Talk:Juice Plus/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Peer Review

It's pretty clear that we have some strong opinions about this article. An editor more senior than I has suggested a peer review of the article WP:PR and I think it is worth consideration. With more voices, I think we would be able to draw closer towards a consensus. I've never done this before so your thoughts would be valued.Citizen Don 03:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I too would welcome it. TraceyR 07:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Worth doing soon as a step toward WP:FAC but it might be best to wait until we get closer to finishing the section on the Plotnick study. WP:PR isn't for disupte arbitration, it is more along the lines of proofreading and QC. Rhode Island Red 22:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that part of the peer review would be for people other than the usual editors to look closely at the article and determine the relevance of much of the material. It's not about dispute arbitration. It's about the article and how it should be written. I believe EdJohnston made the initial suggestion and I think it may be a good one. What do others think?Citizen Don 05:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

GNLD Reference is Available on Company's Website

Previous dicussions [1] regarding the GNLD analysis of Juice Plus recommended removing the citation based on the claim that the report was not available on the company's website and had apparently been withdrawn. This is incorrect. The report is in fact available on GNLD's website [2]

I have therefore restored the link to the WP Juice Plus article. For fair balance, I have also added the qualification that the analysis was conducted by a competing supplement company. Rhode Island Red 17:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red: It's a bit late to play April Fool! The fact that it had been withdrawn was not the only reason for its exclusion. As mentioned by EdJohnston in the appropriate thread at the time, "calling it an 'article' is a stretch. It's a marketing claim that's no longer being made (like a TV commercial that used to run at one time)." That it has been reinstated by GNLD (an MLM competitor to NSA) doesn't mean that it is an article worth citing. It gives no results, just ticks in boxes, it doesn't say who did the analysis and where, it doesn't claim that it was done objectively by a reputable institute, doesn't cite a peer-reviewed journal in which the results were published, tries to give the 'results' a veneer of science by citing four articles describing the methodologies which we are expected to believe were used in their 'analysis', mentions limits of detection which are supposed to have applied to their analysis - it's simply a low-grade, pseudo-scientific marketing brochure (as is indicated by the URL, which places it firmly in the business tools section of the GNLD website). If it weren't so amazing that it is being suggested as a serious source of criticism of Juice Plus it would be a huge JOKE! Please, please try a little mind game for a moment: imagine that this was being used as a source for a positive statement about Juice Plus in this article ... how would you react? The article deserves, nay demands better than this!TraceyR 18:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR: Your recent comments [3] misrepresent the history of our discussions [4] about this reference. You stated that the article was withdrawn by GNLD and that the chemical analysis is a marketing claim that is no longer being made. These assumptions appear to be false. I see no evidence that the analysis was ever withdrawn or recanted by GNLD, and given that this information is available on the company’s website, it is obviously a claim that GNLD stands behind.

In prior discussions, the primary reason why the GNLD analysis was suggested for deletion was because it did not appear that analysis was still available on GNLDs website, and this was the basis for its ultimate removal from the WP article. I had no objection to removing it on those grounds. These were the last comments made on the talk page: “Since the page has been withdrawn, the reference ought to go”. “It's a marketing claim that's no longer being made”. Obviously, these arguments do not apply.

One could argue that there are other reasons why the GNLD citation might not warrant inclusion, and that’s something that we can discuss, but let’s not misrepresent the outcome of the initial discussions. The earlier decision to remove was clearly based on the lack of availability of the article on GNLD’s website.

As a reminder, using sarcasm in Talk page discussions (i.e. the “April Fool’s” comment) is inappropriate. Please avoid sarcasm in the future and instead discuss the facts with objectivity and emotional detachment. Also, avoid use of all caps, bolding, and exclamation points “which are considering shouting and ranting…as it undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force” (cf.WP:TPG). Rhode Island Red 20:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended, nor 'shouting'. Consider the word "joke" to be in italic type if you like. I just find it so bizarre that this stuff is considered worthy of a mention when the conclusions of a peer-reviewed study in a renowned, respected journal are dismissed or at least considered unworthy of inclusion in the article. To avoid the suspicion of bias, let's at least have the same criteria applied universally.

Please consider the 'mind game' request mentioned above (and let us know the conclusions you reach and if possible the reasoning involved).

As for the GNLD page always having been available, just not visible to web searches - what is the effective difference between the two? It certainly isn't readily 'searchable' on the GNLD website (I have not located it yet); perhaps it's in an area with menu access restricted to distributors but available via the URL.

I don't actually remember anyone suggesting that the company had 'recanted' this marketing flyer, but I am open to correction there. Certainly it is a valid assumption that it had been withdrawn if all your efforts at the time to find it were fruitless.

I think that several reasons for not using this reference have already been given, for which a response would be welcome. Here they are, with a few more:

• It gives no results, just ticks in boxes
• it doesn't say who did the analysis and where
• it doesn't show that it was done objectively by a reputable institute
• it doesn't cite a peer-reviewed journal in which the results were published
• it tries to give the 'results' a veneer of science by citing four articles describing the methodologies which we are expected to believe were used in their 'analysis'
• it mentions limits of detection which are supposed to have applied to their analysis but doesn't give either sets of figures (GNLD and Juice Plus)
• the 'article' is in fact a foldover flyer which GNLD distributors can post to prospective customers (is this the new "gold standard" for wiki sources?)
• GNLD's products compete in the same market as Juice Plus - quoting this article is tantamount to providing GNLD with free advertising via wikipedia - something forbidden by wiki rules.

A discussion of the compelling reasons for the inclusion of this source would be most welcome TraceyR 22:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My replies to TraceyR's comments follow:

"I just find it so bizarre that this stuff is considered worthy of a mention when the conclusions of a peer-reviewed study in a renowned, respected journal are dismissed or at least considered unworthy of inclusion in the article."

The GNLD reference is cited in the Criticism section, not the Research section of the article. As such it is not being presented as research. The criticism section is open to opinion from sources that do not necessarily present supporting scientific data; however, GNLD backed up their criticism with some data, which included referenced methodologies and detection limits showing that their analysis found that Juice Plus had non-detectable levels of alpha-carotene, lutein and lycopene. The GNLD analysis is clearly referred to in the WP article as having originated from a competing supplement company. It is not being misrepresented as a journal article but instead is accurately described as a criticism originating from a competitor. It seems to me that the GNLD reference has been used with a NPOV.

"As for the GNLD page always having been available, just not visible to web searches - what is the effective difference between the two? It certainly isn't readily 'searchable' on the GNLD website (I have not located it yet); perhaps it's in an area with menu access restricted to distributors but available via the URL."

You are making very arbitrary assumptions that are untrue. The site is visible by Google search; that is how I found it. Why is it relevant whether or not you were able to find it using GNLDs search engine? Why assume that it is only available via restricted access to distributors? This assertion is totally untrue. I was able to find the analysis by navigating the GNLD homepage and it was freely available without restrictions.

