#1: What’s your criteria? Pricing, Service/Reliability, Certs/SOPs, SKUs/formats…other aspects?
#2: What’s your success/horror stories? Name names or don’t…interested to hear what aspects you value or where they screw around.
#3: “We have nano/special/proprietary/fairy dust magic in our products” Do you see any special tech making a real difference for bioavailability/uptake?
Really enjoying the community here - if I can help you in any way, here to serve…thank you!
…any manufacturers in the group?
You want to know what’s “fairy dust” anything labeled as THC-free…
There’s always still THC even after remediation and even in your isolate. If you don’t believe me then you can watch as I run your sample on an hplc and I will show you the peak for THC on the chromatogram.
I’m so sick of hearing the phrase “T-free” because it’s a ridiculous lie, but people still propagate it either due to ignorance or desperation to sell their products.
Basically t free is saying that’s is below threshold of whoever’s doing our testing. Which is usually to the limit of .0001%
What would you suggest people call it instead?
Non detectable THC levels down to X.XX% X=the Limit of Detection.
for example THC ND with a LOD of .02% so you can know that it will have less than .02%
What lab are you using that can test at .0001%?
Lowest I have found is .001%
Low THC hemp derived oil 
Seems the most accurate to me, then the customer can make their choices based on a COA instead of a marketing term… sorry if I sound bitter it’s a Monday morning hahaha
You don’t sound bitter at all. IMO the focus on “T-Free” material is not so much what the D9/THC TAC % is except that it must be under 0.3%. Perhaps referring to it as THC Compliant Distillate would suffice?
Hmmm I have to check maybe I added 1 to many zeroes
I know this is all semantics but I feel like low thc hemp derived would be a great term for a low percentage down to .3% but still above.
if its under 0.3% but still detectable it should be THC compliant.
If its below the labs detectable level it should be ND THC down to 0.0X% (LOD)
Below 0.001% by weight is effectively THC-Free in my opinion.
Let’s say an 80% distillate goes into a 1000mg tincture. Once that goes into a product the THC is dilute to 0.00004% by weight.
My chem 1 teacher used to get all worked up about trace elements and such, he said something along the lines of “A glass of tap water contains nearly the whole periodic table depending on what scale you’re talking”.
He was also very adamant that we always refer to water as a solvent. “Its the fucking universal solvent.”, he would have loved that frenchie cannoli thread
The issue with leaving it up to the lab @thesk8nmidget is that there is no universal standard for “non-detectable”. I know labs where the LOD is <0.1%, I know other labs that is <0.01%… so the issue is that just because it’s “ND” at lab X does not mean it’s “ND” at lab Y and that makes it really confusing
I completely agree, that is why I think the person selling should say its non detectable down to x number.
I dont think it should be up to the consumer to try and understand what the COA means.
“fairy dust” is one way of saying proprietary, paradigm-shifting, nano/encapsulation snow job-type lingo that consumers may not care about, and that may not affect the efficacy of the product itself. Everybody seems to have a catch-phrase that makes them the shit, and everyone else…well, shit. Yeah, T-Free and zero THC both are lies - it’s simple “undetectable under LOQ” - imho, just call it that - undetectable under the testing threshold
How about;
A. “D9 Non-Detect”
B. “Mundane”
C. “Mildly” or “Non-Psychoactive”
D. “Non-intoxicating”
Akin to “Non-Alcoholic” beer 
how about non-detect or undetectable?
non alcoholic beer is actually a great example