Talk:Juice Plus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Confused by Citations

I read the abstracts of several the studies that the author of this passage cites, and I was confused to read that they consistently supported the NSA claim that Juice Plus has research showing significant improvement along important heatlh indicators. Only the Berkeley Wellness newsletter appeared to be accurately summarized by this article (the newsletter was not reporting any research). This newsletter is critical of Juice Plus, and the author reported that. The Sloan Kettering Cancer Foundation, though, appeared to be misrepresented in this article. Their website indicated a neutral stance on Juice Plus, but this article reported a negative view for the Foundation.

The author is right to point out the need for randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, studies to demonstrate the efficacy of Juice Plus. But I am concerned that the author misrepresents the studies of Juice Plus that do achieve this rigor. It appears to me that the author has taken advantage of the fact that research findings take lots of time and lots of studies before anything can be proven conclusively.

I do have a stake in this question because I am a new Juice Plus distributor. But I am also a reasearcher at the University of Virginia in the Psychology Department. If there is scientific evidence that Juice Plus does not do what it claims to do, then I want to know about it. This article, though, has not been entirely helpful on this point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.207.95.54 (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

---

It is unclear as to which specific "passage" 66.207.95.54 is referring. Regardless, one should, in all fairness, peruse the complete research papers rather than just the abstract/summaries before disputing the accuracy of citations or raising concerns about misrepresentation. Furthermore, most of the studies were company-sponsored, and the abstracts in many cases skewed key findings with marketing-friendly statements while negative or confliciting findings were not addressed. This is evident from the full-text versions of the research articles and has been pointed out in several of the cited commentaries.

It is important to identify specific content when claims are made regarding innacuracies or misrepresentation; however, the comments above were vague and therefore difficult to address. I see no evidence of misrepresentation or innacuracies. The only specific comment by 66.207.95.54 referred to misrepresentation of an article by “Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Foundation”:

"Their website indicated a neutral stance on Juice Plus, but this article reported a negative view for the Foundation"

I assume that the user was referring to reference #24 by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; however, their position was not misrepresented and it was not neutral (nor did it make a single positive or supportive comment about Juice Plus). The statement in the Wiki article that quoted MSKCCs commentary was as follows:

“Serious doubts about the benefits of Juice Plus have been based in part on claims that the product’s marketing is not well supported by the research data, that it contains too little fruit and vegetable powder to offer significant clinical benefits, that its effects can be attributed to the inclusion of added exogenous vitamins and micronutrients, and that it is excessively priced relative to its potential benefits.^{[1][24][25][23][26][27]}”

MSKCCs position was consistent with the above and was justifiably cited (as 1 of 6 supporting references), as indicated by the following excerpts from their article:

"Warnings: Juice Plus is distributed through a multi-tiered marketing scheme with exaggerated value and cost."

This clearly backs up the statement “…and that it is excessively priced relative to its potential benefits”, and confirms that MSKCCs article was referenced fairly. MSKCC also said:

"This product may not contain the labeled amount or may be contaminated. In addition, it may not have been tested for safety or effectiveness."

"Do Not Take If: You are undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy"

"Bottom Line: Juice Plus does not prevent cancer. There is no evidence to support the idea that the full benefit of fruits and vegetables can be obtained from a pill."

And regarding the NSA-sponsored immune study by Inserra et al., MSKCC had this to say:

"Despite the apparent benefit claimed by the study, the design of this study is inadequate due to the fact that it was not randomized, blinded or placebo controlled."

In Reference to the NSA-sponsored Juice Plus weight loss study by Kaats et al, MSKCC said the following:

…"these particular results are not compelling since no details of randomization (making sure both the Juice Plus and placebo groups contained similar types of patients) or blinding (making sure the researchers do not know who is receiving what therapy, to avoid observer bias) are given. This study was published in a journal that is not often used by physicians."

MSKCC clearly stated that this research was poorly designed and unreliable, and therefore, the citation of MSKCC for the statement in the Wiki article that “the product’s marketing is not well supported by the research data” is also appropriate. Other relevant comments by MSKCC included the following:

"Purported Uses:

• To prevent cancer - No scientific evidence supports this use.

• To prevent and manage heart disease - No scientific evidence supports this use.

• For weight loss - One poorly-designed clinical trial suggests that Juice Plus helps healthy elderly individuals retain lean muscle and lose fat, but no other studies have been performed to support this use or to show that this supplement is any more effective than eating whole, fresh fruits and vegetables."

"Side Effects: Some test subjects developed a hive-like rash during treatment."

"Special Point - While it is true that good nutrition is important in maintaining health, particularly the elderly, none of the scientific studies undertaken have sought to prove that Juice Plus is more effective than other antioxidant supplements. In addition, no studies exist to compare the physiologic effects of supplementation with Juice Plus to the effects of eating whole, fresh fruits and vegetables."

MSKCCs article was clearly not neutral nor was it misrepresented, as 66.207.95.54 claimed. Rhode Island Red 07:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Next Best Thing

I reverted most of the edits made 15:57, 27 January 2007. The revised statement regarding "the next best thing" was innacurate. The statement on the Juice Plus website is not specifically in reference to Orchard and Garden Blend products as was indicated in the revision.

I also reverted back to "serious doubts". The flaws with the product and its research raised by many experts are serious ones and it seems that it would be misleading to soften the statement. The word "serious" is appropriate and does not compromise objectivity in any way. Collectively, the comments made by the sources cited have been extremely critical. The difference in wording betwen "doubts" and "serious doubts" is an important distinction and is akin to, for example, "minor flaws" vs "critical flaws". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) 16:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

The website is about Juice Plus; at the next level there is a link to "other products" (or words to that effect), where the Gummies product (and others) can be found. IMO it's clear enough: Juice Plus Orchard/Garden Blend is one product; Juice Plus Gummies is a different product. TraceyR 17:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree but the revised statement -- "although the website makes it clear that this is in reference to the Juice Plus Garden Blend and Orchard Blend capsules, not the Gummies product" -- is inacurate. The website does not make clear as to which product the "next best thing" statement applies. The original statement was accurate: "NSAs website [29] still claims that Juice Plus is “the next best thing to fruits and vegetables,” although not specifically in reference to the Gummies form of the product." Rhode Island Red 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of "As of January 2007 NSA still" in this paragraph is tendentious, coming as it does after the section where it is claimed that "NSA had promised to modify its ads and stop calling Gummies “the next best thing to fruits and vegetables”". The implication is that "NSA has still not distanced itself from the claim that Gummies is the next best thing" etc., which isn't justified w.r.t. the first page at www.juiceplus.com. The section on Gummies, on the "Other Products" page, states:

"JP+ Gummies® is a healthy alternative to candy and other unhealthy snacks, offering the whole food based nutritional goodness of Juice Plus+® fruit and vegetable juice powders in tasty "gummi" form. JP+ Gummies® tastes great and contains less sugar than regular gummi products. And what sugar there is in JP+ Gummies® comes only from all-natural sources."

For me that says that NSA isn't claiming that Gummies are "the next best thing" etc.TraceyR 19:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The latest revision is fine by me :-) TraceyR 20:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright sign

I removed the copyright sign after the words "Juice Plus" in the first sentence. I had a look at the Wiki pages for other widely known branded products such as Coca Cola, Band-Aid, and Kleenex, and noticed that copyright signs were not used. I am assuming based on these examples, that the Wiki protocol is to not include copyright signs for branded products. This is similar to the style rules of major magazines and newspapers, which also do not include copyright symbols in articles (as per The Chicago Manual of Style). Rhode Island Red 16:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked the Juice Plus website - it's a (R) sign (Registered), not (C). What is the wiki style wrt that? TraceyR 17:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki manual of Style, in its section on trademarks, has this to say:

• Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless they are necessary for context (for instance to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs).

... In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used

So it would be OK to have the (R) symbol in the header or first line, but after that it should be omitted.TraceyR 17:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue of whether to include the (R) symbol on the first line is fairly minor, and it could be reasonably argued both ways, but the Wiki Manual of Style quoted says "*Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless they are necessary for context (for instance to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." In the Juice Plus instance, no distinction is being made about generic vs. brand name forms of Juice Plus (to my knowledge there has never been a generic "Juice Plus" product on the market). Secondly, Juice Plus is not a single product but rather a line of products that fall under the Juice Plus umbrella. Lastly, Juice Plus is not a drug, so the Wiki style example cited would not be applicable. Rather, Juice Plus is akin to Coca Cola, Band-Aid, or Kleenex, and as I pointed out previously, those Wiki pages do not include the (R) symbol at all. That seems to be sufficient justification for deleting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) 18:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

01/27/07 Edits

A few key points to consider in regard to the last round of edits to the introduction:

(1) The newly added parts (italicized) “through a form of direct or multi-level marketing known as the NSA Personal Franchise” seem to create unnecessary ambiguity. It is clearer and more direct to say that the product IS sold by direct or multilevel marketing, rather than a “form” of direct or multilevel marketing.

I put this in as clarification: if someone asks a representative "Is it MLM?" and he/she gets the answer "It is the NSA Personal Franchise" then the entry would indicate that it is a form of direct selling after all. TraceyR 09:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither the Juice Plus website nor the corporate website uses this term. It cannot be accurately said that the method of distribution is “known” by this term. What a distributor might or might not say is irrelevant, particularly when it cannot be verified. Definitions must be based on verifiable facts. Rhode Island Red 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(2) Inclusion of the term “NSA Personal Franchise” seems inappropriate. (a) It is not accurate (a Google search turned up nothing under that name), and (b) more importantly, the term is marketing jargon and has no universally recognized meaning; it does not seem to clarify the method of distribution beyond merely stating that it is sold through direct or multilevel marketing. It would be inaccurate to say that it is “known” by this term since the general public does not use such a term; they would know it simply as “multilevel marketing”.

see comment to (1) above. It doesn't matter whether it is a common term if NSA uses it. I did find some Google hits, so perhaps you didn't look hard enough. TraceyR 09:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See comment above. I searched again and found no authoritative sources that use the term "NSA Personal Franchise". A search for that exact phrase yields no hits on Goggle.Rhode Island Red 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(3) The newly added section “Several products are marketed, containing different amounts of the juice powders” seems unnecessary in the intro and contentious because we don’t know whether the products do in fact contain different amounts of juice powder, since the manufacturer does not publicly release such information. The only Juice Plus products I am aware of that list amounts of juice powders are the Swiss/UK Orchard Blend and Garden Blend labels, and those indicate that the capsules contain roughly identical amounts of juice powder. The issues about amounts of juice powders seem to belong, and are addressed, in the Product Contents section.

I think the company literature equates 5 or 6 gummies to one capsule, but I couldn't confirm that with a cursory check on the website. But since your average gummy is smaller than a capsule and has to provide more chewable matix than a capsule, it is just common sense that a gummy will have less than a capsule. But common sense isn't so common :-) TraceyR 09:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is an assumption rather than a verifiable fact, it does not warrant inclusion, particularly not in the introduction, which should be clear and concise. The issue of whether the different products contain different amounts of powders is not central to the product definition in the introduction, and it is contentious. The amounts of fruit and vegetable powder are appropriately addressed in the product contents section. Rhode Island Red 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(4) It’s difficult to justify changing “extracts” to “concentrates”. First, the powders have often been referred to in scientific articles as “extracts”, and this is in fact the term used by the manufacturer (NAI) in the first published study of the product (by John Wise et al., 1996). Second, the term concentrate implies that the chemical contents of the starting material are “concentrated” in the powders, and we have no real evidence that this is in fact the case. Actually, the fact that the manufacturer adds roughly a dozen different fortifiers to Juice Plus OB/GB capsules (and the additives account for all of the known nutritive value), strongly suggests that the chemical essence of the starting material is not concentrated in the powders. However, we do know for certain that the powders are “extracted” from fruit and vegetables. “Concentrates” is a more marketing-friendly term that the manufacturer might prefer but it is less accurate than “extracts”.

It isn't difficult at all, since the two words are not synonymous. There is an extraction process involved (extracting juice from produce) but, as the name Juice Plus implies, the juice is the basis: the proprietary process is described in general term on the UK website as follows (just an 'extract'!): "...The fruits and vegetables are chilled, cleaned and washed, then juiced. The chilled juices are dried using NSA's proprietary drying process which is both low temperature and short duration, to preserve phytonutrients. ..." This means that the powder is not an extract from the juice but a concentrated form (i.e. with the water removed). This tallies with a response to Google "Define:concentrate" - Concentrate: a concentrated form of a foodstuff; the bulk is reduced by removing water". If this is "markering-friendly" so be it; it just happens to be the way it is.

summa summarum: there is no justification for distorting the meaning by using an incorrect term. Whether the term "extract" is used (erroneously) in scientific articles is also irrelevant, for the same reason. Some articles do refer to it as a "Fruit and Vegetable Concentrate", so why insist on using the incorrect, less "marketing-friendly" term. Bias can go both ways. TraceyR 09:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The term used in the previous version was “extract”. The term was not incorrectly used, and it is the term used in the first article on Juice Plus published by the manufacturer, as well as in several other articles. Since “extract” is not incorrect and it is the term used by the manufacturer, I don’t see any compelling reason to change it to “concentrates”. “Concentrates” is certainly not more accurate than “extracts”. We do know for sure that the product is “extracted” from fruits and vegetables but we don’t know for certain that all (or even any) of the chemicals are “concentrated”. Whether the manufacturer suggests that the product contains “concentrated” fruit and vegetables is irrelevant. Our goal should not be to merely regurgitate marketing claims when they are not supported by (or are contradicted) by evidence. “Extracts” is the more appropriate term. The introduction should be clear and concise and as non-contentious as possible. If this is an issue that you think needs to be flushed out perhaps we can add a line in the product contents section that says something to the effect of …”the manufacturer claims that the product contains the concentrated nutritional essence of fruits and vegetables …” and then any evidence that shows those claims to be incorrect can be included as well.

Lastly, the registered trademark symbol does not belong, as was outlined previously. It is not to be included for product names, except when referring to generic vs. brand name drugs, according to Wiki style guidelines. Juice Plus is clearly not a drug.Rhode Island Red 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red 02:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tracey, it is actually referred to as NSA Virtual Franchise.Julia 21:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Julia, you beat me to it! The USA/Canadian term is, as you point out "NSA Virtual Franchise"; in Europe it's slightly different, with "NSA Personal Franchise" being used in the German-speaking countries (and possibly others). Sorry for the confusion! TraceyR 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Request

It has become apparent that despite the fact that Wikipedia has a policy against what is called "article ownership", One person, Rhode Island Red is attempting to "own" and control all content placed on this page. <See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN> One person or organization should not try to control an article and others can and will edit articles.