"I don't actually remember anyone suggesting that the company had 'recanted' this marketing flyer, but I am open to correction there. Certainly it is a valid assumption that it had been withdrawn if all your efforts at the time to find it were fruitless."

I didn’t put much effort into locating it again after I had originally posted the citation, at which time it was readily available. But why make any assumptions about whether it was withdrawn. Maybe they were retooling their website when you last looked. Perhaps you did not look very hard. This is beside the point. The analysis exists and it is on the company website.

"I think that several reasons for not using this reference have already been given, for which a response would be welcome. Here they are, with a few more...It gives no results, just ticks in boxes"

So? The information presented shows that the levels of the nutrients in Juice Plus were nondetectable. In what way could they have presented that data that would be more compelling to you? It would not have been accurate to list the values as zero and they certainly couldn’t present a chart or bar graph to show non-detectable levels.

"it doesn't say who did the analysis and where"

So? Presumably GNLD did the analysis. GNLD is taking responsibility for the data and claims presented. The WP article makes no claims that this was an independent analysis but instead attributes it to GNLD. I see no problem with this aspect. No WP policy mandates that the information you asked for is required.

"it doesn't cite a peer-reviewed journal in which the results were published"

That is irrelevant. It is not being cited as research, it is cited as criticism from a competing company that did their own analysis and reported their findings and opinions. No peer-reviewd journal would publish a study that merely reported a comparison of vitamin content between two products. Such a study would be considered to be extremely mundane and would certainly be reported through means other than peer-reviewed journals. It is akin to when NSA publishes label claims about the content of their product. We cite those claims without questioning how NSA conducted the analysis and if there is conflicting data, we mention that too.

"GNLD's products compete in the same market as Juice Plus - quoting this article is tantamount to providing GNLD with free advertising via wikipedia - something forbidden by wiki rules."

That is a highly subjective interpretation of WP policy regarding advertising. It is no more advertising when we mention GNLD's analysis than when we list the claims about nutrient content that NSA provides on the Juice Plus bottle label. Besides, Juice Plus has a whole WP page, GNLD has one single line of text. Whose product is receiving the bulk of the advertising? I don’t see how any WP policy regarding advertising is being violated in this case.

In summary: (1) I would suggest that we look at the GNLD article as being akin to NSAs label claims about Juice Plus. We consider such data to be worth reporting, even though NSA never published their methodologies, and the results never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. (2) There are no published sources that mention assay results for lycopene, lutein and alpha-carotene content of Juice Plus. Therefore, the GNLD reference does not dispute exisiting data, it merely adds to it. If NSA had published such data, we would most certainly include it, but until then, GNLDs report stands as the only source to have ever commented on the assayed amounts of these 3 nutrients in Juice Plus. (3) The GNLD assay is mentioned in the Criticism section, not the Research section and, as with other sources menitoned in that section, it need nit have originated from a peer-reviewed journal.

TraceyR, while you may have objections to certain citations and content, please consider whether your objections are supported by WP policy and clearly frame your objections in the context of those policies. It seems that you are applying some very subjective criteria that are in many cases not consistent with WP policy. The yardstick here is not whether content meets with your approval but whether it satisfies WP policy. Rhode Island Red 03:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can live with TraceyR's latest edits on the GNLD content.[5] The old version read: “A chemical analysis of Juice Plus reported by GNLD International, a competing supplement company, showed that Juice Plus Orchard/Garden Blend did not contain detectable levels of alpha-carotene, lycopene, or lutein.” and the new version reads: “An unpublished chemical analysis of Juice Plus reported by GNLD International, a competing supplement company, is claimed to have shown that Juice Plus Orchard/Garden Blend did not contain detectable levels of alpha-carotene, lycopene, or lutein. Although it could be argued that this was in fact "published", since publication on the internet is a form of publication, I am willing to concede in the interests of reaching a resolution. I assume that we can now put this issue to rest. Rhode Island Red 14:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetically, say I wrote a blog that read, "Juice Plus has been shown to cause incontinence." Would this be a "published" statement? Would it be worthy of being added to this article? I think competitors findings would probably be a level below my little blog entry too.Citizen Don 04:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Doesn't this mean that, since GNLD's claims are not verifiable, they should not be included at all, not even in the current form? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TraceyR (talk • contribs) 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

No, it does not. The statement made about the GNLD report is as follows: "An unpublished chemical analysis of Juice Plus reported by GNLD International, a competing supplement company, is claimed to have shown that Juice Plus Orchard/Garden Blend did not contain detectable levels of alpha-carotene, lycopene, or lutein." That statement is verifiable by the link that was included to GNLDs report. WP:VER would necessitate only that we can verify that GNLD made this claim, nothing more. Rhode Island Red 23:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

SNAEMS website withdrawn in 2002

The SNAEMS website referenced in the article was withdrawn in 2002; it had not been updated since 1999 and has since been replaced (see withdrawal announcement page quoted below).

Data from the Special Nutritional Adverse Event Monitoring System website for dietary supplements has not been added to or updated since 1999, and the website has now been removed. The information previously available on dietary supplement adverse event reports on this website was very limited and was provided in a manner that made it difficult for users to appropriately interpret the adverse events.

The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) is currently evaluating how best to provide adverse event data in a manner that is useful, meaningful, and appropriate. By doing so, CFSAN hopes to be able to provide the best information about all adverse event reports on a user-friendly website.

More information regarding the enhancement of this website will be posted here as it becomes available and as funding permits.

Thank you.

---

See Letter to Stakeholders: Announcing CAERS, the CFSAN Adverse Event Reporting System August 29, 2002

The material from this site and the reference to SNAEMS therefore need to be removed from the article. Since the relevant content is doubly referenced, someone with access to both sources (SNAEMS and the NSA Virtual Franchise Owner's Manual (2002)) will need to sort this out. It would be good to check if there is a newer edition of this manual available and, if so, what it says about adverse effects. (As an aside, can sources not available to the general public be cited?) TraceyR 13:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Special Nutritional Adverse Event Monitoring System discontinued collecting reports in 2002, although this would have no bearing on reports of adverse events received by SNAEMS prior to that time. An active link to the adverse event reports on Juice Plus collected by SNAEMS is still available and is included in the WP article. Since SNAEMS has now stopped collecting reports, it is likely that adverse events associated with the use of Juice Plus have been under-reported. No new reporting system has been implemented to monitor AEs associated with supplement use. The Juice Plus AEs reported to SNAEMS are very similar to those reported by other sources (i.e. GI side effects, etc.) so the information collected by SNAEMS is not controversial or contradicted by other sources. Rhode Island Red 23:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Archived

