This article was nominated for deletion on 8 November 2022. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Algae Mid‑importance

	This redirect is part of WikiProject Algae, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the photosynthetic organisms commonly called algae and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AlgaeWikipedia:WikiProject AlgaeTemplate:WikiProject AlgaeAlgae articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and drink Low‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Untitled

THE WHOLE ARTICLE LOOKS LIKE AN ADVERTISING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.86.136 (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major Problem With Sourcing

[1]

The Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association does not seem to be owned by Mannatech, though many of the products studied are indeed Mannatech’s. However, its Editor-in-Chief, Mark Houston, advertises and prescribes health supplements as part of treatment in its role of Director of the Hypertension Institute of Nashville. On the Institute’s website, you can find a series of “nutritional support protocols” for a series of ailments ranging from cardiac heart failure to impotence.
Such protocols often refer to specific brands of supplements, often send you back to one of Houston’s books, and sometimes even mention name and contact number of the sales representative to contact to acquire a certain supplement. In the middle of all this, you can even find a “Religious Prescription” – which includes “taking time to listen to your inner voice” and “let the past go”.

A blog is not a WP:RS however if these allegations are correct the Journal of the American Neutraceutical Association is probably not a reliable source. As it is a major source for large sections of the article that is a major issue.Simonm223 (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That blog hardly seems to be a credible source. That blog entry is mixed in with LOLCat pictures and videos/articles mocking George W. Bush. This blog (with only 3 followers to make sure that 'The Skeptical Alchemist' keeps his facts straight) does not seem like a good reason to doubt a source in the article that seems to be sourced pretty well.MacJunky (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2010 (GMT)

You will note I am not suggesting using the blog as a source. I'm saying that if the allegations in the blog prove true it would suggest that the Journal of the American Neutraceutical Association is not reliable either. Simonm223 (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if the Blog is correct, then there is a serious problem with the source. I have personally not seen anything that supports the blog, but I have not really been looking. You are welcome to do that and if the blog is supported by a credible source, I wholeheartedly agree that the ANA source should be abandoned. MacJunky

(talk) 00:07, 9 February 2010 (GMT)

There's a good, fairly balanced discussion about JANA's credibility here: [2]. Bottom line: 1) it was peer-reviewed, though perhaps not rigorously enough for some people's standards, 2) there were concerns about the commercial influence of advertisers, though none was ever actually proven, 3) it appears to have been independent, though it unquestionably had a bias (what scientific journal doesn't? really?). And of course, it's now out of print, so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.10.146 (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dissecting an advertizement for a questionable food supplement

After looking for certain unnecessary dietary supplements and quack medicines sold as "dietary supplements" for a while, I chose to have a look at this very advertizing article piece by piece. It will take several entries from me to cover the full article, but I hope it will help to correct a plainly advertizing article.

This is the first part, when I have time, I will perhaps take care of more.

Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (introduction):

"Algae, in the collective sense, is sometimes called the basis of the entire food chain". Useless, since AFA are bacteria, not algae. Primary purpose of the sentence seems to be making them look like a valuable food. Nutrients: should be mentioned in the proper part, if at all.

Biology:

"Algae are classified by color" - nonsense in this case, expecially, since AFA cyanobacteria are not algae. There's also no reference for this. AFA are displayed as an intermediate between plants and bacteria, which is wrong: they are bacteria, despite their ability for photosynthesis. Ignoring this fact, they are repeatedly labeled "algae" or the term "algae" is used to make AFA look like algae.

Toxic or non-toxic:

"latest research" is weasel word, only a single author supports re-grouping one out of many toxic kinds of AFA. Currently, there is no such differetiation in species. The references made do actually point out to the toxicity of at least some forms of AFA, but are shown as if they would prove mislabeling or wrong identification of the cyanobacteria. Affected references: 7, 8, 9, 10 (as of April 4th, 2011), references 6, 11 support the renaming of one form of cyanobacteria.

History:

This part wrongly confuses the use of algae (e.g. seaweeds) as food with the consumption of cyanobacteria. Also, the vague mentioning of ancient peoples is a typical strategy of making something look like an ancient, but "common" knowledge. "African and American natives" considered "blue-green algae" (cyanobacteria) an integral part of their lives? What evidence is there that they eat them? "As with any crop, differences exist with regard to harvesting procedures..." Really useful? Even if the harvested cyanobacteria are processed in a "good" way, this will not make a food supplement of questionable use more useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBirke (talk • contribs) 07:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity

To start with, I'm renaming the "Toxic or non-toxic?" section "Potential Toxicity" for the sake of professionalism; this is not the reason I'm starting a section on the talk page, however. I have been reading over the (now) toxicity section, and as pointed out by BBirke quite a few of the citations used for the "strains previously labeled as [toxic AFA] were incorrectly identified" statement actually *show* AFA can be toxic. I'm thinking a section revamp is needed. Fair warning to the NPOV user who cited as such: I will (unless someone else steps up before I get there) rewrite the section to show this. HMman (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folic acid, listed as a vitamin found in AFA, is a synthetic product

Folic acid is listed as a vitamin found in AFA yet folic acid is a synthetic product. Folic acid is often confused with naturally occurring folate, of which there are different types and names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:41A7:9800:44D4:C9AE:CF26:F899 (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant Page, Potentially Highly Misleading, Someone should flag it for deletion

I agree that this whole page looks like advertising. There is another page for Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, so I really question why this page has been created – perhaps just to promote supplements. Most professional phycologists are highly suspicious of any human use of cyanobacteria as food or health supplements. Cyanotoxins are just that bad. In my opinion this page should be deleted. It is redundant, and potentially highly misleading. See, for example, this article: http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Study-warns-against-sale-of-toxic-algae-supplements