The edits made recently by Tracey, such as the use of the word "concentrate" vs Red's desired term "extracts", for example and Red continually reverts the page back to his/her/it's desired verbiage, clearly in violation of the Wiki rules against ONE editor attempting "article ownership", one would simply have to look at the history of this site to see that many dozens, if not hundreds of edits have been made by one editor, Rhode Island Red.

I am asking that Rhode Island Red be banned from any further edits to this site based upon his/her/it's attempted ownership tactics that violate the very rules that Wikipedia stands for. Julia 20:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

View the extensive contributions to the Juice Plus page by this one editor in the attempted "ownership" of the site: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Rhode_Island_Red Julia 21:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Julia, albeit somewhat reluctantly. It is very frustrating to see almost every change reverted by one person; in Rhode Island Red's defence I will point out that he usually gave reasons before reverting to his preferred wording, but in my (recent) experience his editing and reverting is excessive, (even obsessive) and I.M.O. does fit the description of (attempted) article ownership. TraceyR 23:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tracy, I can understand your frustration and I appreciate your effort to be evenhanded in your criticism. Nonetheless, by your own admission, you had used incorrect terminology (i.e. “NSA Personal Franchise”). I argued against the use of that incorrect term and I was not off base in doing so. Such editing, based on a fairly clear accuracy issue, does not constitute an attempt at ownership, particularly when I had explained the issue on the discussion page, which you kindly acknowledged.

It should also be recognized that much of the editing I have done in the past involved reverting vandalism and preventing the insertion of factually inaccurate material and inappropriate marketing jargon (this has been discussed by several other editors on the Juice Plus talk page). I have not been the only editor contributing to that effort, although I may have been the most active. Most of my other edits involved refining and correcting content that I had previously contributed and which was not under dispute.

Our previous dispute was settled by mutual agreement so I see no reason at this point to abandon the process of discussion to settle any editorial disagreements. With regard to specific content issues, I’ll attempt to recap:

1. Can it be agreed that the trademark sign does not belong because such inclusion is discouraged according to Wikipedia style guidelines unless it serves to distinguish between generic and patented drugs? This issue seems pretty straightforward.

Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless they are necessary for context (for instance to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs).WP:MOSTM

2. It is not worthwhile to speculate in the introductory paragraph as to whether the different Juice Plus products contain different amounts of juice powders, since (a) no such information exists to support such an assertion, and (b) the distinction serves little purpose in the introduction, particularly when the subject is addressed in the Product Contents section, in addition to it being a contentious claim.

3. There is not a strong case for changing “extracts to “concentrates”. “Extracts” was not incorrect and changing it to “concentrates” would not improve clarity, and if anything could detract from it. “Extracts” is arguably a more scientifically-appropriate term and is certainly less ambiguous than "concentrates"; the latter potentially conveying that the chemical constituents of fruits and vegetables are preserved in the product, which does not appear to be the case. "Extracts" was also the term used by the product’s manufacturer in the first article ever published on Juice Plus, as well as in several subsequent articles. “Concentrates” is not a bad term to use and I might not have changed it had that it been used in the original version; however, I see no valid reason to use it in place of “extracts”. It’s no landslide but it is at least about 70/30 in favor of “extracts”.

Since these 3 issues appear to be the only bone of contention I don't see why we can't resolve the matter amicably, and I certainly don't think that these issues are a valid basis for the accusation that I am attempting to own the Juice Plus page.

In closing, I would just like to remind everyone (and Julia in particular) about a few of the points mentioned in the Wikipedia page on Ownership WP:OWN:

Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not.”

Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of editors.

Stay calm, assume good faith, and remain civil: Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect. Rhode Island Red 03:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, these three issues are not what Julia was complaining about; they were just examples and should not be used to distract from the issue. Looking at the list of recent edits she linked to shows clearly that there is more to it than e.g. a minor difference of opinion as the the meaning of the word "extract" (which any dictionary, used in good faith, can resolve). And I think it unfair to imply, by citing the above Wiki guidelines, that Julia was not staying calm, assuming good faith or being civil. This is what annoys me about the editing practice of Rhode Island Red. Wikipedia should not be allowed to become the work of those who shout loudest and longest. TraceyR 14:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As I understand, this is not a forum for general complaints; it is about making improvements to the page and to discuss specific content issues. If there are no disagreements with regard to the 3 content issues I outlined above, then I have nothing further to discuss for now. Rhode Island Red 00:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about a general complaint. This is a very specific dispute about the "ownership" tactics of reversals, edits and not allowing others to state their by one editor, one editor doing over 100 edits--one only one page, one subject, one listing--not across the site adding merit and content across Wiki but a single-minded obsession with this page.

Wiki: "Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders. It's one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic a lot. But when this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you're overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you've posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:

If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. [emphasis added]" Julia 04:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you are reminded to please focus on content issues and not personal attacks. I have tried to be civil and polite and to keep the discussion focused on specific content on the Juice Plus page. It would be nice if you could start doing the same but if you persist in harassing me, I will bring it to the attention of the administrators and request that you be sanctioned. Rhode Island Red 04:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be helpful if everyone involved used the discussion page to talk about concerns they have with the article instead of reverting each other - try to reach a consensus on the problems you see with the article. If you cannot talk things out, there are other options, but please read the dispute resolution page for the correct way to handle those problems. Shell ^babelfish 07:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out fact is not a personal attack. Over 250 edits on Wiki on only one subject, one category one page....it appears to express ownership of the page. For example when Elonka suggested changes in the section below, the same editor with over 250 edits takes ownership of that need for change and says "he will see what he can do" when the problems with the page stem from his previous edits. This may be an ideal time to do as Wiki recommends and sit back, take a chill and let someone else try to make the page more reader friendly? Why is it his article, his determination what stays and what goes. Certainly removing commerical links is appropriate but he is redotting every I and recrossing every T that others add to the site. THAT is not an attack, it is a fact.Julia 14:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

( That seems reasonable and I'm inclined to agree. I'll see what I can do to improve the organization and to make it slightly less technical. I was also thinking that a sidebar table/box listing the product contents might help improve the orgnization somewhat. Rhode Island Red 01:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)---retracted later, but this is the original post by an editor) Julia 19:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try to focus on your concerns with the article and not other editors. If Rhode Island Red was unwilling to discuss the changes, things would be different, however, he appears to have opened a dialog and you have a chance to air your concerns and discuss what changes you think need to be made or what changes have been made that you don't agree with. Try that and see where it goes. Railing about another editor isn't going to help anything and this certainly isn't the forum for it. Shell ^babelfish 19:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Shell, the entire point is that whenever anyone adds something that they think is beneficial to the page, it is reverted, and in most incidences by one editor in particular. I am not making this up or causing the problem. The problem revolves around the fact that ownership has been taken of this page and no one is allowed to make any changes that are not agreed to by a particular editor. You yourself did lengthy edits and the site looked totally fine, yet is has been changed over 50 edits since then by this particular editor. Seems obsessive to me. It is not railing to point out the obvious, or at least I didn't think so.Julia 19:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have spent a few minutes checking the last 100 contributions by Rhode Island Red and have come to the same conclusion as Julia: of these 100 entries all but a two or three (including one minor edit of bird-feeders, one edit of cellulase) are related to the Juice Plus article. That is 97-98%! I haven't checked further back. At least four entries involve soliciting support ("canvassing") from other editors for his views/actions w.r.t. another editor (including the use of disparaging language). By any standards this would indicate "taking ownership" and needs to be investigated. TraceyR 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Tracy, this incivility is unacceptable and must stop -- you are way off base in your accusations. I worked with mutual consent and input from an admin (who was called in by Julia to adjudicate a dispute) to do a major rewrite of the Juice Plus page. Perhaps neither of you have done a major rewrite before, but it involves a lot of editing, as it did for the Juice Plus page. The hundred or so edits I did at that time were to fine tune the verbiage I had added, to correct my own mistakes, cite sources, and add links. It is a gross, slanderous misrepresentation to imply that the number of those edits alone somehow demonstrates ownership. There is absolutely nothing amiss with that situation, nor was the editing or content contested by the admin or by Julia. The version that arose from that round of edits stayed intact with virtually no discussion or changes for months. Once again, stop the attacks and incivility and in the future, please keep your discussion focused on the content, not mudslinging. If you wish to teach each other about Wiki policies, please do so on your personal talk pages and not on this page. Rhode Island Red 03:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

R.I.R.: This is not incivility; I just took the time to look at your last 100 edits, and report what I found. Nor did I make any accusations; you know what you wrote to other editors, asking them to support you on this page (hardly part of an intensive rewrite). That is not an accusation but a statement of fact. I suggest that everyone involved here takes a week off editing this article, to allow things to cool down a bit. There are other things in life :-) TraceyR 07:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I can tell that a lot of work has gone into this article, but looking at it with a fresh pair of eyes, I'm sorry to say that it still needs more. Right now, it's a very difficult read, with long lists of ingredients and statistics. I recommend that it be broken up into smaller sections, and rewritten for a more generalist audience. --Elonka 00:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a few subheads in the product contents section to enhance clarity. The cleanup tag is to be used "in articles that need broad cleanup to eliminate confusion and discrepancies." I am going to remove the tag but we can always continue to address new ways to improve the page. Rhode Island Red 06:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article does need broad cleanup. Though it is extensively referenced, it reads like a promotional piece that is describing a product in excruciating detail. It does not conform with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. For example, the first paragraph describes what the product is, but it does not explain why it is notable. Further, the article primarily presents a very limited "technical" view of the product. But, a simple glance at actual third-party sources[1][2] about JuicePlus tend to show that there is considerable criticism and controversy about the product and NSA and its marketing techniques. However, the Wikipedia article barely mentions this. I am also concerned by the fact that many of the article's primary editors seem to be working on little else but this article, with practically no activity in other parts of Wikipedia. This kind of editing behavior implies that the editors have a personal vested interest in the subject, and such behavior is strongly discouraged. See WP:COI and WP:AUTO.

For best results, the information in this article needs to focus on what is said about the product in secondary sources, not primary sources. In other words, instead of listing the ingredients that are found on the label, the article should summarize what is said about the product by outside reviewers. --Elonka 08:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, could you explain why the focus should be on secondary sources? Surely both are equally important, since the primary sources describe the product itself (e.g. encapsulated powders from dried juice from <list of fruit and veg> etc). It is obviously a controversial product, perhaps unique in its field in terms of the volume of primary research on the product itself - most other supplements seem to rely on published research on selected ingredients such as vitamins - so the secondary sources quoted should reflect this. I don't get the impression that it reads like a promotional piece, however. My feeling is almost the opposite, in fact. The descriptive stuff (contents etc) is quite straightforward, as it should be, but the rest seems to have been tweaked in quite a few places to give a negative slant (e.g. quoting from memory "According to label claims ..." (implying doubt?) rather than "The label states ..." (objective); or see the current debate re "extract" v "concentrate". Other examples, which you quote above, are references to the marketing methods, which have nothing to do with the product and IMO have no place in the article. Why not have a separate article about the marketing aspects and have a reference to it from the product page? TraceyR 09:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

On another point you raise about editors with "practically no activity in other parts of Wikipedia" - where does one find this information? Thanks. TraceyR 09:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding secondary sources, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Types of source material.

Regarding contribution history: To see your own, click on "My contributions" at the top of your screen. To see others' history, there are several methods (including just typing a URL directly into your browser), but the easiest way is to click on the "History" tab for any page, and then when you see an editor's name there, click on the "contribs" link next to their name. This allows you to see nearly all actions that any editor has taken during their time on Wikipedia (edits on articles which have been deleted, do not show up). In my experience, any time that I see that an editor is spending a major percentage of their "wiki-time" in one single subject area, it's often a warning sign. In other words, Wikipedia editors are expected to help with the growth of the encyclopedia as a whole, and not simply to focus on a subject with which they're personally involved. There are of course exceptions, for example if an editor is working hard to get an article to "featured" status, they may be spending more time there than usual, or if they're a member of a WikiProject, they may be focusing on many articles within a fairly narrow subject area. But even in those cases, a skilled review of a user's contrib history can usually tell the difference between good faith editing and that of a user with an agenda. The problem is particularly noticeable in Wikipedia articles about fringe religious groups, as members of the group may become very adamant about defending an article and eliminating anything that they feel is negative information, even if it's properly sourced. It can also be obvious in deletion debates, where several editors will suddenly flood in to "keep" an article, but a quick look at their contrib history will show that they don't seem to care about anything but that article. These editors' comments are often flagged as Single Purpose Accounts, which means that anything they say is then ignored (or given very very little weight) when the closing admin makes a final decision on the discussion. --Elonka 10:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to TraceyR's suggestion about perceived negative bias:

“…the rest seems to have been tweaked in quite a few places to give a negative slant (e.g. quoting from memory "According to label claims ..." (implying doubt?) rather than "The label states ..." (objective)”

The section to which you are referring listed the RDI amounts for the recommended 4-capsule daily regimen, which is not explicitly stated on the bottle labels -- each bottle only lists the amounts for 2 capsules. The amounts per 4 capsules is derived by simply adding the RDI amounts in 2 Orchard plus 2 Garden Blend capsules together. Rather than being negative or implying doubt, it was carefully worded so as not to imply that the bottle label explicitly stated RDI amounts per 4 capsules. As to the term “label claim”, that may sound negative but it is in fact standard parlance when discussing content analyses of drugs, chemicals, and supplements. OK? Rhode Island Red 08:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Concentrates vs Extracts

It is unclear why the change was made yet again after the points raised regarding this terminology went unanswered. As I pointed out, the term “extracts” was used in the originally published article by the manufacturer (Wise et al 1996). That sets the precedent quite clearly, as I see it. However, I do see a simple compromise that can put an end to this argument:

Instead of: the original “containing powdered fruit or vegetable juice extracts” or the revised “containing powdered fruit or vegetable juice concentrates”

Lets go with: “containing fruit or vegetable juice powders and…”

Rhode Island Red 16:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The points did not go unanswered. Simply stating e.g. that "extract is the more appropriate term" several times and then claiming precedence for "extract" is irrelevant; we are looking for the correct word to describe a product, even if the manufacturer (or its critics) prefer to use a different word.

I'll repeat this paragraph (which quotes an NSA website) to set the context:

"The chilled juices are dried (emphasis added) using NSA's proprietary drying process which is both low temperature and short duration, to preserve phytonutrients. ..." This means that the powder is not an extract from the juice but a concentrated form of the juice(i.e. with the water removed). This tallies with a response to Google "Define:concentrate" - Concentrate: a concentrated form of a foodstuff; the bulk is reduced by removing water".

I'm sorry that the distinction between an "extract" and a "concentrate" is still not clear. Perhaps this example will help: If someone takes a quantity of, say, fruit juice (or vegetable juice) and extracts the water from the juice, a residue remains. Applying the above definition, it is correct to refer to this residue as "a concentrate" (since the water has been removed). In this example, the residue would be a "juice concentrate", i.e. what is left once the water has been extracted is a concentrate. Look at it another way: we take a load of cherries known to contain vitamin C, we remove the stones and squeeze to juice out of the cherries and then, by some chemical process, extract the vitamin C from the juice, what we have is an extract, not a concentrate.