This page was getting absurdly long (over 200K) so I've gone ahead and archived it. Also, I saw that some people in this discussion seem to be particularly, erm, articulate, to the point of creating multiple posts that were multiple paragraphs long. May I gently suggest that this may not be the most effective way of communicating? In my experience, the longer that a post is, the less likely that (most) other people are going to actually read it. I'd like to encourage everyone in this discussion to work harder on keeping comments brief and focused. If you have multiple points to cover, then it may be more effective to bring them up in separate sections, rather than trying to cover everything all in one post. Thanks, Elonka 17:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No longer use Juice Plus

---I started a time ago (friend was selling it) and I had my son use it too. Needless to say, we both had explosive diarrhea. My son was becoming dehydrated because he did not inform me of his episodes. At the time, I thought I had a stomach virus. We stopped taking the juice plus and we both became "well" again. Yes, I did fill out the "research paper" but of course, no response. 216.242.134.146 01:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Concerned

Plotnick Study and Freedman Comments

The previous discussion on this topic was still active prior to being archived. Since the issue will probably be raised again, I thought it would be fitting to start a new heading and include my reply to TraceyR's last post on the topic.[6]

TraceyR said: Regrettably the issue cannot be 'put to rest' there. Just to clarify a few points: the overgeneralisation you object to was never made: no-one claimed that Juice Plus "reduced endothelial function" (nor indeed improved it). The amendment which was removed stated '... leading the researchers to conclude that the combined intake of Juice Plus and Vineyard Blend "significantly decreased the detrimental effect of a high-fat meal on endothelial function"'. I see no reason for objecting to this statement and propose that it be reinstated.

Reply: The issue is whether we should state specifically that Juice Plus minimized impairment of "brachial artery vasoactivity" or whether we should go with the more generalized statement using “endothelial function” in its place. As I have repeatedly attempted to point out, the study did not look at global measures of endothelial function; it looked at a very specific test involving brachial artery vasoactivity (BART). This is reflected in the title of the study which does not mention “endothelial function” but instead mentions “brachial artery vasoactivity”. The study measured post-occlusion vasoactivity of the brachial artery and on that I am sure we are in agreement. It is simply less accurate to refer to "endothelial function" as this is not what was directly measured.

Whatever you may think to be the issue, the point is what the article actually said, not what you would like it to have said; there is more to the article than the title. The researchers concluded that the combined intake of Juice Plus and Vineyard Blend "significantly decreased the detrimental effect of a high-fat meal on endothelial function". While you may prefer your own verbiage, that is what the authors of the study in question wrote. TraceyR 19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR said: The Plotnick data on percentage decrease in vasoactivity following a high-fat meal, as depicted in Fig. 1, is clear (baseline percentage decrease in vasoactivity, 4-week percentage decrease): Placebo group: 40,9%, 37,6%; JP group:45,1%, 16,6%; JP&V group: 47,5%, 1,7%. In other words, the improvement in the placebo group (all figures rounded) was 8%, slightly up from the 3-week figure; in the JP group 63% (significantly better than at 3 weeks) and in the JP&V group it was 96% (a dramatic improvement on the 3-week result). It is certainly not splitting hairs nor a matter of opinion: the additive effect of Vineyard Blend is very significant and Freedman's statement totally inconsistent with the data. If you like, I'll prepare a small table for the article which will show the figures for the 3 groups and demonstrate that Freedman's position is untenable.

Reply: The effect of Juice Plus Vineyard Blend was not additive. First, Plotnick stated that the effects of the 2 regimens were “similar”; the authors never stated that the effect of VB was additive. Secondly, Freedman’s published comments specifically stated that the effect of Vineyard Blend was ‘’not’’ additive. Third, your own analysis of the data is incorrect. Plotnick’s study did not report a statistically significant difference between the OG/GB group and the OG/GB/VB group. Without such statistical support (i.e. a p-value showing that the magnitude of effect in these 2 groups differed from one another), one cannot say that there was a significant difference, no matter how large the apparent difference were in terms of percentage response. Those are hard and fast rules. While you may think the difference is significant, there is in fact no difference according to universally accepted criteria for data analysis in scientific research. We cannot add your unpublished analysis/interpretation of the data, particularly when it is so clearly contradicted by both the authors of the study in question, as well as by the published comments from Dr. Freedman

What Plotnick et al actually wrote was that JP&V had a "similar beneficial effect" (my emphasis) - an important omission on your part. And no, the authors didn't use the word additive - that came from Freedman. So what's the problem? In her summary of the study she wrote that it "presents intriguing data concerning a potential mechanism for the beneficial effects of flavonoid supplementation and adds to the growing information available demonstrating that substances rich in flavonoids enhance brachial function." She also wrote that the findings were "notable", her major criticism being their lack of clinical relevance (which was not the declared objective of the study). I do wish that you could see your way to presenting the data from studies in an objective way - that is what is expected here.TraceyR 19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR said: The addition of Vineyard Blend did not lead to an increase in total cholesterol and LDL because, as the figures show, the JP&V group did not experience an increase in either parameter. If Freedman meant to say that there was a smaller decrease for JP&V than for JP alone, he should have said that, but he didn't. As it stands, his statement is incorrect. This is not a matter of supposition or opinion but fact. My amendment to the article, since deleted, included these figures. I propose that it/they be reinstated.

Reply: Freedman (Jane) is a “she” not a “he”, and she was correct in her statement regarding cholesterol effects of Vineyard Blend. Freedman said "the addition of the vitamin supplement (Vineyard Blend) appeared to have no additional effect on brachial function and led to an increase in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol as compared with the juice concentrate alone.” Please note that Freedman did not say that addition of VB increased LDL and total cholesterol as compared with baseline but rather, as compared with the Orchard Blend/Garden Blend group. OB/GB decreased total and LDL cholesterol, while this decrease was eliminated when VB was added to the regimen; thus VB increased LDL and total cholesterol as compared with the OB/GB group. Freedman's comments were accurate.

Well, since that is what she wrote it will have to stand (are editorial comments really 'peer-reviewed'?), but it is still inaccurate. Since there was no regime which gave first JP and then JP&V, it is incorrect to refer to an increase rather than a difference. Noboby's perfect. TraceyR 19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR said: A statement earlier that JP/JP&V only affected vasodilation of the brachial artery is 'interesting', in that it might be taken to imply that the effect was specific to just this one artery. Is that what was meant? That would be a medical breakthrough! The study concluded that it affected endothelial function in general (in the context of the study). We are to report what was concluded (see DGG's clarification on Wp policy above), not apply our own interpretation to it.

Reply: Plotnick’s study measured vasoactivity only in the brachial artery. No conclusions can be made about the effect of Juice Plus on any other blood vessel. Different vessels respond differently to various agents and it does not follow that what happens in one vessel happens in all other vessels, such as, for example, the aorta or carotid artery, which are primary sites of injury in cardiovascular disease. We should limit ourselves to commenting on what the study measured -- post-occlusion vasodilation in the brachial artery.

