Product Troubleshooting

  • My part(s) are damaged, broken etc.. I need a replacement part.

    If you feel the part failed under proper use and care during the  warranty period please email us a photo of the damaged part to customercare@omegajuicers.com

    Please include MODEL# and manufacturing date code found on the bottom of your product along with your name, shipping address and telephone number.

    Or call our customer care team at 800-633-3401 Mon-Thursday 8-4:30 CST, Friday 8:30-4 CST

    If it is determined the failure is covered under warranty, PART(S) will be provided at NO CHARGE. 

    SHIPPING & HANDLING - UNITED STATES $9.95

    SHIPPING & HANDLING - CANADA $12.95

    SHIPPING & HANDLING - ALASKA & HAWAII $14.95

    INTERNATIONAL WARRANTY CLAIMS - WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE SHIPPING QUOTE

    Parts can be purchased on our website by clicking here

  • I’m having difficulty turning the locking ring. Locking ring is stuck.

    It is possible that juice may have seeped behind the locking ring.  If you remove the four screws on the gray gasket inside the locking clip, the gasket and locking ring will come off the housing.  I would try cleaning the two parts and attach back to the housing to see if that helps.

  • My VSJ843 is not turning on!

    It is possible that the magnet in the black hopper that engages with the juicer and allows it to turn on has come loose. Do you happen to have any other type of magnet in your home that you could test to verify this? You would simply need to turn the juicer on and hold a magnet over the orange arrow on the motor housing. If the unit turns on then you need a new hopper, if the juicer does not turn on the juicer may need to be serviced as this could display a motor issue.

  • VRT330 or VRT350 – Juicer stopped working. Juicer won’t turn on. No power to my juicer.

    We look for two things when the VRT juicers do not turn on and majority of the time it is simply the way the hopper is put onto the bowl.  The juicer must be completely assembled to turn on.  The first thing to do is find the half-moon shaped or semi-circle tab with the arrow on it.  This tab juts out from the rim of the hopper (cover.)  The hopper can be locked onto the bowl three different ways but only one will actually engage with the juicer and allow it to turn on.  The tab on the hopper has a magnet that engages with the juicer.  If the tab is not right over top of the open/close on the post of the motor housing, the juicer will not turn on.  If you do have the tab over the open close and the juicer will not turn on take the hopper off the bowl and look at the underside of that tab.  The underside of the tab should be covered with plastic, if there is a hole then the magnet fell out which again will not allow the juicer to turn on.  If the magnet has fallen out I can replace the hopper for you.  We have many customers who have their VRT juicer for years and one time just happen to put the hopper on incorrectly, so I would make sure to double check that.  If this does not work, then the juicer will have to be sent to our service center. 

  • What are the differences between the VSJ843 models?

    The only difference between the VSJ843R and the VSJ843Q is the exterior shape. The 'Q' models are more squared, and the 'R' models are more round. The letters following the 'Q' and 'R' identify the color.

    The parts and motors are identical.

    We simply have two different shapes, so customers have two options for shape and color.

    The VSJ843Q model has the on/off switch to the right, whereas the on/off switch is at the back of the unit on the VSJ843RS.

     

    VSJ843QS - square, silver

    VSJ843QR - square, red

    VSJ843RR - round, red

    VSJ843RS - round, silver

  • PROPOSITION 65

    Warning Label:

    You may have seen the following warning associated with certain Omega products, as well as on other products purchased from other manufacturers:

    WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

    What is this warning about?

    This warning is the result of a unique law passed in California in 1986 called “Proposition 65.” Proposition 65 requires a warning to be included with any product sold in California that may contain any of the 900-plus chemicals that State of California regulators (as opposed to federal and other state regulators) consider harmful. As explained below, failure to provide a warning can result in significant costs and penalties in California.

    Is this product safe to use?

    Yes, it is safe to use as instructed. This product and all Omega brand products meet federal and state laws (including California’s) for safety and restricted substances. A Proposition 65 warning is a notification that a product may include a substance on California’s Proposition 65 list. The list is broad and encompasses products purchased in California that are used or consumed in everyday living. For example, warnings have been required for coffee, vinegar, and fish.

     I purchased this product outside of California. Why are you providing the Proposition 65 warning to me?

    Omega products are sold throughout the U.S. and worldwide. Each distribution warehouse can and does serve multiple states, including California. To avoid the potential Proposition 65 costs and penalties if a product without a warning is brought into California, we decided to include these warnings, regardless of origin of purchase.

    If the product is safe, why does Omega include this warning?

    For purposes of Proposition 65, the fact that the product meets federal and state safety standards is irrelevant. If there is even a trace amount of a Proposition 65 chemical in the product, it is up to the manufacturer to prove that the amount falls below California’s minimum exposure level. What constitutes “exposure” is poorly defined and the decision is left to the courts. For a manufacturer, the legal fees to contest a Proposition 65 case are significant. Because providing a warning removes all of these potential costs and litigation risks, West Bend and many other manufacturers have opted to provide the Proposition 65 warning.

    Doesn’t the State of California require evidence of harm to humans prior to placing a chemical on the Proposition 65 list?

    No. In fact, California regulators require no evidence of harm or even likelihood of harm to humans prior to placing a chemical on the Proposition 65 list. Instead, evidence from animal testing has been deemed sufficient, even when those tests on animals are conducted with outlandish dosages. As an example, California’s initial decision to add BPA (Bisphenol A) to its Proposition 65 list is based on a 2008 study of high dose BPA testing on rodents. The dosage on rodents in that study was equivalent to a human consuming 264,000 cans PER DAY of food lined with BPA for a lifetime. Although that very same study concluded that there was insufficient evidence to treat BPA as a developmental toxicant to humans, California has used it as a basis for adding BPA to its Proposition 65 list.

    What is BPA?

    BPA (Bisphenol A) is a chemical first approved by FDA in the early 1960s. The resins are used to protect foods from microbial (botulism) and other contamination by coating the inside of metal products, such as some food cans. It is also used in the production of hard, clear, heat-resistant polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. 

    Can a chemical be on the Proposition 65 list even though it is considered safe by the FDA and the EPA?

    Yes. BPA once again provides an excellent example. In August 2008, the FDA released a draft report finding that BPA remains safe in food contact materials. Thereafter, $30 million was appropriated under the 2009 stimulus budget to perform more studies on BPA. The EPA commissioned a study that was released in 2011. That study used humans rather than animals as its test subjects. Each subject was asked to ingest high doses of BPA. By monitoring blood and urine, the scientists found that the BPA was detoxified and eliminated from the body and was undetectable. Links discussing these studies can be found at

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/31/bisphenol-a-bpa-found-not-harmful-yet-again-so-why-did-so-many-reporters-and-ngos-botch-coverage-yet-again/

    and

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2011/07/25/majestically-scientific-federal-study-on-bpa-has-stunning-findings-so-why-is-the-media-ignoring-it/.

    In the fall of 2014, FDA experts from across the agency, specializing in toxicology, analytical chemistry, endocrinology, epidemiology, and other fields, completed a four-year review of more than 300 scientific studies on BPA. The FDA review has found no information to prompt a revision of FDA’s safety assessment of BPA. FDA scientists have also recently determined that exposure to BPA through foods for infants is much less than had been previously believed and that the trace amounts of the chemical that enter the body, whether it’s an adult or a child, are rapidly metabolized and eliminated. In summary, the FDA and EPA have each performed extensive research on BPA. Despite this overwhelming scientific evidence that BPA is safe, California has chosen to ignore these findings and placed BPA on its Proposition 65 list.