Another quote, this time from the box at the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements (emphasis added) to the Juice Plus article." It is my opinion that this article will be improved by the correct use of the word concentrate. I see no reason to use the vague and ill-defined term "fruit and vegetable powders" when there is a word available which accurately describes the object in question. This isn't "Alice in Wikiland"; let's just stick with the correct word for the job.TraceyR 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We need to reach some sort of a compromise on this issue. A strong case has been presented as to why the original term “extract”, a standard term used by the manufacturer of the product (Wise et al. 1996) is more appropriate than “concentrates”, and I am yet to see a sufficient justification as to why it should be changed. We obviously both have strong opposing preferences as to which term should be used. Nonetheless, it is counterproductive to argue about this point endlessly and so I proposed not using either “extracts” or “concentrates” and instead going with “…containing fruit or vegetable juice powders”. It is a perfectly reasonable compromise since NSA uses this exact terminology on the bottle label and in promtional materials. It is clear, unambiguous, and non-controversial, and it serves as perfectly acceptable way of defining the product in the introduction. It is neither vague nor ill-defined. We need to avoid a revert war here, so kindly reconsider this compromise as a fair solution. Rhode Island Red 03:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red: I don't consider saying that something is "a standard term" used by the manufacturer 11 years ago represents a strong case. I have demonstrated that the term "concentrate " precisely, clearly, unambiguously and (in a normal world) uncontroversially describes the product and why "extract" is incorrect. They are not interchangeable. If there is no way for common sense to prevail, I would welcome some form of independent arbitration. Perhaps you can explain why you find the use of "concentrate" unacceptable? The real objection (voiced earlier) seems to be that it is somehow more "marketing-friendly" than the less accurate "extract". Is that a valid reason for insisting on a less accurate description? TraceyR 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I recommend reviewing the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For this particular case, the best way to proceed might be a Request for Comment, which will probably address the matter by bringing in opinions from other editors. If for some reason that doesn't resolve things, then the next step would be Mediation. Please be cautious about using the term "arbitration" though, which on Wikipedia generally refers to the Arbitration Committee, sort of the "Supreme Court" of the wiki. However, ArbCom probably wouldn't be appropriate for this kind of issue, as their cases are generally restricted to questions about user conduct, and not article content debates. Plus, they wouldn't even consider the case unless it had been proven that other dispute resolution techniques had been tried first. If you'd like to proceed to RfC (Request for Comment) though, I'm happy to help. What I'd suggest is first working out a simple one-sentence description of what the issue is, and then seeing if other editors who are already watching this page, have an opinion. If not, then we can put out a more general call to the community at large, and get some other eyes on the situation. --Elonka 19:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to the following comment by Tracy:

I have demonstrated that the term "concentrate " precisely, clearly, unambiguously and (in a normal world) uncontroversially describes the product and why "extract" is incorrect.

Well no, actually you haven't really at all. You are merely claiming so without providing reasonable justification. The answer to this issue is very clear cut and I will attempt to explain the details one more time. “Extracts” is not an incorrect term as you have stated; quite the contrary in fact. It is a perfectly accurate, standard term that is widely recognized by scientists, chemists, industry and laypersons worldwide, and not only in a general sense but also in specific reference to Juice Plus.

Primary Points

1. Mosby’s Medical Dictionary 4th ed. (a definitive source) define an “extract” as “a substance, usually a biologically active ingredient of a plant or animal tissue, prepared by the use of solvents or evaporation to separate the substance from the original material”. Here are excerpts from Mosby’s two definitions of the noun “concentrate”: [1] “to decrease the bulk of a liquid and increase its strength per unit of volume”; [2] “a substance that has been strengthened”. Note that the definition of “extract” does not imply that the active ingredients are strengthened or more concentrated in the final product. Based on these definitions, it is inarguable that the powders in Juice Plus are extracts of fruit and vegetable juices, but it is extremely contentious as to whether the concentration of any fruit and vegetable constituents are strengthened in Juice Plus powders. This dictionary distinction alone serves as sufficient justification for not substituting “concentrates” for “extracts”. But since this point is being belabored, I will reiterate and add a few more relevant details.
2. While the term “concentrates”, unlike “extracts”, denotes that the chemical constituents of the starting plant material are concentrated in the final product, there is no evidence to show that this is in fact the case with Juice Plus powders, although there is evidence to the contrary (e.g. potassium and other constituents of the source plant material are not preserved in the final product). The use of “concentrates”, which is misleading in this case, cannot be justified when an accurate and widely accepted term with unambiguous meaning (i.e. “extracts”) can be used instead.
3. I also checked the terminology browser of the National Cancer Institute (another definitive source) which specifically refers to Juice Plus as a “fruit and vegetable extract” and lists the “preferred term” as “plant extract”. The definition was created for NCI’s database in conjunction with the approval of a research protocol on Juice Plus. The source (NCI) is unimpeachable and their position on preferred terminology is entirely unambiguous…”extract” is the “preferred term”! http://nciterms.nci.nih.gov/NCIBrowser/ConceptReport.jsp?dictionary=NCI_Thesaurus&code=C38707

Secondary Points

1. “Extracts” is not only the term used directly by NAI, the manufacturer, in the first published article on Juice Plus, but also in the titles of several subsequent articles (e.g. Smith et al and Inserra et al.) and of the grant proposal recently submitted to the US government by Juice Plus researchers at Wake Forest U.
2. Nowhere on the product website’s description is the term “concentrate” used, although the term "extract" is used: “These fruits and vegetables are juiced to extract their nutritional properties” (https://www.juiceplus.nl/fitness_juiceplus.php)
3. The section of the article in question is in the introductory paragraph. There is no need to insist on using a term that would be controversial and potentially misleading when the issue of whether the active ingredients are in fact concentrated can be addressed in the product contents section of the article.

Will the above explanation suffice to put the issue to rest? Rhode Island Red 03:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we are going round in circles here. The issue is not whether other august authorites have used one term or the other (we're back to the spurious "precedence" argument again) but rather about the meaning of words.

1. As you have stated a couple of times during the (TM) / (R) discussion, Juice Plus is not a drug, so a definition in a medical dictionary is at best irrelevant, at worst misleading.
2. The quotation cited above (“These fruits and vegetables are juiced to extract their nutritional properties” (https://www.juiceplus.nl/fitness_juiceplus.php)) is also irrelevant; no-one, certainly not myself, disputes that the juice is an "extract" from the fruit; indeed this is a good example of the use of the word "extract".
3. Your reference to the changes in chemical makeup is also not relevant. Unlike many (chemical) extraction processes, the removal of water from juice is a physical process. Since neither you nor I have access to the chemical constituents of the material before and after the drying process, it is speculative to claim that the chemical constituents change in the process.

I've just looked up "concentrate" in the generally available Concise Oxford Dictionary: "Increase the strength of (a solution etc.) by removing water or other diluting agent." Perhaps it is the word "strengthened" that you don't like in this context? Let me put your mind to rest on this: this doesn't mean that it is stronger in the sense of "more effective"; all it means is that the concentration of non-aqueous matter becomes higher as the water is removed. In fact in this process "extract" and "concentrate" are two sides of the same coin: during of concentration the diluting agent is extracted, leaving the concentrate. Please let's not confuse the issue. TraceyR 08:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Its clear that you both strongly disagree on this point. Perhaps its time to ask for some outside editors to voice their opinion and develop a consensus for the wording? Or perhaps a single word isn't worth this kind of time? Shell ^babelfish 14:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR, you are sidestepping you own arguments. You specifically stated that “extract” was “incorrect”. I supplied a definition from a medical dictionary that is a definitive source (regardless of whether the product is question is a drug or not). That definition showed that extract was used correctly and perfectly describes the product without making controversial assumptions about strengthening. There is no basis for discounting such a source as being “at best irrelevant or at worst misleading”. Furthermore, the definitions are virtually identical to what you quoted from your own Oxford concise dictionary.

In addition, it is speculative on your part to assume that the constituents of plants are “strengthened” during processing. I have argued that it is unnecessarily controversial to make such a speculation since a neutral term (“extracts”) can be used that neither confirms or denies whether the product is strengthened. If you think the article would benefit from a discussion of whether or not the concentration of plant constituents is strengthened in the final product, then it would be appropriate to include that in the product contents section rather than introducig controversy or speculation into the basic definition in the introduction.

I have cited numerous authoritative sources that use the term “extract”; I have done so to show that I am not being arbitrary in my choice of words. These sources include the manufacturer, the National Cancer Institute, and a recent grant application that was submitted to the National Institute of Health. In every case, these sources have been discounted as irrelevant, and yet no consensus among the scientific community or any other sources has been demonstrated in support of the term “concentrate”.

I agree with Shel that this is enitrely too much time to spend debating a single word, and I wish it wasn't necessary, but I strongly object to the arbitrary substitution of "concentrates" for "extracts", since no compelling case has been made for doing so. Rhode Island Red 16:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to read up a bit on the subject in order to offer an opinion. Would it be possible for you to both provide a link to a reliable secondary source, which uses the term "concentrates" or "extracts" in describing the Juice Plus product? --Elonka 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red Halleluja! At least we agree on something (too much time spent on one word! :-)

However I'm afraid that it is relevant that a medical, rather than a standard dictionary is cited, because a medical dictionary brings with it the mindset and vocabulary of the medical community. Part of this mindset is that one can extract an "active ingredient" from a naturally-occurring substance, on the tacit assumption that the other ingredients can be ignored. This is conveniently shown by the Mosby’s example you gave above: "extract": “... a substance, usually a biologically active ingredient of a plant …”. This has been elegantly demonstrated to be fallacious: Nature 405, 903-904 (22 June 2000), where 100g of apple (including the skin) containing 5.7 mg of vit. C was shown to be as effective as 1500mg of isolated vitamin C. What was going on there? One of the authors (Rui Hai Liu M.D. Ph.D., Assistant Prof. at Cornell) has discussed the study in a PowerPoint presentation available here:Presentation.

May I also draw your attention to the Apple juice article (why look further than Wikipedia?) for the following sentence: “Apple juice concentrate is produced by evaporating fresh apple juice that is extracted from fresh apples." – there it is in a nutshell (and there’s no need to check the article’s history: I had nothing to do with it!) Incidentally the Nature article above refers to “whole-apple extracts” (apple plus skin), oxymoron presumably not intended!.

I would like you to look at the article Mother Energy Drink too: “It also contains concentrated juices from Apple and Lemon” – is that OK? You tell me! If we start with apple juice in a jar and remove e.g. 1% of the water, is the remaining juice an extract or a concentrate? If we remove 10%? 20%? 40%? At what point does the concentrate become an extract? Or does it remain a concentrate as long as there is any liquid present, suddenly transubstantiating into an extract with the removal of the last molecule of water?

You wrote: “In every case, (your) sources have been discounted (by me) as irrelevant, and yet no consensus among the scientific community or any other sources has been demonstrated in support of the term “concentrate”.

This misses the point entirely. I am not searching for a consensus in the scientific community. What I am aiming for is an article which can understood correctly by any Wikipedia reader, be he/she a scientist or not. I think we might agree that scientists are not, on the whole, the most reliable experts when it comes to the meanings of words.

You wrote: “In addition, it is speculative on your part to assume that the constituents of plants are “strengthened” during processing. I have argued that it is unnecessarily controversial to make such a speculation… “

I’m afraid that you are putting words into my mouth. Here it is again:

“Let me put your mind to rest on this: ‘Strengthen’ doesn’t mean that it is stronger in the sense of more effective; all it means is that the concentration of non-aqueous matter becomes higher as the water is removed.” In no way does this justify your above assertion. If we are going to reach a sensible conclusion this is no way to proceed.

To summarise: this is about the meanings of words in everyday use, not about science. I repeat: What I am aiming for is an article which can understood correctly by any Wikipedia reader, be he/she a scientist or not. Look at the etymolgy of extract (“ex-trahere”) in a decent etymological dictionary.

And finally, I have better things to do with my time that engage in this increasingly futile debate. It seems to be a case of "If at first you don't agree, try, try again". Well, I give up! I regret that the article will be the worse in this point due to my lack of stamina but that's life. You win. Wikipedia loses. TraceyR 21:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the concession. I am glad that I don’t have to write another rebuttal and that we can finally put this to rest. If there is a winner in this situation, it is Wikipedia, not me. Rhode Island Red 02:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Vineyard Blend

Could someone add the contents section for the Vineyard Blend product please (perhaps as part of a reorganisation of the contents sections into e.g. infoboxes, as suggested recently)? As I understand it, this product is generally available in the USA after an extended period of market testing but not yet in Europe. No hurry, of course, but it would complete the product picture. Many thanks TraceyR 22:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tracey, I just did that for you, but I don't know how to hyperlink all the ingredients like was done with the Orchard/Garden.Julia 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That was quick! That's just what the doctor ordered. ;-)

Linking: If you put double square brackets around things, e.g. [[blueberry]] it links to the appropriate wiki article (if present) and shows up in blue type, thus: blueberry. If there is no wiki article it will show up in red, so: non-existent. It's as simple as that!

ps: If you're wondering why [[blueberry]] isn't blue, open this section with the edit button and check the source! TraceyR 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the work, but actually, you don't want to be hyperlinking every single ingredient. That's what some editors refer to as "overlinking."  ;) The general practice is to only hyperlink those terms that are actually important in relation to the context of the article. For more information on the Wikipedia Manual of Style in this regard, please see WP:CONTEXT. I also strongly recommend reading the Style guidelines at Wikipedia:Embedded list and WP:NOT. --Elonka 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A few points regarding the newly added Vineyard Blend information:

1. The latest entry shows vitamin A and iron content as "0%". The missing information needs to be added or those ingredients should be deleted from the list.

2. On the section: “…fruit juice powder & pulp from Concord grape, blueberry, cranberry, blackberry, bilberry, raspberry, red currant, black currant, elderberry, green tea, ginger root, grape seed and artichoke, L-arginine…”, parentheses are needed to indicate which ingredients are among the juice and pulp powders, since obviously they do not use powder and pulp from L-arginine. Look at the examples for Orchard and Garden Blend and you will see what I mean. I am guessing that the parentheses should be inserted before Concorde grape and close either before green tea or before L-arginine.

3. Does the label actually list “vegetable-derived capsule (pullulan)” or just “pullulan” alone as the ingredient?

4. Are the ingredients in the enzyme blend listed on the label?

5. If I am not mistaken, 2 to 4 capsules per day constitute the recommended daily regimen (not to be confused with the suggested serving size listed on the label). Agreed?