Well, I reported on what was measured (see "percentage decrease in vasoactivity following a high-fat meal" above) but that didn't suit you there. But now it suits you here! You can't make up your own rules just as it suits you. No, we should limit ourselves to what the report concluded. Let's get that peer review exercise rolling. TraceyR 19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR said: If you now concur that Freedman was incorrect on both points, we can move on and remove these errors from the article. For the sake of balance I suggest that the Freedman opinions be included, as before, with a subsequent explanantion of why they are inconsistent with the results of the study. TraceyR 17:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: You may think that Freedman was incorrect, and I have argued that you would be wrong to do so. But unless you have a published source that says Freedman was wrong in her interpretation, it would be inappropriate and against WP policy to add your dismissal of Freedman’s comments to the article. Rhode Island Red 00:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a published source now (see above) :-) TraceyR 19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried following this discussion, and I'll admit that I'm totally lost. Could someone please paraphrase this in simple terms, with a focus on what this would mean in terms of a change to the article? In other words, one of you wants the article to say "X" and the other wants "Y", correct? Please give me examples of just what exactly the "X" and "Y" versions are? --Elonka 03:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, you'll find them in the revision history. Somewhere here you also find Rhode Island Red insisting that edits are discussed here before changes are made to this article. So what is policy in the rest of WP? Elsewhere it seems to be fine to edit first and talk afterwards, but Rhode Island Red makes the rules here.

Basically my problem with this article in general is that Rhode Island Red is not just preventing it from becoming free advertising for Juice Plus (as such a laudable aim) but is seriously overcompensating. He/she seems to be (a) ignoring some positive results of studies, (b) giving competitive marketing material and dubious negative websites (e.g. the egregious Juice Plus 'research' blog, Stephen Barrett's various Quackwatch amd MLMWatch 'articles') precedence over published studies and (c) putting his/her own negative spin on the conclusions of published studies. He/she has accused me of "softening" the article to make it more Juice Plus friendly (I can't remember his/her exact words); my edits have usually attempted to change unwarranted negative interpretations of sources to reflect what was said in the original. I have neither the time nor the energy to cite chapter and verse on each and every case of what I see as biased, non-NPOV editing, so I'll just mention the research blog (since removed), the officially withdrawn SNAEMS site (which is still being defended, against WP rules, presumably because it contains unsubstantiated reports of negative side-effects), the competitive GNLD flyer cited as a source, his/her notorious defence of the "danger to the unborn fetus" 'source' (since removed) .... TraceyR 07:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR, I appreciate your frustration, but it's really not helpful to refer to another editor as being the problem here. The most effective way to implement controversial changes to the article is to bring up a single small "chunk" of the article here on the talkpage, engage in civil discussion about it, and build a clear consensus among multiple Wikipedia editors as to how that section of the article should be handled. Once this is done, it doesn't matter who disagrees -- the fact that there's a consensus, trumps all. If you don't have time to do this, I understand, but I would recommend that what time you do have be focused on those types of actions, rather than expending energy here just expressing concerns about one editor. If, however, that is how you wish to spend your time, then I recommend starting a "user conduct RfC" on the specific editor, which will then be a clear venue where that editor's behavior can be reviewed (and it gets things away from this article talkpage). For more information, please see: WP:RFC#Request comment on users. Other options include an RfC on the article itself, or a peer review. --Elonka 18:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove article?

I have come to the conclusion that this article should be removed entirely. It is obviously too controversial a subject to receive objective treatment here. It simply provides a forum for one dedicated Juice Plus detractor of unclear motivation (Rhode Island Red, with no WP interest other than this one article, who would be left with lots of time on his/her hands), and some others who are puzzled by the way the article has become so negatively slanted and who try to redress the balance. And then there are the people for whom the article ostensibly exists: the rest of the English-speaking world! What must they think of Wikipedia? TraceyR 07:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the article should be deleted, but if you feel strongly about this, you can submit it for deletion via WP:AFD. --Elonka 18:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR needs to stop making personal attacks on other editors. This is ridiculous. Please stop. 85.71.60.166 14:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TracyR is right when "attacking" ONE editor. The ONE editor who is admired for "keeping the community safe" when in fact he/she/it is sabatoging Wikipedia by their extremely biased views. Case in point, RIR said that in effect 'information wasn't being reported any longer but that if it were, more adverse effects would certainly be reported' how is that unbiased? Rhode Island Red is NOT a nueterel asset of Wikipedia but rather a Juice Plus detractor with a platform here to make his bias appear as fact, which it isn't. We are talking about fruits and veggetables shreeded up and stuck in capsules, not crack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.226.66 (talk • contribs) 15:38, May 18, 2007

• The above comment was not helpful. To be more effective, please concentrate your comments on the article, not on the editors who are working on it. In other words, your above comment doesn't have a single constructive suggestion on how to actually change the article. If you want a change, please state what it is. --Elonka 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerns

Hiya, I've been busy with other projects (like getting the Knights Templar article to Featured status), but decided I'd pop back in here to Juice Plus to see how things are going. I'm glad to see that there's still an effort to keep the article as referenced as possible. However, I'm sorry to see that edit wars are still continuing, that ad hominem attacks are continuing (from both sides) and that some editors (from both sides) seem to be fixated on this article, to the exclusion of any other work on Wikipedia. Really, with the amount of energy that you folks have put into this one page, you could have created a couple dozen other encyclopedia articles by now! I also have to admit concerns that we're again seeing overly-detailed information creeping its way back into the article text. For example, the list of ingredients that is showing up in the Product Description section. Wasn't that the reason that we set up an infobox, was to get rid of the lists in the text? My recommendation is that this information be removed or merged into the infobox, and that we concentrate on making the article as readable as possible for general readers. --Elonka 17:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka -- I fully agree about the time spent on this and the need (or lack thereof) for a peer review. In my time following this article (more than a year) I am starting to see a trend developing where a JP user or distributor or simply a fan finds the page and starts lodging lots of complaints since the article does not match to either JP marketing materials or match their personal experiences with the product. In any case Rhode Island Red spends an inordinate amount of time defending the page, which ultimately leads to a peer review or senior reviewer who changes the content, but ultimately doesn't satisfy folks who want the article to present JP in a favorable light. I can't imagine how frustrating this must be for RIR. If she stops responding, all of this work will be lost and the page will mirror JP marketing materials. If she keeps responding, her research and other potential Wikipedia entries suffer. The thing that is the most concerning about this whole process is that the long arguments on both sides are moot. The real issue is the general tenor of the article -- and as long as Wikipedia gives a voice to those who will reference their work, the article will always be controversial to JP users/distributors/fans, because there happen to be a large number of folks questioning JP's business model, efficacy and marketing. For example, as a Christian I can't stand some of the articles regarding subjects important to my faith, but I realize I can't make wikipedia an advertisement for my faith and that there are many people out there who don't agree with me. I can't spend the time fighting edits in those articles for they ultimately won't change. I don't know the resolution, but there clearly aren't enough folks like RIR out there with subject matter knowledge and a passion (probably stirred by edit wars here more than anything else) to present the truth as they see it. I guess the only solution is for some of the rest of the neutral users to stand up and let RIR take a break -- but frankly and sadly most of us don't care if a product is misleading as long as it is not effecting us. I know I don't care enough to edit frequently on this page. For all of our sake could both sides please take a break and work on other matters -- this article has been peer reviewed, argued over way too much. Tbbooher 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tbbooher, I totally respect your wish for everyone to step back for a minute. I feel the same way. Luckily, I'm too busy to get caught up in the daily edit battles. I would like for you to consider what it's like for someone who doesn't agree with RIR though. I don't think RIR is the lone defender of the neutrality of the article as you seem to characterize her. Do you see the kind of references she brings to the table? We get competitor websites and biased article getting more attention than published studies. There aren't a "large number of folks questioning JP's business model, efficacy and marketing" but there are a few and RIR has made sure almost everyone of them is well represented. Please don't assume the views opposite to RIR as being imcompatable with a good article. Personally, I would really just like to see a neutral article.

