live or carcass inspections and the results of each bird were individually recorded.  A record was created and maintained to show all stages of fat handling, storage, shipping and being processed into a specific batch of refined Emu oil.  This oil was refined very similar to the aforementioned all natural process and was then Molecular Distillation Refined (MDR) to remove absolutely all contaminants.  Government licenses and sanitary inspection certificates are on file for the refining facility. This finished Emu oil was analyzed at a closely monitored federal government testing laboratory that is totally independent from BulkEmuOil.com and Longview Farms..  Upon receipt of the finished Emu oil, BulkEmOil.com immediately sends a sample to yet another testing laboratory, for a comparison analysis.  Typically, this second independent testing laboratory will be Stratas Labs of Bartlett, TN, USA, which is American Oil Chemists Society (AOCS) accredited.

The Latest Technologies Come to Emu Oil Refining

(A news release from David L. Long, President of Longview Farms, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania.)

Safety and quality have long been an issue with regard to Emu oil. Over the years, consumers did not question safety and quality. Recently an industry certification program was set up and used by several companies as a way to further sales of emu oil in the marketplace. At that point, consumers began to question: “Am I buying a safe product?”

Longview Farms decided it prudent to undertake a study and analysis of several brands of Emu oil and compare it to Molecular Distilled oil. Molecular Distillation has been used by many companies to ensure purity and quality of animal and plant oils, and is used today by such large corporations as ADM. Longview Farms now uses and offers for sale Molecular Distilled Emu oil, and agrees with major nutritional supplement companies that it offers the purest, safest oil available to consumers.

Below are results of studies conducted on three different brands of Emu oil , two of which are AEA Certified Fully Refined Emu oil. The results came as a surprise to all those witnessing these tests; we think you will be surprised, too.

Prior to October 21, 2004, Longview Farms purchased 5 gallons of what was reported to be 100% Fully Refined Emu oil from each of three different sources. The first sample was from a processor in Tennessee, the second, from a processor in Texas, and the third, from an importer of Australian oil in Midwest City, OK.

Per our instructions, all of the containers of oil were shipped to the oil refining facility of our strategic alliance in Headland, Alabama, and remained sealed until my arrival on October 21, 2004.

The goal of the exercise was to refine each individual purchase of oil by a Molecular Distillation process to determine if undesirable impurities could be extracted and thereby make the conventionally processed oils more pure. Further, after the elimination of impurities, we could then determine the net purity yield of these conventionally processed oils. The logic behind this exercise is that sophisticated OEM (Other End Manufacturers) purchasers need to determine in advance the total cost to produce a high quality product that is void of impurities.pic 1

Testing of the three samples of Emu oil were performed and witnessed by Wendell and Shirley Nodes and Chuck Jones of HOPCO oil processors, Tom Walters of Premier Marketing and David Long of Longview Farms. A photo of the participants has been provided. Left to Right: Chuck Jones, Tom Walters (now deceased), David Long, Wendell Nodes, Shirley Nodes.

 

Test ONE:
The first test was conducted on the oil from Tennessee. The purchase of this oil was made on October 1, 2004 and was shipped via UPS shortly thereafter. This oil was represented as being “AEA Certified Fully Refined Oil” and was provided in a 5 gallon pail.

In contrast to the AEA stated program guidelines, this oil container and label did not bear a lot or batch number. The label did have the AEA program Logo, but there was no indication that the oil in the container was “AEA Certified”. The container’s removable lid had a hand written “sharpie” marker notation that read “Batch #109024″. A piece of paper was found in the pail’s shipping carton that appeared to be an “Analytical Report” of information “Submitted by: (supplier of oil)”.

The paper did not indicate the date of manufacture of the oil. It also did not indicate if a “Certificate of Analysis” had been performed by an AOCS Accredited Chemist at an Accredited Laboratory. And, there was no indication or description of persons or facilities involved with the “chain of possession” of the oil from time of manufacture through date of shipment (October 1, 2004).

Subsequent to purchasing the oil, David Long contacted the processor and requested an AEA program approved “Certificate of Analysis”. Although the AEA’s website states that the document will be provided to the “products company”(in this case Longview Farms), the Tennessee processor has refused the request.