Rhode Island Red 06:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not yet received a response from anyone regarding details of the missing ingredients from the Vineyard Blend contents list. It's probably best to delete it for now until we can get a complete list. Do we agree on this? If a more complete list can be found, do we all feel that it is worth including? Several people have argued that the article is already too long and detail-oriented so perhaps it would be better without the VB list. Thoughts? Rhode Island Red 18:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

GNLD reference (no. 7)

Perhaps someone could throw light on this reference ("Are all antioxidants what they claim to be?" (pdf). GNLD International.). There would appear to be several worrying aspects:

1. It is cited as "news" rather than "web", although it is not news (see next item)
2. It is published by another MLM company on its own website (promoting its own competitive product)
3. The referenced document is not available at the url provided

Perhaps it has sneaked (snuck) in unnoticed but IMO it has no place here. If the source is a peer-reviewed, placebo-controlled, double-blind, third-party study with a large cohort published in a recognised scientific journal then this source should be referenced. Otherwise this reference should be deleted.

Are there any objections? Thanks! TraceyR 10:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem changing it from "news" to "website" or some other form of pubication. The link seems to be down at the moment but was active when the citation was first included. I'll see if I can find another link. The fact that it was published by a competitor would not in itself preclude its use. The analysis did include citations for the methodology used in the carotenoid analysis, along with details like the detection sensitivity. FYI, chemical content analyses are not designed the same way as clinical trials (i.e. studies in human subjects) and they do not use large cohorts, blinding, randomization, or placebo controls. Furthermore, if this were a clinical trial, it would not have to be double-blind, placebo-controlled and randomized in order to merit being mentioned, although such design features would have bearing on the reliability and validity of a clinical trial. Rhode Island Red 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify here as well. Even if reference links go dead, the should not be removed from the article. When possible, a live link to the same or similar content should be found, or a link to the internet archive is also a possibility. If all else fails, the reference link can be noted as inactive, but not removed. Please see the information on "dead links" on WP:CITE.

Also, just as a note, citation templates like cite news or cite web do not actually have anything to do with the reference type, just the way the reference formats. You could use cite news for every reference in an article regardless of whether the reference is a book, website, news article or journal entry - just not something you generally need to worry about. The citation itself should be complete enough for readers to distinguish the type. Shell ^babelfish 14:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I just did a Google query on the title "Are all antioxidants what they claim to be". The result: "Results 1 - 1 of about 2 for "Are all antioxidants what they claim to be". (0.09 seconds). Perhaps someone can throw light on what was originally referenced. If it contained a secondary reference to a study then this should be available, in which case it should be referenced directly. IMO little purpose is served by readers knowing that there was once an article somewhere with a given title and it makes Wikipedia look out-of-date and unprofessional to have dead links lying around. But if that's the standard so be it.

Thanks for the note re citations; there is a significant difference between "news" and "web", in that "news" doesn't provide an entry for an author link. TraceyR 15:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution request

This new edit by Rhode Island Red, reverting and adding the "controveries and criticism" paragraph was previously deleted by Shell, for reasons well stated months ago. If we need to spell them all out again, so be it. Per Wikipedia Foundations policies articles are NOT to show a bias, and to have "controversies" as a category opens up the door to a 'celebrations', 'praise' of, consensous, etc paragraph. I don't think we want every distributor getting on this site and listing every good quality that the product has and has been proven, do we? this is a REVERT of what Shell took out. Why open the can of worms back up other than to be arguementative and try to bias the site. There is NO way in this world that that paragraph should remain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs) 02:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC).````

AND, who removed the NSA link, www.Juiceplus.com from the site? With what reason, what authority? Only so that quack watch remains? BIAS is showing, AGAIN.Julia 02:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Julia, your chronic incivility, personal attacks, harassment, and latest act of vandalism are intolerable and must stop.

The section to which you are referring was not newly added, it has been there for months without any comments whatsoever. The only new addition is the heading title "controveries and criticism", which Elonka added today. You are entirely misrepresenting the situation in your explanation.

Furthermore, it is considered vandalism when you remove entire sections of content from a page as you did today. The warning you received tonight was unfortunately not your first. Please do not vandalize the page again.

Lastly, and most importantly, I strongly recommend that you take the time to review Wikipedia’s rules on conflict of interest WP:COI. As a Juice Plus distributor and spokesperson you have crossed far beyond the line in violating this policy. On that basis, I am requesting that you comply with the conflict of interest policy -- make no further edits to the Juice Plus page and stop particpating in future discussions on the topic. The policy states the following:

Conflict of interest often raises questions as to whether material should be included in the encyclopedia or not. It also can be a cause, or contributing factor, in disputes over whether editors have an agenda that undermines the mission of Wikipedia.

A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products, as well as suppressing negative information, and criticizing competitors.

In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. Of special concern are organizational conflicts of interest. Failure to follow these guidelines may put the editor at serious risk of embarrassing himself or his client.

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but if you have a conflict of interest, you should exercise great caution. In particular, you should:

avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,

avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;'

and must always:

avoid breaching relevant policies on autobiographies and neutrality,

avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Rhode Island Red 04:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I recall, when I helped mediate the concerns on the article months ago, the criticism was moved into appropriate sections of the article; no verfiable, well-referenced criticism was removed. While the new heading is unfortunate, I'm not sure why any of previously agreed upon text would now need to be removed.

A look at the page history (click the history tab when viewing the article) shows that Rhode Island Red did not insert any text or the header. The header was actually added by Elonka on Feb 6 without any additional text being inserted. I would certainly suggest, as I did during the last dispute, that the header is unecessary and draws undue weight to negative portions of the article. Sometimes its difficult to tell what has been added or changed in an article - the history page gives you some great tools to compare edits against each other and check what work has been done.

Again, its really the best policy to avoid discussion of other editors and focus on your concerns for the article. If editors are unable to agree about article content, it might be appropriate to ask for a third opinion or post a request for comment on the content disputes. If you have concerns about the behavior of another editor, please use their talk page or the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism to voice those concerns; anything other than discussion of the article belongs somewhere other than the article's talk page.

If you have any questions about dispute resolution options or would like discuss your concerns for the article and how to state them without mentioning other editors, I would be more than happy to help. Please remember that online communication is difficult under any circumstances and should be handled with the greatest care possible. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 07:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy Subhead

Does anyone have any thoughts about the recent introduction of the “Criticism and controversy” subhead? When this issue came up in the past, it was decided that it would be best to not have such a subheading and to instead integrate any critical commentary in the body of the article. I have seen similar criticism/controversy subheads on a few other Wiki entries and was wondering what the norm is in such a situation. Is it generally preferable to not have a subhead, while sometimes being allowed only to solve disputes between editors? I can’t say that I have a strong preference one way or the other but the new subhead did seem to ignite quite a bit of disagreement. Perhaps Shel and Elonka could add to this discussion since they seem to have differing opinions. Rhode Island Red 03:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, it's routine to have a "Controversy" section in articles about subjects which are, well, controversial. Where there is substantial criticism, it is also worth at least mentioning it in the lead section of the article. As for the actual name of the section, there's no one standard way I've seen -- the best is to follow the lead of outside sources. For example, if the term "Questionable claims" is what's used most often in third-party reviews, then that's what I'd use for a section header. Another possible might be "Doubts." The important thing is that our article present a well-rounded view of the subject, including as many (reliably-sourced) points of view as possible, both positive and negative. --Elonka 03:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles pointed to as excellent examples of NPOV generally use more specific language. For example, Abortion avoids labelling any particular viewpoint as criticism or controversy, but instead groups claims about a particular subject together - the sections under Suggested Effects are a very good example. Given the current general nature of the Criticism section, it would appear that it should be expanded to attribute each criticism to the proper source and when that is completed, we may find that the specific criticisms fit into other sections. I've tried to move criticisms to the appropriate place where possible, create subheadings to improve readability and remove weasel words from the text. I also re-added the external links to the company's homepage and research foundation - I know they've been used as references elsewhere, but for ease of use, generally corporate home pages are given in the external links section.

Another concern: there is far too much detail in the initial product sections. Any thoughts on how to fix that? Shell ^babelfish 07:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Shel, the Vineyard Blend ingredient list was recently added, which added slightly to the info-overload in the contents section. Should we consider ommitting it, particulalry since the ingredient list is currently incomplete? I also appreciate your extensive input on the page. Hope you don't mind if I fine tune the odd part. For instance, "manufacturer claimed amounts" was changed to "amounts listed on the label", which is incorrect, since the information refers in part to amounts that were claimed for nutrients NOT listed on the label but rather listed by the manufacturer in research articles. It's a subtle distinction but an important one. Also, "Oxidation" and "Antioxidants" are listed as 2 different subheads but actually refer to the same thing. Consider combining them into one heading, or list a new subheading as "Gummies" which the information under "Antioxidants" now refers to. I also think that now that criticism/controversy has it's own subhead, more information should be added. Don't mind if I take a try at it. Rhode Island Red 15:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ack - thanks for catching my antioxidant split and the incorrect change to "listed on the label" :) If possible though, try not to used claimed - be specific with something like amounts from manufacturer's labelling and product research. Using the word claimed tends to imply that the fact is incorrect.

About the ingredients, is there any reason each one is listed out in such detail? I looked at quite a few other product articles and didn't come across any that listed ingredients and amounts. It seems excessive. Shell ^babelfish 05:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think one justification for at least including the contents of Orchard/Garden Blend and Gummies is that the manufacturer/distributor does not release the information publicly nor is it widely available. Consumers have to guess what’s in Juice Plus or rely on misleading partial lists such as the one posted on the product’s homepage. Aside from the Wiki article, it’s virtually impossible for the consumer or curious individual to answer the simple question “what is Juice Plus?” Compare our current list to what NSA makes available on the Juice Plus website and you will see they paint a very different picture of the product: http://www.juiceplus.com/nsa/pages/WhatsItMadeOf.soa

If you were to ask me whether it really is informative for our list to include each and every fruit and vegetable, I might be inclined to say no, not really, particularly since it appears to contain very little of these components. But I do think it’s important to indicate that it contains many added vitamins as ingredients (and to list which ones), since the product has been criticized on that basis and because the manufacturer is not forthcoming about it (not mentioned anywhere in the product website). It’s also important to point out that the product’s beta-carotene source comes from saltwater algae rather than a farm-grown fruit and vegetable source, which is also not mentioned in any promotional materials; rather they seem to imply that the source of all the product’s nutrients is the fruit and vegetable juice extract. Also, the ingredient list shows that the fiber sources are also added as fortifiers (date and cabbage fiber, cellulose, and dried plant fiber) and are not derived from the fruit and vegetable extract. This type of information is important for conveying to the reader what this product really is, and it seems that that can only be done by including an ingredient list. I look at like this: if I knew nothing about Juice Plus and had the task of determining what it was, I wouldn’t have a hope in hell of coming up with an accurate picture without the current list. Curious to hear your thoughts.

As for the “label claims” issue, I understand your hesitancy to use the phrase, as it seems to connote doubt, but in reality, it is standard terminology when discussing the amounts of active ingredients in a supplement or drug relative to what the label indicates. One would state that an ingredient did or did not match the “label claim”. I’ll back down on this if you think there is a better way to word it but I just wanted to let you know that it would not be inappropriate to use “label claim” in this context. A Google search will confirm this as accurate. Rhode Island Red 06:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wise et al

Regarding the addition of the passage from Wise et al. (1996):

One of these, a pilot study, reported that "after 28 days plasma antioxidant levels increased significantly" and that "serum lipod peroxides decreased fourfold after 7 days and remain significantly lower than baseline at 28 days"[9].

1. The line "after 28 days plasma antioxidant levels increased significantly" does not belong in the oxidation/antioxidant section since the study findings in question refer to absorption of vit C and E, beta-carotene, etc. That information would be rightly categorized and is addressed under the heading “nutrient absorption”. The oxidation/antioxidant section discusses in vivo and in vitro antioxidant activity (i.e. tests such as lipid peroxidation, DNA oxidation, protein oxidation, etc.). In laymans terms, "absorption" addresses whether the antioxidant compounds (e.g. vitamins C and E and beta-carotene) are taken into the body; the oxidation/antioxidant section discusses whether the effects of free radicals are diminished by those antioxidants.
2. It is not NPOV to blow out quotations on antioxidant effects (i.e. the lipid peroxide statement) from the earliest, smallest, most poorly designed, and shortest duration study whose lead author (John Wise) is an executive of the manufacturing company, when subsequent larger and better designed studies (i.e. larger, longer duration, placebo controlled, double blind, and randomized) showed no antioxidant effects on various tests, (including lipid peroxidation, the same parameter as in the Wise study) and yet are not described in detail. It creates a distorted view of the product’s efficacy and it should be reverted, modified, or additional details of the opposing better-designed studies added and given greater weight.
3. The Wise study is controversial not only because of its weak design and authorship by a company executive but also because NSA continues to quote its data when all other subsequent studies (almost all of which were much better desgned) have shown either much smaller effects or no effects at all. It is misleading marketing on NSAs part and it is a trap we should not fall into in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) 05:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

The point made about absortion/antioxidant effects is important; since it is a fine distinction, perhaps this should be addressed in the structure of the article, so that the layman can understand it. The article is not aimed at scientists in this field - I suspect that they have their own sources of information - so it should be accessible to the man/woman on the street. All the more so, since it is said to be the only objective source of information available to the general public.

The mention that it was a pilot study is made for a reason: pilot studies are by their nature smaller and conducted to a less exacting protocol than clinical studies. It was interesting enough to be published as a pilot study in a reputable peer reviewed journal, whatever your opinion of its design (don't fall into the trap of judging a pilot study by the criteria one has come to expect of a larger clinical trial).

The fact that one of the authors was an executive of the company isn't so important, since I expect that the referees knew that and were smart enough to check the data all the more thoroughly. There seems to be a suggestion ("... studies financed by the company ..." etc) that money will buy approval by referees and editorial boards. Never having served on one I can't comment, but, were I a referee, I'd find that pretty insulting. Maybe the language in the article should be checked in that respect for such wording. TraceyR

Stephen Barrett's criticism of the "Juice Plus Children's Research Foundation"

The section on the "Juice Plus Children's Research Foundation" cites Stephen Barrett. There are three aspects (at least) which I'd like to raise for disussion:

1. In view of the controversial nature of this person, I suggest that the credibility of the article is likely to be reduced, rather than enhanced, by citing him.
2. Barrett is quoted as questioning the scientific value of the survey, but his article (referenced) is itself seriously flawed: he judges the survey by the standards of a clinical trial and finds it wanting. It is so easy to set up a straw man and knock him down; it's akin to saying that a yacht is slower than a speedboat and is therefore inferior. The relevant website (referenced by his website) describes the survey in plain language; it doesn't claim to be anything other than a survey. If he has read it, as he claims, then his criticism is dishonest and has no place in this article.
3. I also suggest that his opinion (whatever its value) on the reason for the existence of the foundation is not relevant. Is it germane to an article on Juice Plus, what marketing stategy the company uses?