Elonka, I couldn't agree with you more about the preponderance of overdetailed information. I would like to see an infobox too.Citizen Don 05:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough Citizen Don, I just feel the same way Elonka does regarding the time spent on the article and have seen some POV opinions fought by RIR since I have been watching this page (most were in the past with some JP spokespersons showing up). I must admit, however, that I have not been able to read the recent long edit discussions and haven't read any of the references so I don't know if they are biased or not. Moreover, my research (in math) is not anything close to nutrition. Tbbooher 11:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. However, can I please ask that we all work harder to get away from talking about the editors, and stick to discussing the actual article itself? --Elonka 06:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tbbooher: You were very accurate in your assessment of the situation and I appreciate the comments. Rhode Island Red 23:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka: I agree that many of the comments have been very long. Might I suggest, in keeping with your comment, that you avoid using vague heading titles such as "Concerns". It opens the door to long rambling replies. Instead, please use thread titles that refer to specific content issues, as outlined by WP:TPG, which states "It should be clear from the heading which aspect of the article you wish to discuss. Do not write "This article is wrong" but address the specific issue you want to discuss". Thanks. Rhode Island Red 23:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My reply to Elonka's comment about the information under the Product Description heading is as follows. In your previous edit, you created a heading called Product Description; however, you did not carry forward or add any details that would qualify as a description of the product; just the names of the manufacturers and the cost of the product. The section needed to be populated with some information, which I subsequently added. Although you created an infobox that includes a list of ingredients, it only covered one of the products (Garden Blend); however, that product is not meant to be taken alone but rather in combination with Orchard Blend. The most critical question for article readers is the nutritional content provided when the two products are taken as directed. The information that I subsequently added (the RDI for the 6 labeled nutrients provided when Orchard and Garden Blend taken together as directed) is not an ingredient list and it is not duplicative of the information in the infobox. Relevant information has also been provided to indicate that these nutrients in Juice Plus are added post-processing and that they are obtained form outside suppliers. While Juice Plus gummies had been included in the Research section, we had no information in the article on what the gummies contain. In conclusion, the few new lines of information that have been added: (a) do not make the article "less readable" to "general readers" as suggested by Elonka (b) add valuable information that would be of obvious value to readers with an interest in the subject, and (c) the section needed to be populated with some information, which it now contains. If anyone wants to comment on this further, please start a new heading using an appropriate title as per WP:TPG. Rhode Island Red 00:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Citizen Don: You were very accurate in your assessment of the situation. I'm sure many editors (past and present) appreciate the comments. TraceyR 18:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, TraceyR. You can only keep telling the truth until someone listens!Citizen Don 02:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Adverse effects

I recommend deletion of this section. Currently it says: (1) that there's no firm data on adverse effects; (2) that in one study some subjects developed a rash; (3) that in one study some subjects developed symptoms that resolved spontaneously and were deemed unrelated to Juice Plus; and (4) that a handful of possible effects are listed in the distributor manual. The only source that I really like in the whole section is the FDA spreadsheet[7], and even that one is iffy, since it's a voluntary reporting system, and clearly a primary source with no secondary analysis. As such, I think the entire section should go, unless we can come up with a secondary source that provides proper analysis of the data. What do other editors think? --Elonka 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ.

Some sources are generally unacceptable for use as references in Wikipedia: ... An obsolete source is one that is out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher. Editors of articles on fast-moving subjects such as law, science, or current events should ensure they use the latest sources.

The FDA spreadsheet/SNAEMS site was officially withdrawn by the publishing authority in 2002 - this is no doubt why the article links to a web archive site rather than to the original source. It was always very suspect, in that no attempt was made to ascertain causality - a poor and a primary source - off with its head! TraceyR 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Think you should get more input from NPOV editors before suggesting deletion of any of this content. 85.71.60.166 14:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that? If the information is from an officially withdrawn source (and as such contrary to wiki guidelines) any editor is entitled to delete it without seeking consensus - it is just as a courtesy to other editors that I mentioned it here.TraceyR 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that we do not have a consensus to back the assertion that the FDA adverse events report violates any WP policy. The issue can be brought to a wider audience of editors for input, but until then it should not be deleted. As I see it, the fact the SNAEMS adverse event monitoring system no longer exists does not negate the use of information that they had previously collected. The relevant fact is that SNAEMS did receive such adverse event reports about Juice Plus and they did publish it on their system. The adverse events reported by SNAEMS are almost identical with those reported by other sources, including the manufacturer. The SNAEMS citation therefore provides unanimity; it does not suggest anything unusual. Rhode Island Red 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone who has commented on whether or not the Adverse effects section should be removed, has said to remove it. The only editor who wants it to stay is Rhode Island Red. The section should be removed from the article, and it is up to Red (and any other editors who wish to comment) to build consensus to re-include it. --Elonka 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, your assertion is completely untrue. Please review the prior discussions. The current adverse events section is the result of prior input and debate form several editors. As I said, if you want to get input from a wider group of editors than do so but do not attempt to claim a consensus for removal when none exists. You have not presented a thorough or compelling case for removal of any of the content in the section, let alone the entire section. You previously stated that the article states “that there's no firm data on adverse effects”, which is untrue. The article actually says that “Since Juice Plus is not regulated as a drug, information on adverse effects has not been collected through a systematic monitoring program imposed by any national regulatory agency.” Furthermore, you had raised concerns about the report of hive-like rash as an adverse event and asked for more input from “secondary source that provides proper analysis of the data”. In fact, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, a secondary source, did just that and mentioned the hive-like rash as a side effect. To date only three studies have made any attempt to monitor side effects. Two of these are currently mentioned in the article and their findings have been accurately summarized. Rhode Island Red 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The section is controversial and there was no consensus for it to be added. It gives undue weight to the opinion that the product causes adverse effects. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to present a balanced view of a subject, in a neutral fashion, and to cover the significant aspects of a subject. The "Adverse Effects" section that you added, in my opinion and the opinions of other editors, did not have sufficient justification for an entire section. One study which mentioned a hive-like rash which was unrelated to treatment, does not justify an entire section in this article. --Elonka 16:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, your decision to delete the adverse events section was arbitrary and it is disturbing that you have claimed that a consensus decision was made to delete this information when in fact no such consensus was ever reached; quite the contrary.