When the container lid of the Test ONE oil was removed, it was observed by all that:
1.      A human body hair was floating on the surface, and what were believed to be emu feather particles were seen within the oil.
2.     4 Unidentified Floating Objects (UFO’s) were floating on the surface.
3.     5 puddles of a yellow translucent liquid compound were floating on the surface. (Each about the size of a 25 cent piece).
4.     The oil was light yellow in color (nearly white).
5.     The oil exhibited a very slight oil odor.
6.     The oil had a thick creamy consistency.
7.     There were no apparent separations of the fatty acids.
8.     The oil did not readily penetrate human skin.
9.     The net weight contents of the pail, prior to distillation was 39 lbs – 1.5 oz.
10.   The per gallon net weight was approximately 7.82 pounds.

As a notation to item 3.; The oil processor states that his oil does not separate. Further, the substance found was not relative to a separation of fatty acids. The compound was significantly a darker color of yellow to that of the oil and clearly was something foreign to emu oil The substance was most likely an odor masking agent or preservative.

A six fluid ounce sample was taken of the Test ONE oil prior (pre) to the Molecular Distillation process and was sent to an AOCS Accredited Laboratory for technical analysis. Per the attached photo this sample is designated BIN-PRE.pic 2

The Test ONE oil was heated to an appropriate temperature and then run through the Molecular Distillation process. The process cannot remove essential and non essential fatty acids. The process can only remove unwanted free fatty acids, contaminants, UFO’s, odor masking agents, preservatives and moisture. Typically the removal of these impurities are trapped within discharge points of the still or they are vented to the exterior of the facility. The distilled oil’s loss of these impurities is measured in weight by the reduction in net weights between “prior” and “post” distillation. No finished refined oil remains within the distillation equipment.

 

A six fluid ounce sample was taken of the Test ONE oil after (post) the Molecular Distillation process and was also sent to an AOCS Accredited Laboratory for technical analysis. Per the attached photo this sample is designated BIN-POST.

 

The net weight contents of the pail after (post) the distillation process was 35 lbs. – 2.1 oz. The per gallon net weight after distillation was approximately 7.03 pounds. This net loss of 3.96 lbs. of the 5 gallon sample is directly attributable to the removal of unwanted free fatty acids, contaminants, UFO’s, odor masking agents, preservatives and moisture. For a pictorial view of some of these removed impurities, please see the photo pic 3of a jar containing BIN-RESIDUE. In the case of Test ONE, after elimination of the impurities, the post molecular distillation yield was equal to 90% of the net original weight. Molecular Distillation removed impurities from the Test ONE sample that computed to 10% of its original net weight.

OEM purchasers seeking the purest possible emu oil must consider this yield reduction factor when purchasing a product that has not been Molecular Distilled.

 

Test TWO:

The second test was conducted on the oil from Texas. The purchase of this oil was made on September 23, 2004 and was shipped via UPS the following day. This oil was represented as being “AEA Certified Fully Refined Oil” and was provided in a 5 gallon pail.

In contrast to the AEA stated program guidelines, this oil container and label did not bear a lot or batch number and the container label did not contain the AEA program Logo. The container’s removable lid had an AEA program Logo and a hand written “sharpie” marker notation that read “40302173″. No paperwork was shipped with the oil.

David Long requested the processor provide him with the AEA program allowable “Certificate of Analysis”(COA). The processor immediately upon request supplied a copy of same. The COA did not specify the date of manufacturer but it did stipulate the date of Certification.

When the container lid of the Test TWO oil was removed, it was observed by all that:
1.    3 Unidentified Floating Objects (UFO’s) were floating on the surface.
2.    6 puddles of a yellow translucent liquid compound were floating on the surface. (Each about the size of a 25 cent piece)
3.    The oil was light yellow in color.
4.    The oil exhibited a slight oil odor.
5.    The oil had a thin creamy consistency.
6.    There were no apparent separations of the fatty acids.
7.    The oil does readily penetrated human skin.
8.    The net weight contents of the pail, prior to distillation was 38 lbs. – 14.5 oz.
9.    The per gallon net weight was approximately 7.78 pounds.pic 4

As a notation to item 2.; The substance found was not relative to a separation of fatty acids. The compound was significantly a darker color of yellow to that of the oil and was clearly something foreign to emu oil. The substance was most likely an odor masking agent or preservative.

As in the case of Test ONE, a six fluid ounce sample was taken of the Test TWO oil prior (pre) to the Molecular Distillation process and was sent to an AOCS Accredited Laboratory for technical analysis. Per the attached photo this sample is designated EPIC-PRE.