Any comments? TraceyR 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with Stephen Barrett or his research, but as he himself clearly seems to be notable, his comments may be famous enough to include, good or bad. Could you provide here a link to the specific claims you have concerns about? If there are questions about his methods, then the Wikipedia article could potentially be phrased to indicate this. For example, it could be worded as, "Controversial researcher Stephen Barrett, webmaster of the "Quackwatch" website, published a survey claiming that (claim1, claim 2, etc.); however these results have not been reproduced by other sources." --Elonka 01:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is about Juice Plus and all related concepts, not only as a product, and Stephen Barrett has done some research and has some information which adds value. Any discussions of marketing, corporate strategy or history are relevant to a reader's understanding of what Juice Plus is. He has done a lot of work on reviewing Juice Plus, I personally found his articles very helpful. Omitting his opinion would be much a much more awkward position than allowing his comments to be referenced. Tbbooher 03:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

To recap. the sentence added recently by Shel, which is now in question, is as follows:

“The scientific value of the survey has been questioned by Stephen Barrett, who says that the foundation is used mainly as a gimmick to get families to buy Juice Plus products.[24][25]”

The original line read as follows:

“The scientific value of the survey, however, has been questioned, and it has been claimed that the foundation is used mainly as a gimmick to get families to buy Juice Plus products.[22][23]”

The current argument about Barrett is moot. Shel appears to have simply made a mistake in attributing the comment exclusively to Barrett. She must not have noticed that University of California Berkeley [reference 23] was also cited, and they said essentially the same thing as Barrett, referring to the Foundation’s survey as a “cute marketing gimmick”.

A “Juice Plus+ Children’s Research Foundation” claims to be tracking the effects of the supplements in children, but this simply involves give-aways of the products to kids, and subjective tracking by parents. A cute marketing gimmick, but it isn’t science.

The criticism seems to be valid and based on fairly obvious observations. With the name “Research Foundation” comes the expectation that the organization actually performs or at least sponsors research. But none has been conducted and the survey certainly does not qualify as legitimate research. I have never seen any sources citing the results of the survey other than NSA and Juice Plus distributors, so it doesn’t seem to have any far reaching value other than for promotional purposes. The Foundation seems to exist for no other reason other than to subsidize a two-for-one product promotion.

As an aside, it would be hard to argue that Barrett is not sufficiently notable to be cited. Any controversy about him that may exist is not because of his comments on Juice Plus, and he doesn’t seem to be a controversial enough figure to warrant a disclaimer when his name is mentioned. Rhode Island Red 06:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that Barrett is mentioned at all. As far as I'm aware, he has never done (and isn't qualified to do) any original research of his own, certainly not in mainstream science. Have a look at his wiki entry (Stephen Barrett) to see his background. I gather that he was a totally un-notable, non-Board Registered psychiatrist before he started his controversial x-Watch websites. Anyone following the link (or looking him up on Google) will see how questionable criticism coming from him is.

1. My first concern was that by citing him so often (at least three times) the article's credibility could be compromised.
2. The second point was that he (deliberately?) judges a survey by an irrelevant set of criteria. A survey isn't a study. This alone reveals either bias, incompetence or dishonesty (possibly all three). UCB unwittingly falls into the trap of assuming that the survey purports to be science, when (to my knowledge, but please correct me if I'm wrong) no such claim is made for it by the foundation/company.
3. The third point (above) concerned the relevance of his (and the University of California Berkeley's) opinion as to the reason for the existence of the foundation. This is an article about a product, not about the marketing strategies of the manufacturer. If the foundation is to be mentioned at all, then there should be more about it than disparaging opinion.

w.r.t. "research": I would imagine that large-scale market research is conducted almost exclusively via surveys, but no-one (to my knowledge) questions the use of the word "research" in this context. I hope, in the interests of NPOV, that we're not applying double standards here. TraceyR 12:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

---

TraceyR, to recap, your 3 main concerns seem to be: (1) Is it relevant to discuss critiques about questionable marketing practices (2) was it justified for Barrett and the University of California Berkeley Wellness Letter to have criticized the JPCRF, and (3) is it reasonable to cite Barrett and was he overused as a source?

There is no need to recap and then rephrase my points inaccurately. My main concern is that you are distorting what I say and then answering the distorted "recap". Please answer my criticism, not what you like to think I said. I'm sorry to have to say it, but that is dishonest. TraceyR 00:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am merely attempting to refocus the debate on a few identifiable issues so that we can reach a resolution. The discussion has been long and circuitous and your position is at times elusive. Resolution is the objective, not the mere airing of greivances.Rhode Island Red 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Is critical commentary on Juice Plus marketing worthy of inclusion? I agree with Tbbooher in that the product and the method by which it is marketed are closely linked, so the reader would not be well served by having criticism of questionable marketing practices omitted. It would seem inappropriate to not cite such commentaries. Also, we should keep in mind that Juice Plus is not merely a product, but also a heavily promoted franchise opportunity. I can’t think of any good reason why criticism of marketing practices should be omitted in this case, nor would I imagine that there is precedent for doing so. UC Berkeley Wellness Letter is a highly reputable source and said almost exactly the same thing as Barrett.

Well no, they are not so closely linked at all. The product is a nutritional supplement and should be described as such. How it is marketed is a separate issue altogether. It is all in your mind that they need to be treated together. If you have problems with the marketing, go and join MLM Watch or write an article about MLM on Wikipedia; your prejudices have no place on this article TraceyR 00:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The accusation of prejudice does nothing to strengthen your argument, it undermines it. Please try to present and defend you position without using caustic comments. Merely saying "no" does not constitute an argument as to why the comments by UCal Berkeley and Barret should be excluded form the article. The "Juice Plus Children's Research Foundation" has the name "Juice Plus" in its title, so it is clearly relevant to the Wiki article by that name. Rhode Island Red 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Barrett. You are incorrect in stating that he was quoted “at least 3 times”. In the enire article, he was cited only two times; once for each of the two different articles he wrote (one was on Juice Plus in general and the other on the JPCRF). In neither case was he the only source cited. In the first instance he was cited among 5 other sources and in the second (the JPCRF section relevant to this dicussion) he was cited alongside UC Berkeley. He has clearly not been given undue weight, and his opinions are consistent with other notable sources of criticism.

OK, just for you: His name appears three times. OK? You have yet to justify referencing his so-called criticism. Here is my reason for suggesting that it be removed. For the third time.

The second point was that he (deliberately?) judges a survey by an irrelevant set of criteria. A survey isn't a study. This alone reveals either bias, incompetence or dishonesty (possibly all three). UCB unwittingly falls into the trap of assuming that the survey purports to be science, when (to my knowledge, but please correct me if I'm wrong) no such claim is made for it by the foundation/company. TraceyR 00:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You had previously stated "My first concern was that by citing him so often (at least three times) the article's credibility could be compromised". I showed conclusively that this primary concern was unfounded. He was cited only two times, once for each of his articles, never as the sole source, and only one time in reference to the JPCRF (which is the topic of this thread). When you exaggerate and make the unsupported accusation that Barrett was overused as a source, it compromises your integrity as an editor. A polite acknowledgement of your error would not have been unreasonable. Rhode Island Red 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

---

As to Barrett’s notability, the Quackwatch website that Barrett operates claims to have received honors and awards from 70 different sources as of 2004,. Groups that have awarded Barrett’s site include U.S. News & World Report, Forbes, the Canadian Medical Association, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Oncology Times, and the National Review [3]. JAMA listed the site as one of nine "select sites that provide reliable health information and resources" (and incidentally, no organization of such stature has ever spoken in favor of the JPCRF). Once again I will reiterate what others here have said: Barrett is sufficiently notable to merit the citation of his articles on Juice Plus. It also does not appear that any notable source has ever contradicted the bulk (or for that matter any) of Barrett’s statements about Juice Plus.

I suppose it depends (as so often here) on your personal definition, in this case of "notable". He and much of what he writes is variously regarded as infamous, ridiculous and sometimes downright pernicious. google him to find out. Most people do not bother to respond to his outpourings. TraceyR 00:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you and some others don't like Barrett, but other reputable sources have positively acknowledged his contributions and have given him awards. I don't doubt that anyone who publicly criticizes Juice Plus, MLM companies, or alternative medicine would have many detractors. But the point is that that regardless of such criticism, he clearly meets the criteria for notability and inclusion. Rhode Island Red 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Is the criticism reasonable? In regard to your comment: “I would imagine that large-scale market research is conducted almost exclusively via surveys, but no-one (to my knowledge) questions the use of the word 'research' in this context": (1) we are in agreement that NSA’s Foundation conducts “marketing” research and not scientific research; this is part of the basis for why it has been criticized as an essentially useless promotional vehicle. (2) If the Foundation only conducts marketing research, then maybe it would have been more honest to call it the “Juice Plus Marketing Research Foundation”, not the “Children’s Research Foundation” – it does not seem unreasonable to consider this to be deceptive. (3) Marketing research does not seem consistent with the Foundation’s stated goal, which is to “initiate and/or support programs that advance the principle that improved nutrition leads to healthier lifestyle and overall better health in children.” Poorly designed marketing surveys and two-for-one product discounts do not seem consistent with that mandate. I have also noticed that the JPCRF website does not indicate in any way that NSA, the company that markets the product, actually runs the Foundation. That also seems to be sufficient basis for criticism on the grounds that it is deceptive.Rhode Island Red 05:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is just beyond a joke. You say "we are in agreement that NSA’s Foundation conducts “marketing” research and not scientific research". That is again just plain dishonesty. This is what I wrote:

"w.r.t. "research": I would imagine that large-scale market research is conducted almost exclusively via surveys, but no-one (to my knowledge) questions the use of the word "research" in this context. I hope, in the interests of NPOV, that we're not applying double standards here."

You disputed the use of the term "Research" in the name of the Juice Plus Children's Research Program" because you seem to think that scientific research is the only sort of research. I gave an example of another legitimate use of the word. You have again shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest, I'm afraid. TraceyR 00:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Intellectually dishonest? I apologize if I misinterpreted you by suggesting we agreed that the survey was marketing research, but perhaps you could have made your argument more transparent. I thought you were bringing up the point about the existence of "marketing research" to suggest that the JPCRF survey shouldn't have been criticized by UCB and Barrett because it is "marketing research" and therefore should not be judged as "scientific research". If it is not marketing research, what kind of research is it? You failed to specify. The use of "Children's Research Foundation" in the Foundation's name could reasonably be construed to carry with it the reasonable expectation that they conduct scientific research and not merely product marketing research, and it would not be unreasonable for someone to find the name to be deceptive, as UCal Berkeley and Barrett apparently did. They may have suspected, as have I, that children are not the primary beneficiaries of the JPCRF's survey "research". They obviously thought that criticism was warranted. Rhode Island Red 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

---

[[[user:TraceyR|TraceyR]], your objections are duly noted but perhaps you should take take them up with UCal Berkeley and Barrett/MLMWatch and discuss with them why you feel their published comments have no validity. Maybe then they will stop criticizing the JPCRF as a marketing gimmick and recant their comments; then maybe then we will have a reason to not include them. These sources satisfy Wiki policy and it seems disingenuous to suggest not including them merely because one object's to their conclusions (conclusions which strike me as rather obvious). You can debate about how well respected Barrett is but that doesn’t change the fact UCal Berkeley echoed Barrett’s sentiments about the JPCRF and the survey. Certainly no one is arguing that UCB is insufficiently reputable to be quoted.

In conclusion:

1. No Wiki policy excludes using UCal Berkeley Wellness Letter as a source.
2. No Wiki policy excludes using MLMWatch/Barrett as a source.
3. Both sources criticized the JPCRF and their criticism was accurately represented in the Wiki article
4. The argument has been raised that negative commentary on the JPCRF constitutes criticism of the marketing of Juice Plus and should on that basis be excluded from the article. The counterarguments are that
   • the JPCRF (Juice Plus Children’s Research Foundation) has the name “Juice Plus” in it and therefore is obviously relevant to the Wiki article bearing that same name.
   • no Wiki policy precludes such commentary
   • other editors have expressed the opinion that a discussion of product marketing (marketing that has been criticized by published sources) is appropriate to the article Rhode Island Red 03:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, I am not disagreeing with you about sources, but a comment such as "take it up with UCal Berkeley and discuss it with them" is not particularly helpful. If there's a question about a source's validity, a better way to handle it is to link to the exact article statement and related citation here on the talkpage and then we discuss it. Hopefully we can reach a consensus that way, but if there's still a dispute, we can invite in other editors to get further outside opinions, and see if we can reach consensus that way. Right now, even though I've been more or less following the conversation, I can't even tell what's being discussed anymore, other than to tell that there's a dispute. So could someone please clarify the exact sentence/citation in dispute? --Elonka 03:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

site gone wild

just ONE example: under adverse effects, he sites a waiver from a study and puts it on an encyclopedia trying to make it look like in any way shape or form taking Juice Plus has been found to put fetus' at risk! If you allow this continue, wiki just became a laughing stock! At a college I lectured at this weekend, two professors told me that their students are told they may NOT use WIki as a source because it is rampant with so much ridiculous "knowledge". IS ANYONE WATCHING this??

"in some cases these side effects may be serious and long lasting, persisting after use of the supplement has been stopped. These products have also been described as presenting unknown risks and the potential to cause harm to the unborn fetus.[24] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JuliaHavey (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Allow me to sign in and take ownership of the previous postJulia 16:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Julia, If you disagree with content, I suggest you keep you comments limited to the content itself and stop attacking individual editors. I do not appreciate the tone of your comments -- they represent a personal attack, which as you are well aware, is not acceptable.

A legitimate source has been cited in support of the statement that I added. The source document was filed with the Institutional Review Board of Wake Forest University's Comprehensive Cancer Center. The information is from an informed consent form for participants in a Juice Plus research study. It is a legal requirement that these side effects and risks of treatment are mentioned to prospective study participants as a condition for informed consent. If Wake Forest requires that study subjects are to be warned of the product’s risks, and lists those risks clearly, there is no reason I can think of why the same information should not be included in the Wiki article. Please do not remove this content again. It is appropriately cited and it is accurate. Rhode Island Red 16:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that a waiver to compete in a study is a research finding that proves Juice Plus, fruits and vegetables in a capsules is harmful to the health of a fetus!Julia 18:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether this constitutes “proof” is irrelevant since the Wiki entry did not claim that it was “proven”. The entry accurately stated that the researchers reported that the product carries "unknown risks" and “potential harm to the developing fetus”. Obviously the risk is great enough that subjects participating in the study required a warning to that effect. Rhode Island Red 06:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Though I disagree with some of Julia's language, I agree with her primary point. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and "potential to cause harm" isn't really something that I'd see as encyclopedic unless it's a commonly-cited problem in multiple secondary sources. Every time I buy any medicine, there's usually a long list of "potential side effects" in the box. That doesn't mean that every one of them needs to be listed in the Wikipedia article. What we should focus on here, is a summary of the information about Juice Plus that appears in reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should be used as little as possible. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Types of source material for more info. --Elonka 18:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying that the product definitely causes harm might be an extraordinary claim; the researchers’ claim that it has “the potential to cause harm” is far less extraordinary. NSA and NAI have never conducted a proper safety study of the products nor or they obligated to share information about any consumer complaints of side effects that they may have received. We are therefore reliant on other sources to determine what the side effects of this product might be. The citation to Wake Forest U. certainly satisfies Wiki policies on verifiability and I don’t see anything that would preclude its use on that basis.

