I saw a glimpse of the report on the Glutathione content of certain whitening supplements(that sounds so wrong). This report raised many eyebrows and hurt not just one business. One of the hurt ones is going to file libel cases against the news reporter. This doesn't seem right. They should be filing complaints against the one who analyzed the supplements(the Philippines Institute of Pure and Applied Chemistry). The reporter didn't reveal the results because of malicious intent but because of her duties as a journalist.

According to a reply by a hurt company(the one in PhilStar), the PIPAC used titration to analyze the glutathione content. This wrong choice led to the allegedly biased results. Too bad I do not know the analytical method used by PIPAC so I'm not sure if it is really true. But from what I know, any method should suffice though it would be best if they used chomatography to avoid problems with contaminants and confounders. Still, titration should be fine. I think even the simple Kheldjal method could be used since theoretically the only Nitrogen containing substances in the supplements should be the glutathione. The company should also know that PIPAC do have the equipment needed for the tests they want to be performed on their products.

The ad also insulted titration by implying that since titration is a cheaper method, it is unreliable. I take great offense at this. I love titration. It is true that students and those with small chemistry sets could easily perform titration, unlike certain chromatography methods which require more special equipment. However, this that not mean that chromatography is always better than titration. Titration is indeed a very cheap method but that doesn't mean it is unreliable. Heck, in TB diagnosis a sputum exam which is cheaper than an x-ray is much more reliable. And in the hands of skilled lab tech, titration is very accurate and very precise with results comparable to that of chromatography(assuming a chemical reaction exist that could be used in titration).

Still, this would not probably help resolve the issue but I trust PIPAC. They wouldn't be swayed by money. The reputation of an analytical laboratory is priceless.

Update:
I finally saw the report on youtube(We love youtube!). I also saw the reaction of a user of Lucida. The defender said that the PIPAC made a mistake in the analysis because PIPAC methods couldn't detect the chemical lipoic acid. She suggests that another analysis be made this time by the Adamason Univ. Technology Research and Development Center. These statements though are irrelevant as the report and PIPAC only wanted to determine glutathione content of the products. Lipoic acid is not the same as glutathione. Lipoic acid was not even in the list of products PIPAC want to quantify. The statements only become relevant if lipoic acid serves as a confounding agent in the method used to quantify glutathione. Thus even if PIPAC couldn't detect LA and even if the users say that Lucida products work, the distributors of Lucida-ds would still be at fault for the false information found in their products' labels.

Links:
ABS-CBN report - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUHVCa1T4ME
Lucida defense - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_ard1mUF_g&feature=related