• Various parts of the AE section have been discussed over the past few months (e.g. [8]) and never once did anyone suggest deleting the entire section. By deleting it, you are unilaterally circumventing the input of other editors who have labored over the AE information in the article. The consensus of that discussion was that the information in the AE section was valid, adequately referenced, and not given undue weight. You have incorrectly claimed that a consensus was reached to delete the AE section, and this is plainly untrue.
• You have claimed that a consensus needs to be reached in order to justify inclusion of the AE information when, in In fact, the opposite is true. If you feel that this information should be deleted, you need to set out a justifiable case to support your position and build consensus through dialog on the talk page.
• If you have an issue with any of the specific references, then the proper procedure is to tag the reference or to adequately discuss the issue with other editors on the talk page, but unilaterally deleting the content is inappropriate.
• I do not see any valid basis for your claim that adverse events are given undue weight, and other editors have said the same. The AE section is but one of 4 different subsections under the research section and it is the shortest of the 4 sections.
• It is not, as you stated, an “opinion” that this product has adverse effects. This fact is supported by clinical data and has been recognized by the authors of two of the studies on the product, by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (a secondary source), and by the manufacturer.
• To support of your argument for deletion, you misstated the facts presented in one of the research reports mentioned in the article. You said that the hive-like rash reported in the Inserra study was deemed to be unrelated to treatment. This is completely untrue (nowhere did they mention that the rash was unrelated to treatment) and it would be helpful if you would confirm this for yourself and then kindly acknowledge the error. It does not help the discussion process when data is misrepresented to support a position. I'll assume that the mistake was made in good faith.
• Requests from 2 editors to seek outside input prior to deleting any of the AE information were ignored.

You have variously claimed the following reasons for removal of the AE section: (1) that concensus was reached to delete (2) that prior approval is required as a prerequisite for inclusion of the AE information (3) that AEs were given undue weight in the article (4) that the AEs associated with Juice Plus are mere opinions (5) that the hive-like rash reported in one of the studies was deeemed to be unrelated to treatment. Plainly, these assertions are incorrect.

Please do not bypass the discussion process and do not arbitrarily delete this section again, as such actions could be considered vandalism (i.e. blanking – cf. WP:VAN). Please work within the system to address any issues that you may have with the content of the article. And please take the time to carefully review past discussions so as not to launch circular debates and to avoid undermining the past efforts and opinions of other editors who have weighed in on the AE issue. If you have other reasons that you think might support your argument for deletion, then you can always present them on the talk page for further discussion. If instead you feel that an irreconcilable dispute has arisen, then there are appropriate channels for dispute resolution which you can pursue. Rhode Island Red 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Rhode, you are the only editor who wants to include that section. Please see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. --Elonka 21:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, you have been sufficiently warned about the impropriety of deleting this content without justification and without following proper procedure. Your actions qualify as disruptive editing. You have even gone as far as to recently petition me to abstain from editing the article [9] (i.e. driving away productive editors) which is also a violation of WP:DE.

You have repeatedly claimed that a consensus exists to delete the content,[10][11][12][13] and as I have repeatedly pointed out, it is plainly obvious that no such consensus was ever reached. In actuality, you are the only editor who has suggested removing the entire section, you have not provided sufficient justification to defend your assertion, you have repeatedly ignored my comments on the talk page without replying,[14][15][16] you have ignored requests from me and one other editor to not delete the content and to solicit additional input from other editors, [17][18] you have failed to acknowledge the prior discussions on this topic in which it was agreed that the content should stay,[19] and you have ignored the fact that editors other than myself have contributed to the content in this section since it was restored.[20]

You first did a re-write of the article on Feb 17,[21] at which time I found it curious that you had arbitrarily omitted the section on adverse effects. I pointed out the omission immediately on the same day, [22] assuming it was a mere oversight, and you acknowledged it without voicing any objection to its re-inclusion.[23] The adverse effects section was restored on Feb 24 [24] and you failed to comment on it for the next several months until May 12.[25] At that time, you suggested deleting the entire section and then you unilaterally deleted it on May 17,[26] claiming that a consensus supported your decision, when in fact no editor other than you had said that the section should be deleted. It is now becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith underlying your removal of this content. Please stop deleting it and stop falsely claiming that your deletion is supported by a consensus. If you persist, this issue will be brought to the attention of WP administration for remedial action. Rhode Island Red 01:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Adverse effects - arbitrary section break 1