As in the case of Test One, the Test TWO oil was heated to an appropriate temperature and then run through the Molecular Distillation process. Again, all functions of the distillation effect the removal of unwanted impurities. None of the essential and non essential fatty acids are removed.

As in the case of Test ONE, a six fluid ounce sample was taken of the Test TWO oil after (post) the Molecular Distillation process and was also sent to an AOCS Accredited Laboratory for technical analysis. Per the attached photo this sample is designated EPIC-POST.

pic 5The net weight contents of the pail after (post) the distillation process was 37 lbs. – 11.5 oz. The per gallon net weight after distillation was approximately 7.54 lbs. In the case of Test TWO, after elimination of the impurities, the post molecular distillation yield was equal to 97% of the net original weight. Molecular Distillation removed impurities from the Test TWO sample that computed to 3% of its original net weight. Again, for a pictorial view of some of the removed impurities, please see the photo of a jar containing EPIC- RESIDUE.

 

Test THREE:

The third test was conducted on the oil purchased from a company located in Midwest City, OK, that imports Australian Emu oil. The purchase of this oil was made on September 24, 2004 and was shipped via UPS the following day. This oil, which was provided in 5- 1 gallon jugs was not represented as being “AEA Certified Fully Refined Oil”

The supplier of the oil did not provide a “Certificate of Analysis” and no lot or batch numbers appeared on any of the containers.

When the Test THREE jugs were emptied into a heating vat, it was observed by all that:
1.     A large number of Unidentified Floating Objects were present.
2.    The oil was a medium yellow in color.
3.    There were some pale red blotches of a substance found throughout the oil.
4.    The Oil exhibited an offensive oil odor, and
5.    An additional fragrance indicated the oil had been over heated (scorched).
6.    The oil had a thin creamy, yet gritty, consistency.
7.    There were no apparent separations of the fatty acids.
8.    The oil does readily penetrate human skin.
9.    A significant amount of what appeared to be unfiltered “absorbing clay” was found.
10.  There were two pieces of tan colored plastic particles contained in this oil.
11.   The net weight contents of the jugs, prior to distillation was 39 lbs – 2.8 oz.
12.   The per gallon net weight was approximately 7.84 pounds.

As a notation to item 3.; The pale red blotches intensified in color and concentrated themselves as a component of the eliminated residue. Most likely this is un-removed blood protein particulate. See the photo of a jar containing AUS-RESIDUE.

pic 6As in the case of Test ONE and Test TWO, a six fluid ounce sample was taken of the Test THREE oil prior (pre) to the Molecular Distillation process and was sent to the laboratory. Per the attached photo this sample is designated AUS-PRE.

As in the cases of Test ONE and Test TWO, the Test THREE oil was heated to an appropriate temperature and then run through the Molecular Distillation process. Again, all functions of the distillation effect the removal of unwanted impurities. None of the essential or nonessential fatty acids are removed.

As in Test ONE and Test TWO, a six ounce sample was taken of Test THREE oil after (post) the Molecular Distillation process and was sent to the laboratory. Per the attached photo this sample is designated AUS-POST.

pic 7The net weight contents of the jugs after (post) the distillation process was 36 lbs. – 3.5 oz. The per gallon net weight after distillation was approximately 7.24 lbs. In the case of Test
THREE, after elimination of the impurities, the post molecular distillation yield was equal to 92% of the net original weight. Molecular Distillation removed impurities from the Test THREE sample that computed to 8% of its original net weight. Again, for a pictorial view of some of the removed impurities, please see the photo of a jar containing AUS-RESIDUE.

 

 

tabel
As pointed out, the first and second tests involved emu oil that used to be considered the best (and purest) that our industry had to offer (AEA Certified). These experiments were made to determine if significant amounts of impurities could be removed from emu oil that has been “conventionally” refined, and they were removed. We also needed to determine the costs involved. This further purifying process (Molecular Distillation) is essential if we ever hope to take emu oil beyond skin moisturizing. There is a market for emu oil that does not contain impurities, we just have to prove to our critics that we are capable of producing it. We now have the means to prove it. If you could witness first hand the RESIDUE, impurities and stench that we have extracted from these tests, you could understand why some critics have been reluctant to allow emu oil into the medical society. The technology of the Molecular Still now gives us the credibility that we so desperately need.

For further information regarding this article and Longview Farms brand Molecular Distilled Emu oil, contact David Long at 570-380-1077.

##########
This information cannot be copied or published without written permission from the author. Copy right 2004. David Long All Rights Reserved.