The potential for risk to the unborn fetus specified by the Wake Forest researchers is relevant and important information to include, particularly since NSA has been promoting the product as a prenatal vitamin replacement/adjunct for pregnant women.

Yes, your drug box label might include warnings about side effects, what's wrong with that. Is your argument that that the current list of side effects for Juice is too long? The Wikipedia entry for a common drug like Celebrex for example, shows a complete list of side effects . The current list of potential side effects for Juice Plus is not overly long and it would be arbitrary to exclude a single side effect (i.e. risk to fetus) in the interest of brevity. Rhode Island Red 06:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red: The "risk to the fetus" wording is standard policy at Wake Forest University and is not specific to Juice Plus. The relevant document (found using the trial ID you provided in Google) is cited at length further down this talk page. I do think that you should have checked the website carefully and then sought consensus on this before you made this obviously contentious addition to the article. TraceyR 23:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's only partially correct. It is standard wording only for test drugs that are known to be fetotoxic/fetocidal or whose effects on the fetus are unknown. You failed to include that information along with the rest of the material you quoted below. My detailed comments appear below in the risks to the fetus discussion. Rhode Island Red 05:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I agree with Elonka's statements. I have for some time been very disquieted that "some editor(s)" seem to spend all his/their time trawling the web for negative things to report about this product and then claim that it would be wrong to withold this "important" information from the otherwise unsuspecting public. The latest source to have been discovered is the Wake Forest University Medical Center Study documentation. Now there is yet another excuse to post as hard fact more anecdotal reports, but of course without the additional information (obviously "deemed" insufficiently important to mention) that this is a study funded from the public purse, with the following rationale and purpose:

"RATIONALE: Chemoprevention therapy is the use of certain substances to try to prevent the development or recurrence of cancer. Fruit and vegetable extracts may be effective in preventing the recurrence or further development of head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: This randomized phase II trial is studying how well fruit and vegetable extracts work in preventing the recurrence of stage I, stage II, stage III, stage IVA, or stage IVB head and neck cancer."

My thanks go to Rhode Island Red for bringing this important information to our attention. What a shame it is that NPOV prevents him from mentioning the rationale and purpose of the study, so that all he feels able to report on is the "Informed Consent Form" for the study! I do find it very strange that, according to all the stuff he has managed to find, there is isn't enough powder to have a single positive effect but, at the same time, sufficient to cause life-threatening conditions! That really is very odd!

I wonder what is going on here. Whatever the agenda is, it is not good for Wikipedia. TraceyR 21:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR apparently feels that the new information is important, stating “My thanks go to Rhode Island Red for bringing this important information to our attention”, however, she also criticized me (e.g. “chicken with a mission” in the subject title of her post -- a personal attack!), for having an “agenda”, and for not including a discussion of the rationale for the study. I appreciate the thanks, take umbrage with the personal attack, and do not see how the rationale of the study would be relevant to the discussion of side effects.

I repeat my thanks to Rhode Island Red for drawing the world's attention to the fact that the United States of America has seen fit not to be put off by this article (in its present form) and to use a small part of its budget in "studying how well fruit and vegetable extracts work in preventing the recurrence of stage I, stage II, stage III, stage IVA, or stage IVB head and neck cancer." Perhaps not what you had in mind. And about "chicken with a mission": which bit did you find insulting? I thought it a bit of harmless fun. No offence intended (we hardly know each other :-) ) TraceyR 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, your post falsely represented the content of the document I cited. The rationale and purpose you provided were mentioned nowhere in the document. Why should I be expected to quote or discuss something that was not in my source document? Furthermore, even if it was mentioned in my source document, the rationale/purpose of the study has no place in the section on side effects – it is a non sequitur.

Oh dear! The source referred to was "Wake Forest University Medical Center Study documentation." And if you look at the big letters at the top of the page of the document you cited, you will read "A PHASE II RANDOMIZED PLACEBO CONTROLLED DOUBLE BLINDED TRIAL TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTS OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLE EXTRACTS ON INTERMEDIATE BIOMARKERS IN HEAD AND NECK CANCER PATIENTS".

re Side effects. Normally when "side effects" are mentioned they are placed in juxtaposition with the primary effects (or benefits). But where are the benefits mentioned? By some warped logic which only you can understand and defend, NPOV is deemed to prevent the mention of benefits (which are promptly deleted) but has no problem with negative side effects. I'm therefore not sure where the possible benefits should go. But I'll take your hint and find somewhere to mention the proposed study, its rational and its purpose. Perhaps we need a section Benefits preceding Side Effects. What do you, as the effective owner of this article, think? TraceyR 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Side effects of a drug would normally be juxtaposed with “effects” not “benefits”. Effects of Juice Plus are addressed in the section on Product Research under various exisitng categories like “nutrient absorption”, “antioxidant EFFECTS”, cardiovascular EFFECTS, etc. And once again you are reminded to maintain a civil tone. References to “warped logic” and effective ownership do not win respect, but politeness and cogency might. Please do not use every post as an opportunity for another jab, as it greatly undermines your editorial integrity. Rhode Island Red 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

---

AMEN!Finally, it is like the lightbulb of rational thinking has gone on and is shedding some light onto to ridiculously obvious bias that someone is trying to slant this page to and spends HOURS, 1000's of edits trying to do. Enough already!User:JuliaHavey|Julia]] 02:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Folks, please. The best way to make your points is without sarcasm, emotional hyperbole, or multiple exclamation points (did you know that multiple uses result in a net subtraction?)  ;) Let's put more energy into the article, and less into the personalities or motivations of those who are editing it. As regards the "fetus" comment, it seems clear that there is consensus to keep that kind of statement out of the article, so let's say that we've agreed on that, and move on. --Elonka 02:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I would appreciate if we did not move on just yet. The issue is still under discussion and was raised within roughly the last 24 hours so please allow other editors, like myself, sufficient time to respond. I am yet to see a reasonable justification for deletion. I have added my comments above. Rhode Island Red 06:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion can of course continue. I have moved the disputed section from the article to the talkpage in the meantime. If there is a consensus to restore it to the article, it can be easily re-inserted. --Elonka 07:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

EPA

Did anyone catch the news about the Environmental Protection people banning a Juice Plus Distibutor Convention because they were seriously concerned about the welfare of the participants, due to the vast volumes of foul-smelling, noxious gases that would emanate from the convention center? I didn't catch the channel callsign nor the city that was saved from exstinktion. Local police, when asked for directions to the convention center, are reputed to have said "Just follow your nose."

But there is a positive side: all Juice Plus customers are being offered the chance to enrol in a pilot project for providing a sustainable source of energy when fossil fuel reserves run out. TraceyR 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tracey, I missed that warning. User:JuliaHavey|Julia]] 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Julia, I'm afraid that it was just a joke (but perhaps it will turn up, referenced, in the article one day)! I have decided that some of the edits here simply cannot be taken too seriously, so a bit of fun might creep in from time to time. Anecdotal evidence from Juice Plus users is common but not encoutaged - the NSA page contains some such wording somewhere (i.e. no claims about curing this or that, it's not a drug, just plain food etc). TraceyR 21:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A polite reminder that the discussion page is to be used only for discussing improvements to the Juice Plus article; it is not a chat room nor should it be used to post advertisements or testimonials for Juice Plus, and especially not ones that inappropriately suggest the product can be used for the prevention, cure or treatment of diseases. Such claims are not only inappropriate for Wikipedia, they are in fact prohibited by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. Julia, as a distributor of the product you are bound by DSHEA, so please act responsibly – at least while on Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) 02:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Rhode Island Red, please stop with the personal attacks. My comments were 'tongue in cheek' humor along with Tracey's farting content. They were not posted on the article and were not made as a claim, well with in the ties that bind me. I deleted it out of fear of you and your power. I will not say anything that could be constued in any way as positive about the product in question. Happy Valentine's Day Red!!! Feel the loveJulia 15:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is a consent form a reliable source?

Per consensus above, I have removed the following section from the article:

Heartburn, abdominal pain, diarrhea, gas with foul odor, and indigestion have been noted as very common risks associated with taking Juice Plus Orchard and Garden Blend, and nausea and vomiting as less common risks; in some cases these side effects may be serious and long lasting, persisting after use of the supplement has been stopped. According to document filed with the Institutional Review Board of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, subjects participating in a Juice Plus research study were informed that taking Orchard Blend and Garden Blend capsules presents unknown risks and has the potential to cause harm to the unborn fetus.

Discussion about the matter can of course continue here on the talkpage. The basic concerns seem to be that the phrase "potential to cause harm to the unborn fetus" is potentially inflammatory, and the only source for this material is a list of "unknown" and potential side effects on a university's consent form. The consensus in the discussion thus far, is that this kind of information does not meet the standard of a reliable secondary source. Anyone else with an opinion on the matter is welcome to comment here. --Elonka 07:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, while I appreciate any honest effort to mediate editorial conflicts, it concerns me that you are trying to railroad a decision to delete properly sourced material from the article, and have now chosen to delete the content in question. Your claim that there is a consensus on this issue is disturbing. JuliaHavey, who admittedly sells Juice Plus, is in clear violation of WP:COI, has repeatedly vandalized the page, and has been downright abusive on this discussion page. Unfortunately or not, her opinion has no place in this discussion.

Your rewrite of Julia's biography [4] the day before you appeared for the first time on the Juice Plus discussion page does not instill confidence in your impartiality to mediate the present discussion.

The third user who you deem to constitute a consensus is TraceyR (contrib). Not only have her edits been consistently in the direction of softening or arguing for removal of content that is critical of the product, but her latest post did not even argue for removal of the content in question. She stated "My thanks go to Rhode Island Red for bringing this important information to our attention”

You have not allowed other editors an opportnity to comment on this issue nor have you replied to my latest comments. Please do not make such changes again without supplying sufficient justification.

I had already changed the original statement, in an attempt to appease:

• (Original) "These products have also been described as presenting unknown risks and the potential to cause harm to the unborn fetus"

• (Revised) "According to a document filed with the Institutional Review Board of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, subjects participating in a Juice Plus research study were informed that taking Orchard Blend and Garden Blend capsules presents unknown risks and has the potential to cause harm to the unborn fetus.[24]"

You deleted the revised version without anyone having the chance to discuss it. It has now been reverted. Please do not delete again without allowing the chance for discussion. Rhode Island Red 07:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not here as a mediator, I am here as an outside opinion. And I strongly disagree about the reliability of taking information from a consent form. The main sources that should be used in this article are secondary sources, such as articles from peer-reviewed magazines. Not primary sources such as boilerplate consent forms. --Elonka 07:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, regardless of your role here, we had narrowed this debate and today’s editing down to only the line about unknown risks and potential to cause harm to the developing fetus. You blanked the entire section that dealt with what were labeled as “very common” side effects and “less common” side effects. That is not kosher, so once again, please don’t claim a consensus where none exists and use it as a justification for deleting appropriately sourced content.

The source in question is not a consent form. It is an official document submitted to the Institutional Review Board of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine, which describes what the participants in the study will be told about Juice Plus. The researchers are required to submit such documents as a precondition for being allowed to conduct such a study and the IRB must be satisfied that the risks of the product are accurately represented. It is not boilerplate as you suggested. That particular form was amended by the researchers 12 times to meet the satisfaction of the IRB. All 12 revisions are posted on the WFUSM website. Your argument is factually inaccurate and has no merit. Rhode Island Red 08:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the PDF, it's clear that before the "there may be risks and side effects that we cannot predict" sentence are the specific risks that are associated with this study. After that sentence is the legal boilerplate that is appended to all studies in case something goes wrong that they didn't anticipate. You could probably make the same claims about fetus danger with all drugs investigated by Wake Forest's cancer research department. - Peregrine Fisher 08:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The line "there may be risks and side effects that we cannot predict" is in addition to the specificaly named side effects for Juice Plus, it does not refer to those named side effects. It was unclear if you were referring to only the fetus risks or also to the side effects listed as "very common" and "less common". Rhode Island Red 08:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Drawing conclusions from the text is not encyclopaedic, the text exists, yes, but that does not mean it should be speculated on in Wikipedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don’t see that a speculative conclusion has been drawn regarding the very common and less common side effects described. The document was quite clear in describing these side effects in relation to use of the supplement. The document stated: “Many side effects go away after the supplement is stopped, but, in some cases, the side effects may be serious and/or long lasting. Risks – Very Common: heartburn, abdominal pain, diarrhea, gas with foul odor, and indigestion. Less Common: nausea and vomiting as less common risks”. I suppose that the reference to fetal risks is less clear and could be argued as non-specific boilerplate. If after getting input from some of the other editors like Shell and Tbbooher, a true consensus agrees to removal of the part about fetal risks, I have no objection to deletion. Rhode Island Red 15:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to find where on the form that it even says it's referring to Juice Plus? --Elonka 08:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The document in question is filed with WFUSM alongside the full protocol which specifically mentions Juice Plus. In the the accompanying documents it is only referred to as fruit and vegetable extract. All of the documents associated with the study bear an ID number that traces them to the same protocol -- CCCWFU #60A02. I understand why you may have raised this point but there is no doubt whatsoever that the document in question is referring to Juice Plus. The full protocol identifies the product as follows: "The test supplements consist of dried F&V powders. Fruit juice extracts from apples, oranges,pineapples, papaya, cranberries, and peaches and vegetable juice extracts from carrots, parsley, beets, broccoli, kale, cabbage, spinach, and tomatoes (Juice PlusTM, NSA International, Memphis, Tennessee)." Rhode Island Red 15:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Oliver Stone has a theory on Red's alleged conspiracy? Elonka does articles on Missourians, I am a Missourian, along with a few million others. I have never met Elonka. I would imagine when she looked at my history on Wiki, she should this interesting board and joined in, as she does on hundreds of other various topics.Here's the bottom line, my opinion aside, and one will note, my comments are mostly on the talk page, not editing the article, however, if an editor's changes don't agree with the owner of this page, they are reverted, changed, called vandalism.Good luck. I won't edit the page, but will comment, as it is my right as a free American and WikianJulia 13:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither US citizenship nor pariticpation in Wikipedia entitltes you to be abusive to other editors or to vanadalize pages. But thanks for agreeing to refrain from editing. Rhode Island Red 14:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fruit juice extracts from apples, oranges,pineapples, papaya, cranberries, and peaches and vegetable juice extracts from carrots, parsley, beets, broccoli, kale, cabbage, spinach, and tomatoes--all clear and present dangers to fetuses, unborn, heck, all humans! We should be recommending fast food and high fructose laced beverages instead==no warnings there!Julia 15:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be in favor of removing the text. Logic dictates that the term "reliable" is a case by case basis; the most reliable source for an article is therefore a reliable source, unless it is so obviously questionable. Either way, claims with sources that don't seem to meet Wikipedia's general definitions of "reliable" need to have multiple sourcing to be certain. I don't see multiple sourcing here. Moreover, the claims are trivial. Keep the text removed. — Deckiller 01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy Exclusion Language for Consent Forms

The following is copied verbatim from the Wake Forest University Health Sciences Office of Research Institutional Review Board web page. It was easy to find:

Institutional Review Board

Information and Forms

Pregnancy Exclusion Language for Consent Forms

The Institutional Review Board has adopted policies and language for consent forms related to pregnancy exclusion in clinical trials, which are below. It is believed reasonable uniformity will protect subjects, fetuses, and investigators and the institution.