Elonka, I would like to thank you for your impartial efforts to improve this article. On my talkpage you will find that you were the first person to welcome me to Wikipedia (thanks again) which of course was followed by several unjustified warnings from RIR to change my ways or be gone. But anyhow, I agree with you that the Adverse Effects section should be removed until relevent and reliable information on the subject can be gathered.Citizen Don 06:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Citizen Don, the warnings you received were in keping with WP policy because you repeatedly focused your commnents on other editors rather than on the content itself. To resolve this editorial dispute requires that we focus on specific details rather than simply saying me too...I don't like that section. I have laid out the history and the details that I think are relevant; so far nobody has attempted to address them. I would like to see this debate get back on track and to see some of the relevant details discussed. Rhode Island Red 13:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the removal of this section. Remember the onus of consensus is on those seeking to include, not those seeking to remove. Matthew 20:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, first, specific issues about this content have been raised and simply saying that you agree with deletion does not address those issues nor does it help us in reaching a consensus. Comments should be framed in terms of specific content in the article, how that content jibes with WP policy, and how it can be improved. Second, once again you are reminded that the AE section in question has been in place for a long time as a result of consensus and has been tacitly and explicitly approved prior by various editors prior to its very recent deletion. It would have ben helpful if you had read and understood the editing/talk page history of the AE section that I provided yesterday. Those who seek to delete the content need to achieve a consensus to do so; no consensus is needed at this point to revert the deletion because there was no justification for deleting it in the first place. Lastly, I also couldn’t help but notice that the last 3 users to post comments on your talk page have been quite miffed with your editing on various articles. Perhaps you should review some of the basic WP policies and consider how to make your contributions and comments more constructive. Rhode Island Red 01:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the inclusion of the "Adverse Effects" section. Every single editor here at the talkpage wants it gone, except for Red. We have one source, from one study, that says that subjects developed a rash. No other studies cited a rash. We have another study that says that there were various symptoms, but that they were unrelated to treatment. We have no other reliable secondary sources. This is not sufficient material for an entire section on "Adverse Effects," which gives Undue Weight to the topic. The article already has plenty of indication in the lead that there are controversial studies, and it has a Criticism section. It does not also need a section header saying "Adverse Effects". --Elonka 01:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The header title "Adverse Effects" does not imply that the product has adverse effects any more than the headers "Cardiovascular Effects", "Antioxidant Effects", and "Nutrient Absorption" necessarily imply that the products have those effects. If you think the subheading gives undue weight, then why not simply propose a new title that you find to be accurate but less objectionable and then we can discuss it. It is the norm is any report on a pharmaceutical or botanical product to include known or possible adverse effects, as well as therapeutic effects, in even the most basic of product descriptions. This is not an unusual format that the article is currently following; on the contrary it would be a strange omission to not include such information when it exists in the public domain. As I had pointed out previously, Memorial Sloan Kettering, a reliable third party source, also commented on AEs,[27] which establishes the notability of such information. And I don't see how the article having a Criticism section is relevant to AEs? The details on AEs are not criticism, they are simply facts. Do people normally consider it to be criticism when they see adverse effects listed on a bottle of nasal decongestant? Rhode Island Red 01:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Memorial Sloan Kettering page refers to one study, by Inserra, "Immune function in elderly smokers and nonsmokers improves during supplementation with fruit and vegetable extracts." In that one study, a few of the subjects developed a rash. Evidently elderly subjects. Now, if a rash were a common side effect from multiple studies, or there were newspaper or magazine articles that commented on how JP often causes a rash, I could see including it. But one study, with a few elderly subjects, a few of whom developed a rash? Well, I'm sure that it was unpleasant for the subjects, and I don't mean them any disrespect, but I just don't see the incident as notable enough to include in the Wikipedia article. --Elonka 02:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that the reason we should not include the Inserra study or the Memorial Sloan Kettering report, which both described hive-like rashes in some patients, is because other studies didn’t report the same side effects. That seems way off base. In every other section where we discuss the product’s effects, we seem to have no problem with the fact that the studies produced conflicting results. I don’t see why we should handle AEs any differently. How are we supposed to know why subjects developed particular AEs in one study but not another. Perhaps it was due to the duration of treatment or the age of the subjects. That doesn't seem like something we as editors should be speculating on; instead we should just report the facts that are available. Also, as I pointed out before, it would be inappropriate to make a personal judgment call as to the notability of the information on hive-like rashes, when notability has already been established by the fact that Memorial Sloan Kettering included this information in their product information sheet. Your dismissal of the hive-like rash AE based on what you perceive to be a low incidence in users, even if it were valid, still wouldn’t justify your previous deletion of the whole AE section, since the other gastrointestinal AEs appear to be at least somewhat common and the manufacturer has even acknowledged them. A third study, (Houston et al. 2007) which is not curently cited in the article, also described the early onset of GI AEs (of sufficient severity to cause the subjects to drop out of the study early) in some users of Juice Plus. Rhode Island Red 02:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Inserra study and the Memorial Sloan Kettering report are the same thing. The MSK report references the Inserra study.[28] They are not two independent sources, they're just one study, on some elderly patients, a few of whom developed a rash. It's not worth including in the Juice Plus article. --Elonka 02:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn’t claim that they were 2 independent sources. Inserra was the primary sources and MSK was the secondary source. The secondary source (MSK) describing the side effects in the Inserra study (the primary source) establishes the notability of the information. It is not relevant that this study was in “some elderly subjects” and although you might consider a hive-like rash to be trivial, it is not; hive-like rashes are universally regarded as adverse effects, as worthy of mention as any other adverse effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) 03:28, May 25, 2007

If you want to claim MSK as a secondary source, be aware that in MSK's own analysis of that study, they said it was a poor study, and they didn't even bother mentioning the rash in their summary of its results.[29] (see "Literature summary and critique") saying The design of this study is inadequate. Again: The rash on a few elderly test subjects from one sloppy study is not notable enough to include in the Wikipedia article. --Elonka 03:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That is an inconsistent position with respect to the other content in the article. Rosemary Stanton described the Wise study as a poor study as well, but we included both Wise's data and Stanton's comment in the JP article. Other Juice Plus studies were also poorly designed and the article mentions both the studies and their limitations (i.e. not double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, etc.). For consistency, we could mention MSKs assessment of the Inserra study (i.e. that it was poor/sloppy, etc.) where we mention that study's findings of hive-like rashes in test subjects. Rhode Island Red 04:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is off-topic, but yes, I'd be willing to agree to that. Specifically, that in the "Nutrient Absorption" section of the article, we add a line that says, "One of these studies (link to Inserra) was criticized by the Memorial Sloan Kettering center for inadequate design, since it was not randomized, blinded, or placebo-controlled." [30] --Elonka 04:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, we were discussing the Adverse Effects section, not the Nutrient Absoprtion section. You raised the point about MSKs comments on inadequate study design in relation to our discussion of the AE section. The qualifying statement about study design should go in the AE section where Inserra's AE results are mentioned (i.e. hive like rash). In that section we should also add the MSK reference, since MSK is a secondary source that has commented on Inserra's AE results. Rhode Island Red 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Red, there should not be an AE section, because there is not sufficient reliably sourced information to put in it, and because it adds yet another negative section to an article that is already extremely negative. As I understand it, you seem to have some desire here to turn the Wikipedia article into something like a pharmaceutical insert that lists every possible bad thing about Juice Plus that you can find. Your Point of View appears to be that Juice Plus is a bad product and that the public needs to be warned about it. That's your POV. Other people have different Points of View. You need to respect that there are different Points of View here, and work with others to create a balanced article, otherwise you are doing what's called "POV pushing." If you want all these negative details to be available on the internet, including Adverse Effects, long lists of ingredients, details from release forms, percentages of every single nutrient, quotes from every study that's ever had anything bad to say about Juice Plus, etc., I recommend that you create a webpage with all this information, rather than insisting that it all go into the Wikipedia article. --Elonka 16:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Amen, Elonka. Some of the editors who casually look in on this article's progress seem to mistakenly believe RIR is the defender of the article's neutrality so your clarity and impartiality is extremely refreshing. The negative bias to this article is so strong that I find it astounding. It's the reason why I (a person who has no financial interest in this product) became an editor. The Adverse Effects section should clearly be removed and the defenses for its inclusion read as unintentionally comedic.Citizen Don 06:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Country of origin and place of manufacturing and packaging

I have skimmed the site and cannot find the country of origin for the fruits and vegetables that are in Juice Plus as well as where the manufacturing and packaging is actually done.

