• We're half back! There's a lot missing, but you can find out more here,

    You are now able to log into the forums and post

Actually Legit Documentation and Processes

Bill Roberts

New member
Mar 1, 2013
As we have unfortunately had to discuss the opposite, I thought I'd show an example of it being done right.

Not that I'm saying to buy from them, personally I never have, but this is an example of doing it right.

Every time Plant Therapy gets in a lot of Rose Absolute Morocco, before it's offered on the website and any goes to customers, off it goes to an independent lab and analysis is done. E.g., most recently https://www.planttherapy.com/test_reports/Rose R30108.pdf

In this case, it was Phytochemia and a really nice, highly detailed analysis together with their professional evaluation of whether there is evidence of adulteration. (There wasn't.)

So we not only know everything in it when we buy it, or need to review it even years later, but we see that someone else has verified it. This is provided despite the fact that Plant Therapy has no reputation problems already. For anyone already having repeatedly put out bogus shite, such outside verification would be even more important.

Now, let's look at the SDS: https://cdn.planttherapy.com/sds/rose_absolute_eo.pdf

Note that for composition, first it reads: Rose Absolute Extract 8007-01-0 100, those latter numbers being CAS number and percentage.

That's right, for real Rose Absolute you start the thing off by saying that's what the product consists of, and you can give the CAS number and 100% because those are true.

That's in contrast to some other places where the composition does NOT claim such a thing but proceeds straight to individual chemical constituents.

Later on regarding hazards you see again Rose Absolute Extract as first thing listed and then hazards associated with that, and then you see chemical constituents known to be within it and the hazards associated with them.

As opposed to, when you have a recon you're trying to pass off to your customers as an Absolute, you can't put Rose Absolute as a constituent let alone at 100% because it isn't there.

I would understand a tiny operation maybe not being able to do these things. Though everyone no matter how small could at least provide a copy of the SDS they received rather than one they created themselves, perhaps redacting supplier if they don't want competitors to learn their source.

A perfectly good alternate for a smaller retailer who can't afford third-party verification is to buy from a major supplier who themselves has top QA and solid reputation such as Robertet, Vielle, etc and show their documentation.

But when you're pulling $20-plus million a year and claim 45 employees, as an example, the above is by no means unreasonable to expect or require.

Anyone serious, these are what they need to do.


New member
Feb 21, 2020
While on the topic....it does seem the Dillon family is trying to make right of this issue on some of the materials she is listing on her website thats a work in progress.

As a random example:

She now is trying to be more upfront about where the material is coming from (where she bought it from; Vigon, JDW, ect & lot #) and is incorporating it to her product pages. While the SDS isnt as robust and detailed as we all would like (as you shown above)....it does appear she is starting to listen to the issues we all are concerned about. A small step in the right direction....

Bill Roberts

New member
Mar 1, 2013
She's still passing off Penta generic as Hedione HC, according to her SDS anyway. (And, if granting SDS's could be screwed up, why would one pull down the SDS that had been for legit Hedione HC and replace it with a Penta one, if you hadn't bought Penta?? So to me, it's Penta till proven differently which I do not expect to happen.)

And when she wrote me she avoided in any way saying that SDS's have to match the products. It was the same thing as PA: "they're there for the safety information only." That is not a direct quote but I understood as the meaning.

I asked her specifically if the Benzyl Acetate really was the Vigon Natural that her SDS said, or whether any of the products she showed Sigma-Aldrich SDS's for were actually Sigma-Aldrich, and rather than say "Yes they are!" she completely avoided answering those and instead wrote me at length about OSHA and wanting to consult her lawyers.

The allyl caproate is an improvement.

Perhaps she is trying to do as Travis said PA was going to do on the items I brought up, which was to keep on selling items known not to be as claimed until they run out and then switch?

And btw on the SDS's for synthetics it's the simplest thing in the world and she has not been doing that unsatisfactorily in any way, including the above, except for when not showing one belonging to the actual specific product!

Just show the exact thing you got when receiving the product or what is available to you online from your source at the time you buy the product. Before you put newly received product into inventory, verify what you are showing your customers matches up or upload the new one. Don't make up your own for no necessary reason (CP never has but a certain someone does), and don't show one actually belonging to a different product and excuse that by saying it only needs to be right regarding the hazards.

She is definitely still, three months after I made a point of all this to her, either showing an SDS for her "Hedione HC" that doesn't belong to the product, and I see no reason why someone would pull down a genuine Vigon Hedione HC SDS and replace it with Penta without having actually bought from Penta, or is selling Penta to her customers who think they are getting genuine Firmenich Hedione HC.

One or the other. There is no way that what is going on there is right and there's no way she doesn't know she is buying Penta and giving customers Penta (unless it's wrong SDS which again, would be a crazy substitution to go make without having bought Penta.)

And lastly, if you do speak to her the one suggestion I would ask be passed to her is to stop blaming Susan. The business became 100% her responsibility when she bought it, she's well past half a year of ownership now, and it's past time to fully own up and never blame Susan again. I never had these problems with Susan nor did any of us so far as I ever saw. That is just in case she would want to again blame Susan regarding the Hedione HC, which is my expectation of what would happen. I strongly believe she does not help herself by always blaming other people or events, even though it may feel like having successfully gotten out by way of excuse. But not so. Constant stories of "The dog ate my homework" really don't impress anyone in any favorable way.

Btw, my Hedione HC from Susan is the legit stuff.
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Latest member