This language should be adopted in consent forms submitted with new protocols, and in consent forms submitted for renewal.

"Subjects include women of childbearing age, and drug fetotoxic/fetocidal (or unknown), and illness non-terminal, and immediate treatment required (less than 15 days from diagnosis): "Due to unknown risks and potential harm to the unborn fetus, sexually active women of childbearing potential must use a reliable method of birth control while participating in this study. Reliable methods of birth control are considered to be: abstinence (not having sex), oral contraceptives (the "pill"), intrauterine device (IUD), DepoProvera, Norplant, tubal ligation ("tubes tied"), or vasectomy of the partner (with confirmed negative sperm counts) in a monogamous relationship (same partner). An acceptable, although less reliable method involves the careful use of condoms and a spermicidal foam or gel and/or a cervical cap or sponge. We encourage you to discuss this issue further with your physicians if you have any questions.

"Pregnant women are excluded from participation in this study. Because some methods of birth control are not 100% reliable, a pregnancy test is required at least 10 days after your last normal menstrual period if you are a sexually active woman of childbearing potential."

It is obvious that the above does not refer specifically to Juice Plus; it is, as has been said already above (but ignored), standard language mandated for use in ALL trials. In the interests of accuracy and NPOV I have removed the statement and reference to the "Informed consent form" from the article. I urge the editor responsible for its inclusion to check his sources more carefully in future. TraceyR 17:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the reference:exclusion language. TraceyR 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Exclusion from a study based on a criteria is not a finding of a study. Exclusion is most often about relevance to the study. The reason for this language is a combination of the study not being interested in the effect on pregnant women and that no previous study has addressed the issue of the effect on pregnant women so the effect is not fully characterized. Most studies exclude pregnant women and it is likely that this language is standard. Caution is always the first principle in selection of participants even when it is something fairly innocuous. Sometimes people just die for almost no reason and even more frequently pregnant women have miscarriages for unknown reasons.--Nick Y. 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick, Thanks for the comments. The reason for this post is that an editor inserted a reference to a document which included the above standard "exclusion language", claiming that this meant that the specific product being trialled carried "unknown risks and potential harm to the unborn fetus". In spite of several comments from other editors he continued to insist that it was a valid reference. I found the above information and posted this message as the justification for removing the text. TraceyR 19:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Waves a white flag Could everyone please stop edit warring until this issue is settled? It matters very little whether or not this text remains in the article for a short time while it is discussed and continued edit warring may result in someone being blocked for disrupting the article. I would really suggest that everyone take a long, hard look at our conflict of interest policy and seriously consider whether or not you should be editing this article at all. Shell ^babelfish 22:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Shell, this issue is whether this text ("unknown risks and potential harm to the unborn fetus") should have been added before discussion, given its obviously controversial nature. It is better for such ridiculous statements to be removed pending discussion, than for Wikipedia to become a laughing stock because of their continued inclusion. TraceyR 00:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I respect and appreciate many of the opinions offered on this subject in the past 24 hours. The discussion helped to prove that the statement in the WFUSM IRB document mentioning potential harm to the fetus used a generic disclaimer and, therefore, that the statement about fetal risks should not be included in the article. I especially valued the comments and reasonable opinions from editors that were not abusive or biased in their prior editing of the JP article. Reasonable discussion goes a long way towards resolving editorial disputes; let’s try it more often!

In addition to the opinions of the many editors who have commented, the information on WFUSMs fetal risk dislciamer policy uncovered by TraceyR was very convincing. This type of information, rather than accusations, beligerence, and hostile remarks, is what should serve as the basis for assessment of contentious issues like this one (this information was only uncovered today, showing why it was important to keep the discussion open rather than rushing to declare that a consensus had been reached). However, TraceyR did not include a highly relevant portion of the WFUSM material in her quotation. The source document that she cited gave a set of criteria specifying the circumstances under which the different types of disclaimers should be used. The standard fetal risk disclaimer is to be used only when the test drug is known to be fetotoxic/fetocidal or it’s effects on the fetus are unknown. If the test agent is known to NOT be fetotoxic, the disclaimer is not required. By these criteria we can assume that the investigators deemed that Juice Plus either (a) can be fetotoxic/fetocidal or (b) the effects of Juice Plus on the developing fetus are unknown. I raise this point mainly to show that Juice Plus was not considered by the investigators to be benign with respect to fetal risks.

It is worth reiterating that clarity on the fetal risk issue was slow in coming and many of the editors had criticized the addition of the fetal risk information for very different reasons, and some did not initially object at all (TraceyR). This just demonstrates again that we should be patient and look to the talk page to resolve disputes by discussing the issues calmly and rationally without personal attacks or sarcasm. Just state the facts. It does make a difference.

When someone raises a white flag, as Shel did today, it would be nice if certain users would embrace the peacemaking gesture instead of continuing to rant about what they consider to be ridiculous or what might lead to Wikipedia's demise. Just my opinon Rhode Island Red 02:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red: I think you'll find that Shell's "peacemaking gesture" was referring to "edit warring", i.e. to edits to the article itself; I'm sure there was no intention to stop the important discussion of this issue.

Do you disagree with my serious suggestion that more care is required before making such controversial amendments? The information was there for you to find too, you know. Perhaps you were in too much of a hurry to rush into print, to find out whether your interpretation was reliable? Seeking the opinion of others, perhaps even asking for their co-operation, would have saved you from this embarrassing faux pas!

As for the potential damage to Wikipedia, I take this very seriously and hope that you do too. It is a serious matter. Just put yourself in the shoes of anyone who knows about setting up trials of this sort: if they had read the article with your "unknown risks and potential harm to the unborn fetus" amendment, would they not have been surprised and somewhat amused? Would they feel confident about the quality of other articles here? I think not. That was my point; that was my reason for removing the "unknown risks and potential harm to the unborn fetus" from the article as soon as I discovered its background. It wasn't a rant (although I can understand why you would like to consider it a such); this is a serious issue, and one from which lessons should be learned. TraceyR 15:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Tracey, just because you were able to find a good source of information in the 11th hour of the discussion does not mean that I was careless. I commend you for finding it; it was helpful and relevant, and despite my searches, I was unable to find those details. The general discussion put many issues on the table and a consensus was reached as a result. It serves no one when you now try to press the issue after it has been resolved. I do not see it as an embarrassing faux pas and I think it is distasteful, at least, for you to make such a suggestion. When discussing edits, it is appropriate to focus your comments on the content in question and not imply that a particular issue will lead to the downfall of Wikipedia, especially when an admin is waving a white flag. Disagreements will arise and mistakes will be made but cooler heads will always prevail. Rhode Island Red 16:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I had thought that I would get some other work done, but I'm afraid that can't let that one stand. It was the 11th hour because that information was found, at a time when you were still stoutly defending the importance of your new source:

"The potential for risk to the unborn fetus specified by the Wake Forest researchers is relevant and important information to include, particularly since NSA has been promoting the product as a prenatal vitamin replacement/adjunct for pregnant women."

I'm not accusing you of being careless. Anyone can make mistakes. TraceyR 20:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

GRAS

The Comprehensive Cancer Center of Wake Forest University trial protocol [Protocol] includes the following paragraph on page 12:

Pharmaceutical Information

"The test supplements consist of dried F&V powders. Fruit juice extracts from apples, oranges, pineapples, papaya, cranberries, and peaches and vegetable juice extracts from carrots, parsley, beets, broccoli, kale, cabbage, spinach, and tomatoes are cryoevaporated (Juice PlusTM, NSA International, Memphis, Tennessee) to concentrate and preserve nutrients, particularly carotenoids. The blends are encapsulated in hard gelatin capsules to provide 850 mg of fruit powder per fruit capsule and 750 mg of vegetable powder per vegetable capsule. Test supplements will be from the same lot. F&V extracts should be considered as a GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) product. In several clinical trials using F&V extracts as dietary supplements with healthy subjects, the dosage proposed in this study has been tested. No toxic effect was reported (Wise et al., 1996; Smith et al., 1999; Inserra et al., 1999). Since the extracts have not been tested in cancer patients, to be cautious, we will conduct telephone interviews at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 weeks of treatment. A questionnaire will be used to record potential treatment-related side effects, particularly gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities, such as nausea, vomiting, fever, diarrhea, heartburn, abdominal pain, or others. Patients with severe adverse reactions (> grade 3) will stop the treatment."

Will this help to calm some troubled minds? Or should someone get on the phone to warn the patients of the risks they are taking if they aren't lucky enough to get the placebo? TraceyR 19:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of label contents

It is my recommendation that we remove the paragraphs from this article which do nothing but cite the list of ingredients on the label. The only source for this appears to be the label itself, which does not qualify as a reliable source. The long list of ingredients also makes the article very difficult to read. Thoughts? --Elonka 06:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How could one possibly define what the product contains without citing the label as a source? Here again are my comments from 06:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think one justification for at least including the contents of Orchard/Garden Blend and Gummies is that the manufacturer/distributor does not release the information publicly nor is it widely available. Consumers have to guess what’s in Juice Plus or rely on misleading partial lists such as the one posted on the product’s homepage. Aside from the Wiki article, it’s virtually impossible for the consumer or curious individual to answer the simple question “what is Juice Plus?” Compare our current list to what NSA makes available on the Juice Plus website and you will see they paint a very different picture of the product: http://www.juiceplus.com/nsa/pages/WhatsItMadeOf.soa

If you were to ask me whether it really is informative for our list to include each and every fruit and vegetable, I might be inclined to say no, not really, particularly since it appears to contain very little of these components. But I do think it’s important to indicate that it contains many added vitamins as ingredients (and to list which ones), since the product has been criticized on that basis and because the manufacturer is not forthcoming about it (not mentioned anywhere in the product website). It’s also important to point out that the product’s beta-carotene source comes from saltwater algae rather than a farm-grown fruit and vegetable source, which is also not mentioned in any promotional materials; rather they seem to imply that the source of all the product’s nutrients is the fruit and vegetable juice extract. Also, the ingredient list shows that the fiber sources are also added as fortifiers (date and cabbage fiber, cellulose, and dried plant fiber) and are not derived from the fruit and vegetable extract. This type of information is important for conveying to the reader what this product really is, and it seems that that can only be done by including an ingredient list. I look at like this: if I knew nothing about Juice Plus and had the task of determining what it was, I wouldn’t have a hope in hell of coming up with an accurate picture without the current list. Rhode Island Red 07:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's not published anywhere else, then that's even more of a reason that we shouldn't include it here, since it qualifies as original research. And, I mean this sincerely: If you feel very strongly that it needs to be public, why not set up your own webpage? That way you can get out the information that you want to get out, without having to worry about Wikipedia requirements of verifiability and reliable sources and consensus. --Elonka 07:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The information is published. It’s on thousands of Juice Plus bottles that are being offered for sale to the public. It cannot be argued that the information is not in the public domain, even if the manufacturer chooses to not disclose the information on their website. If you insist on disputing the source, insert the appropriate source tag. In regard to your other issues about the contents list making the article unwieldy, this could possibly be resolved by placing the information in inset boxes but I doubt that that is you real concern. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) 15:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Rhode Island Red, please sign posts using 4 tildes thingys, it makes it much more clear to see who is posting what comments (~ is a tilde thing) Julia 15:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We have an autobot in place which automatically adds missing signatures. In reality, there was no uncertainty as to the source of my comment so please stop your pointless sideline heckling. Rhode Island Red 16:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a courtesy Red, you had to often remind me to use the tildey guys! and I thank you for it. Just trying to return the courtesy! So in reality, you didn't need to repeatedly tell me to use them then? Good to know! thanks Julia 19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

---

IMHO there is no problem in principle with listing the contents verbatim from the label, since it would appear to be the only source of information. I don't like the way in which the article adds the amounts in the Orchard Blend capsules to those from the Garden Blend capsules; I think most people can do the sums for themselves. I would raise one caveat though: the legal requirements placed on what must appear on a product label are complex and vary between countries (and maybe even states), so what is valid for a label in the USA will almost certainly not apply in other countries. For example, RDA/RDI amounts can vary from country to country, so the percentages on labels reflect this fact. If contents are to be listed (perhaps on a separate page?) then mention must be made of the respective country. Separate pages for each country would be a possible approach there, if we are to be encyclopaedic about it!

Another point is legibility/comprehensibility. A tabular presentation would be easist to read.

A third issue, which has been raised within the article (but as yet somewhat incompletely), is the lack of specific data about the actual contents of the concentrated juice. There are bound to be variations in the amounts of e.g. vitamin C from week to week, month to month, batch to batch etc., so it probably isn't possible to be as specific on a label as with a "multivitamin", where synthetic vitamins are used. The Wake Forest trial protocol (thanks again to RIR for finding it) actually takes this into account ("Test supplements will be from the same lot"), presumably to standardise the nutrient intake throughout the duration of the trial as far as possible. In view of the fact that the trial participants will have the option of continuing with the product for a further 5 years free of charge, the protocol also provides for assessment of the variations between batches:

"The ITC/DTC and flavonoids profiles will be used to support our hypothesis that many potential chemopreventive agents in addition to antioxidants and carotenoids found in F&V contribute to their chemo-protective properties. More importantly, they can also be used to determine batch-to-batch variations in the future as part of the quality control effort."