My elderly aunt has started using Juice Plus - for many of the health benefits listed in the brochures and marketing cd but is interested in knowing this information. Anyone out there have any info? --Vsniece 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)vsniece

The manufacturer does not publicize the source(s) of the produce used in the products. However, at least some (if not all) is purchased pre-processed from third-party suppliers, as outlined by Wise et al. 1996. Wise reported that NAI purchases acerola cherry powder from Schweizerhall Inc. in Piscataway, NJ (a bulk supplier of raw materials and ingredients to the dietary supplement industry), and soy-derived vitamin E powder and Dunalliela salina (algae as a source of beta-carotene) from a chemical company in La Grange, IL called Henkel Corp., which now goes by the name Cognis (http://www.cognis.com). The sources of other ingredients have not been divulged. NAI does not appear to process any of the produce at their facility and it is likely that all of the fruit/vegetable ingredients are purchased pre-processed from other sources and merely encapsulated at the NAI facility. Perhaps this information should be included in the article. Any comments? Rhode Island Red 17:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is correct to state that "NAI does not appear to process any of the produce at their facility". In addition to the HQ at San Marcos, there is also a facility at Vista, CA. In view of the fact that the juicing and dehydration processes are a jealously guarded commercial secret, it would seem unlikely that these processes would be sub-contracted to other companies. These issues would need to be clarified and verified before any change to the article would be warranted - supposition just isn't sufficient. TraceyR 19:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is apparently correct unless there is evidence to the contrary. I am unaware of any evidence that the “juicing and dehydration processes are a jealously guarded commercial secret”. If this is a jealously guarded secret, it would not be guarded by NAI but by Schweizerhall Inc. and Cognis Inc., the chemical supply companies from which NAI purchases the pre-processed fruit and vegetable powders used in Juice Plus. It seems that the only secret NAI is jealously guarding is the fact that they buy at least some (if not all) of their fruit and vegetable ingredients as pre-processed extracts from other sources. Rhode Island Red 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wise study is already suspect. I would be reluctant to add any other information from that study unless it can be shown to have appeared in other secondary sources. --Elonka 22:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Which specific information do you think is suspect? Are you suggesting that Wise misreported the source from which NAI purchases the pre-processed fruit and vegetable powders used in Juice Plus? The data from this study is unreliable because it was a poorly designed study and carried out by an executive of the company that manufactures Juice Plus, and this has been noted by secondary sources; however, there is no reason to think that John Wise, the study's lead author, misstated the source from which the ingredients were purchased. In any case, this is a moot point because no new text has been proposed or added and further debate is unnecessary. Rhode Island Red 00:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Excessive detail

Per discussions above, I removed the following section from the article as excessively detailed.

According to information on the product labels, the suggested daily 4-capsule Juice Plus regimen provides the following nutrients (in % Reference Daily Intake with corresponding amounts in parentheses): 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). These nutrients are purchased from third-party suppliers and added as fortifiers to the product's plant powders. According to the manufacturer, the additives are used to restore the levels of micronutrients lost during processing and to ensure uniformity.

Juice Plus Gummies, a candy-like supplement for children, were shown to consist of 85% corn syrup and 10% beef gelatin and to contain the following nutrient amounts, based on the recommended daily regimen of 6 gummies (approximate percentage of the adult Reference Daily Intake in parentheses): vitamin C 107.1 mg (179%); vitamin E 82.6 IU (275%); vitamin A 14.8 mg (494%); thiamin 1.39 mg (93%); riboflavin 0.05 mg (3%); niacin 2.51 mg (13%); pyridoxine 0.64 mg (32%); zinc 0.62 mg (4%); magnesium 13.65 mg (3%), calcium 94.5 mg (9%); potassium 58.4 mg (2%); and copper 0.32 mg (16%).

If someone wishes to re-include it as an infobox, that's fine, but it's just cluttering up the main text. --Elonka 22:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, please do not remove content from the article without adequate discussion. After you had recently raised this issue, I posted a length explanation of the justification for including the information, [31], to which you never replied. What is the point of opening a discussion if you do not participate and instead just delete the information anyway? It is not proper WP procedure to delete content without sufficient justification. You argument centers around the fact that you find the information to be “clutter” but as I have pointed out, the information is valuable, and to the best of my knowledge there is no WP policy that warrants removal of content solely on the basis of a lone opinion that it is “clutter”. Rhode Island Red 23:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Proper WP procedure is to build consensus. The consensus was to remove the information, though if you really want it back in the article, it might work in an infobox. Keep in mind WP:NOT#INFO, specifically #9 that Wikipedia is not the proper place for lists of statistics. Another way to handle it though, might be to put all the ingredient lists at Wikisource, and then we'll add a Wikisource box to this article. --Elonka 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No consensus was reached regarding deletion of this specific information. The information is not statistics and is not a mere ingredient list. I responded to your previous comments regarding this information [32] and you did not reply. It is not proper procedure to delete content that is still under discussion. It may be acceptable, as an alternative, to integrate the information thorugh info boxes or Wikisources but it is not acceptable to merely delete the content. Rhode Island Red 00:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

RIR, aside from yourself, can you please provide any diffs of any editors who wanted that information included? --Elonka 00:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, the procedure is that if you want material to be deleted, you need to provide sufficient justification; so far you have not. I have given justification as to why this material should be included and you did not bother to reply to any of the points I raised. Rhode Island Red 00:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. This article went through extensive debate over the last several months, as you know. Then we came up with a consensus version in February.[33] Any controversial changes to the article from that version, have to achieve consensus on the talkpage before they can go into the article. It's not a matter of "squatters' rights", where someone can add something and then say, "Okay, I've added it, now you have to get consensus to remove it." Since February, you made several controversial additions. We have checked consensus here on the talkpage, and there was not consensus for that information to be added. So, it stays out of the article unless there is consensus to put it back in. To repeat: It's not about adding something and then insisting that other people get consensus to remove it, it's about getting consensus before something controversial can be added to the article. If you have other controversial additions, please suggest them here on the talkpage first. --Elonka 00:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Which WP policy dictates that any new content added to an article has to meet with prior approval? WP allows anyone to contribute content without a priori approval, and if there are objections, editors can, with justification, delete the content or voice their objections on the talk page. There is nothing controversial about the information in question. It is all verifiable and was adequately referenced. If you initiate a dialog to question why content has been included (as you did previously), and sufficient justification is provided, then it would be appropriate to respond; you did not do so. You asked for justification and it was provided but you deleted the content anyway. Rhode Island Red 00:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Elonka on this one. Just reading that paragraph gives me a headache.Citizen Don 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I too agree with Elonka. The proposed deletions were announced here; there was no objection and a couple of editors were in agreement. In such cases as the long, detailed list of ingredients, less is more - after all, we do want people to read the article, not be put off by excessive detail.TraceyR 08:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Elonka, clearly we've established consensus here not to include this section. Matthew 20:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)