What can a manufacturer do in this situation? On the one hand he has the inherent variations of a natural product; on the other, label regulations require him to specifiy the exact amounts of various components on the label. One approach would be to add controlled amounts of some components (some people seem to use the tendentious word "spiked" to describe this) so that the label can be specific about these amounts at least. I don't know if NSA does this with Juice Plus - you'd have to ask them - but it could explain the mystery surrounding the label quantities. TraceyR 16:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The article already indicates that the ingredient list is based on US bottle labels and the US RDI is referenced. As to the manufacturer's lack of specificity about additives and amounts of ingredients, this is not typical of most supplements on the market, regardless of whether they are natural ingredient-based or wholly synthetic. Rhode Island Red 16:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Questionability of distributor manual as a source

I do not think that the distributor manual should be used as a source. First, it's obviously a primary source, with potentially unreliable claims. And second, it's very difficult to verify, as there does not appear to be any online version, and to my knowledge, copies do not exist in libraries. According to the Wikipedia policy on no original research, sources need to be verifiable by reasonable people with non-specialist knowledge. --Elonka 16:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This matter has been being discussed at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Can a distributor's product manual be used as a source?, and the consensus appears to be that no, a private manual of that nature, especially since it is not publicly available, is not appropriate as a source. I recommend that any statements in the Juice Plus article which rely on the following sources, be removed:

• Anything that is drawn from the distributors manual
• Anything that is sourced by a letter to the editor

I also recommend that any information in the article which is drawn from bottle labels, be extremely limited, and only done in context with other secondary sources. --Elonka 10:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I have replied to the comments at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Can a distributor's product manual be used as a source?, so we should give time to for additional replies. The manual is in fact available to the general public; it is not merely an internal company document as you had claimed. The consensus as I saw it was that the document need not be available online but that it should be available to the general public and not exclusively as an unverifiable internal company document.

But sources don't have to be on-line. That is not a requirement. Some sources are easy to verify, others are not. (posted by Johntex\talk on 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

I'd agree with that. A source doesn't have to be online, but it has to be available to the general public. If it's only available to distributors then it would be an internal company document and not a RS (posted by Milo H Minderbinder on 21:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

As I pointed out, the distributor’s manual can be purchased by anyone at the following location: [5]. According to the consensus view, this would mean the document qualifies as a citable source.

With regard to the label information, no consensus was reached, so it is seems to be merely your opinion that the source cannot be used. One of the editors commenting on this issues stated:

As for product labels, many acceptable sources do not include a publication date. This is especially true for web sites. If sources that lack publication dates were not acceptable sources, there would be no need for the Chicago Manual of Style (14th ed.) to have paragraph 15.175, which is titled "Date not indicated". (I must admit that that paragraph applies to books, and not all works.) (posted by Gerry Ashton on 18:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

However, the label can even be cited with a date and lot batch number. The bottle labels from which I took the information bears this unique identifier of the batch, lot, and date [N05040139C 05/2007]. Rhode Island Red 15:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is OK to use the product label as a source. However, it's still a primary source, and WP's objective of relying mostly on secondary sources remains in place. The article does not state the reason for the very lengthy quotations from the product labels. It might be true that the product label information is not widely known, but that's not a sufficient reason for including it in Wikipedia. (See WP:NOT). The entire Product Contents section is questionable as a proper use of article space, in my view. EdJohnston 16:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Inadequate Lead

Just before this article plunges into a vivid enumeration of every single ingredient in Juice Plus, it begins with a lead that is quite uninformative. The reader is likely to be aware that this is a controversial topic, that there will be nutritional claims flying around and perhaps a whiff of malpractice, and possibly indignant defences by the manufacturer. Yet there is a very bland lead that gives no hint of the trouble to come, or even much indication of what the article will be covering:

Juice Plus is a branded line of dietary supplements containing concentrated fruit and vegetable extracts fortified with added vitamins and nutrients. Juice Plus is manufactured by Natural Alternatives International (NAI; San Marcos, CA) and is distributed by National Safety Associates (NSA; Collierville, TN) through direct or multi-level marketing. Several Juice Plus products are marketed including Orchard Blend and Garden Blend capsules (NSA's main product), Vineyard Blend capsules, chewable and gummy supplements for children, and a version for dogs and cats.

See Wikipedia:Lead section for how a lead should properly be constructed:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article

The rest of the article has problems as well, but I limit myself to observing that there is way too much reliance on primary sources. If there are no secondary sources that WP considers reliable that have written about Juice Plus, it's hard to think we can write a reliable article that comes up to Wikipedia standards. Since I haven't done a search, I don't know how difficult that will be. EdJohnston 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for a new lead paragraph. I've attempted to present both positive and negative views of the product in a neutral way, as well as to summarize the key points in the article:

Juice Plus is a branded line of dietary supplements from the United States, which contains concentrated fruit and vegetable extracts fortified with added vitamins and nutrients. Sold via direct or multi-level marketing, it is billed as "the next best things to fruits and vegetables," a claim which has stirred considerable controversy. Proponents claim that the product can provide nutritional benefits such as reducing oxidative stress, and improving cardiovascular function. Critics say that there is no scientific proof of serious health benefit, and that Juice Plus makes deceptive claims in its marketing information. Several studies which have set out to prove or disprove Juice Plus's claims have generated conflicting and controversial results.

How does this look to everyone? Feel free to suggest other wording. --Elonka 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a worthwhile improvement, and addresses most of my concerns.EdJohnston 23:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Article rewrite

Within my own userspace, I have taken a stab at a complete rewrite of the article: User:Elonka/Juice Plus. I removed much of the primary source information, and added a great deal of "overview" statements to help summarize some of the more technical reports. It's my feeling that this new version is much more readable, while still presenting both positive and negative views of the product in as neutral a way as I could manage. Or in other words, this is how I think the article could be most improved. If others agree, we could use my draft to replace the current article, and then proceed editing from there. Please let me know what you think, Elonka 23:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What an improvement. All of the salient points are covered while making the format friendly to the reader and non-specialists. The lead now gives an overview like it should and everything seems very well written. The mounds of ingredients have been condensed to a single sentance explaining the differences between the label and studies. Well done! Shell ^babelfish 01:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the new version is better. EdJohnston 02:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Since the response has been very positive so far, I've taken the liberty of updating the actual page with the new version. I'd also like to say thanks to the other editors, especially Rhode Island Red, who provided such thorough and detailed citations, as it made this rewrite much easier. I think we've got a really good article here, that we could potentially even consider nominating for official Good Article status, which would be a feather in everyone's cap! --Elonka 03:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the overall construction and feel have been greatly improved and it is much more accessible, but some key details have been dropped. These issues, some of which are critical, should be addressed but aside from that it’s a good start.

Article rewrite section break #1

• The entire adverse effects section has been eliminated -- a critical omission, since the adverse events have been documented and the information is important to readers.

Sure, which of the references do you think would be best to use for this section? --Elonka 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• References #2 and #3 (Plotnick and Samman), which were Juice Plus studies, are incorrectly cited in support of the link between fruits/vegetables intake and reduced disease rates. The actual studies that reported this link were large-scale, well-designed epidemiologic studies. I can provide the appropriate references.

Oops, I was worried I might get a couple of those confused, thanks for the catch. Let me know what the correct references should be, or go ahead and take care of it? --Elonka 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me that there is now too little mention of what is actually in the product, and more importantly it is not sufficiently clear that the product contains various nutrient additives – the latter detail is important since it has been a major point of criticism by several sources. The article would benefit from some sort of ingredient list, even if it is an abbreviated one. The original lists could be shortened considerably as follows: “In addition to containing fruit juice powder and pulp from fruits or vegetables, the products also contain…”. This would only add a few lines and would provide valuable information to the reader. At the very least, the nutrient additives should be listed. It is important for the reader to at least know the nutrient content of the product.

This would probably be best for the Foodbox. Let me see if I can get that installed, and then we can add things to it. --Elonka 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Also omitted in this version was the following detail “the suggested daily 4-capsule Juice Plus regimen provides…folate 105% (420 µg), vitamin C 390% (234 mg), vitamin E 150% (45 IU), beta-carotene 250% (7.5 mg), calcium 6% (61 mg), and iron 4% (0.72 mg).” This information is important and should be included in some form.

This will probably go well into the infobox. --Elonka 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why these numbers are important. (I'm not arguing against them, I just don't grasp the point). Juice Plus contains fairly harmless levels of four vitamins and a few minerals. Are these numbers considered important because they rebut some other health claim? EdJohnston 22:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Those values represent the nutrient intake for the recommended daily regimen of 4 capsules (2 each of Orchard and Garden blend). I think it is useful because at a glance one would know that taking the product as directed provides 4x RDI for vitamin C, 2.5x for beta-carotene, and very low amounts relative to RDI for calcium and iron. The low amounts of calcium and iron and relatively high beta-carotene levels may be of concern to some people. Including the milligram amounts in parentheses is also useful because it is standard for supplement labels to include such information. Juice Plus is a bit of an anomlay in that it only lists %RDI without milligram amounts. My guess is that NSA does this to make it seem that the nutrients are components of the fruits and vegetables powder when in fact they are additives. Rhode Island Red 04:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Article rewrite section break #2

• No mention is made of the fact that almost all of the studies were funded by the manufacturer/distributor. This is a highly salient detail and has also been a point of criticism by several notable sources.

Agreed, can you identify which are which, or instruct me how to read the sources to be able to tell for myself? --Elonka 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is the source of the funding highly salient? Surely the fact that the studies were accepted by peer-reviewed journals is sufficient. Unless you are claiming that the journals were not independent. Is that what you're saying? TraceyR 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing unusual about mentioning that studies are authored or paid for by the manufacturer; rather, it is the norm to reveal such potential conflicts of interest. It is an important consideration for journals and independent evaluators. Try a Google search for conflict of interest if you want some background information. The fact that an article is published has no bearing on conflict of interest related to company funding/authorship or the need for transparency. Rhode Island Red 06:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is so normal to mention it, why claim that it is "highly salient"? Which are the "several notable sources" who consider this to be a "point of criticism"? Would you agree that it is normal for pilot and initial studies of pharmaceuticals to be financed by the manufacturer? Why should it be a potential conflict of interest for e.g. a supplement but not for, say, Viagra? This may be confusing for people who cannot think outside of the "pharmaceutical" paradigm and who therefore judge Juice Plus as if it were a pharmaceutical. In fact I imagine that it is in fact highly unusual for a nutritional supplement to be the subject of a clinical study, let alone so many. If I remember correctly, the Wake Forest study is being financed by the NIH. TraceyR 16:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that knowing which studies were financed by the manufacturer is useful information and I know that medical journals have requirements that their authors disclose conflicts of interest. I think this is sufficient evidence that disclosure is worth doing, besides the common-sense argument. However, it would also be reasonable to note that JuicePlus is a new product and it is obvious that the manufacturer would find it worthwhile to pay for properly-run trials. If the Wake Forest study is NIH-funded that point should definitely be noted. 'Conflict of interest' is just a technical term and doesn't reflect badly on the authors. EdJohnston 20:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I agree with you for the most part but I don't think we should be mentioning any studies that have not been completed and published. We are focusing on research data, and obviously any studies that have not been completed yet will not have generated data. These studies may not ever enroll sufficicent numbers of subjects, they may be terminated early due to adverse effects, the funding may dry up, the results may not ever be publised if they turn out to be unfavorable to the product, etc. Discussing research in progress is a quagmire that we should not jump into. Let's wait until they are published and then include them. Rhode Island Red 01:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• The line “Though Juice Plus does indeed contain nutrients, concerns have been raised about how many of these nutrients are in a form that can be effectively absorbed by the human body” is unclear. The concerns have to do with whether they are “absorbed” not whether they are “in a form that can be absorbed”. I suggest changing to “concerns have been raised about whether these nutrients can be effectively absorbed by the human body”

I'm not understanding... Vitamin E, for example, is always absorbable, right? But there's something about Juice Plus that makes it not absorbable? Wouldn't that be a question of form? Or am I completely confused on this issue? --Elonka 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Rather than saying “It is generally accepted in the scientific community” it is better to state that there is solid evidence from several large scale studies or something along those lines. Stylistically, it is best to avoid using statements like “It is generally known” or “it is widely accepted” if it is not necessary (and it usually isn’t).

Agreed. --Elonka 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Article rewrite section break #3

• The heading title “marketing claims” seems overly neutral and a tad inaccurate. This section is really a “criticism” or “critical commentary” section, since all of the sources cited were critiques of the product. No marketing claims are made. Also “disputed marketing claims” might be OK.

Yeah, that was kind of a "catchall" section for bits that didn't seem to fit elsewhere. I'm okay on "Disputed marketing claims", unless someone has a better idea? --21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ultimately, the criticism section should be expanded, but I bear more blame for that than anyone because I never got around to beefing it up with some details. The current version provides too little information as to why the product has been criticized. Six different sources are cited in the criticism section and yet only there are only 3 lines of text which refer to vague details. This can be done at a later date and I don't see it as critical for now.

Agreed, we can add more criticism later, but for now I think it would be better focus on presenting a well-rounded view of the product, such as its history and market penetration.

• I had added NSAs disclaimer that Juice Plus is not intended to treat/cure/prevent diseases because I think it is important when discussing the supplement and possible health effects to not imply in any way that the product can be used for diseases (as per DSHEA), and because NSA makes the statement publicly. Such disclaimers are mandatory for the manufacturer for good reason, so perhaps there is a way that it can be mentioned in some form because it seems like it would be the responsible thing to do. In reality, the product's marketing is full of innuendo and sometimes overt claims about disease treatment/prevention so if you think the disclaimer misleadingly implies NSAs compliance with DSHEA, then perhaps there is another way the issue can be addressed.

Wikipedia uses this: Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. If we need something specific for JP, it would probably be best if we included a secondary source that talks about Juice Plus's medical disclaimer, if we can find such a thing? --Elonka 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Article rewrite section break #4

Hope you don’t mind the nitpicking. I think you did a good job and if we can address most of the issues above, we might all be able to finally relax for a while. I will take a crack at remedying some of these issues over the next few days. Rhode Island Red 03:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all! Detailed suggestions are great, and I am very pleased that you like this version. I think we're all on the same side here, in that we all want to make a quality article. You seem to have a real talent at digging up detailed references, and I'm pretty good at "layperson prose," so we all have different skills to offer here. --Elonka 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, Elonka, I would rather, for now, that you take a crack at addressing some of these issues and making the edits. You're on a roll so let's see what you come up with. Rhode Island Red 04:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! --Elonka 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on an excellent and constructive rewrite. Having been busy elsewhere, I have only just come back to find the article in its new glory. I have also waded through most of the comments, which are also v. positive. Only one stuck out, in which the new cut was criticised for being "overly neutral" - is that positive or negative? :-) Or NPOV²? TraceyR 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)