Talk:SmartFresh

Advertisification

Gah, how annoying this is. I started this article, and it was heavily edited by anonymous user 136.141.2.76 to cause the current blatant NPOV issues. Here's the relevant differences. As you can see, major relevant edits about its chemical structure were removed (?!), a new advertisment-sounding introduction was added to the introduction, and the controversies section was changed so it took a stance against the issues, despite wide-spread concerns of the problems, and while lacking references to support the new claims.

I think I'll have to revert it back now, while doing the painful work of keeping subsequent edits, and hope that major changes to the controversies section are referenced well. It's obvious why they need to be, and my original edits were. This time, much of the section was changed, even with reductions of information caused in the process, with absolutely no relevant references supporting the changes added, hence not supporting complementing articles with information. -- Northgrove 21:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've finished the revert and added this paragraph: It has however been claimed that this kind of storage is according to industry standard practices since over 40 years. to cover what was basically claimed in the former article, besides the ad-talk. -- Northgrove 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It happened again *sigh*

A complete rewrite of the article to replace it by apparent bias and unencyclopedic, irrelevant, and unreferenced, content from an anonymous user, efficiently turning it into an advertisement (diff log) was reverted by me again. Please do counter the arguments in the criticism section if you have anything to add (while including references for what you are claiming), please do add any other material to the article in usual fashion, but please do the edits more carefully and definitely do not replace the entire article with unreferenced material. If you have more material to come up with, and propose large rewrites where information may be lost in the process, please bring that up on this talk page first. I don't want to be a jerk reverting back edits like these, but I am forced to treat them as acts of vandalism if basic Wikipedia ethics are not even close to being followed. Anonymous users 136.141.2.76 and 71.102.1.144 -- please take note of Wikipedia Etiquette. -- Northgrove 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

IP2Location.com shows that IP address 136.141.2.76 maps to Rohm and Haas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which explains a few things of the kind of problems here, being behind this product. I hope they will work to give their company a better name in the future by following common Wikipedia etiquette. -- Northgrove 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And again

It's sad to see corporate interests subvert the wiki model, but I guess it's fairly inevitable with a low-readership article like this. The few readers that pass by sporadically and care to address the issue are never going to be a match for a salaried employee intent on non-neutral portrayal of their company/product. Zak 90.192.167.40 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to revert the advertising content & then remove the template.78.86.25.78 (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm a chemistry professor. I also happen to know quite a bit about this particular product, but am NOT affiliated with Agrofresh Inc in any way. I would like to increase the fact content and decrease the paranoia in this article, but after looking at the edit history I've become discouraged by the rampant deletions of someone with a clear agenda of their own. The routine demonification of chemical facts in society is heart breaking. Simply deleting things that you feel are "corporate speak" which may actually be factual information is also against the wiki model. Why don't you feel that the chemical structure of 1-MCP and information about how it is applied to produce and why anyone would want to use it on their produce isn't in the best interest of the general public. Wikipedia is supposed to be about the fact that information is power. And with that power we can make informed decisions. So please, do a little bit of real research before deleting something that you think is corporate lies. I think you'll find that the data on this particular product is very good and the studies are sound. With malnutrition and lack of access to affordable produce a problem around the world, surely we could express a few other opinions or even some real data about concerns that this will lower the price of produce. In fact, all it will lower is the amount of treatment that produce goes through to stay edible in long term storage.

Thank you,

Megan Jacobson, Jerome Idaho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.219.190 (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction for use on organic foods

Came here to find if 1-MCP is allowed for organic foods or not. Quote: "allowed for use with certified organic foods, and are therefore non distinguishable from non-treated products.[3] Though NOP does not allow its use on organic produce"

1. These two statements seem to contradict each other.
2. NOP is not linked or defined. Fixed, based on the French version
3. The referenced article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmartFresh#cite_note-3 doesn't even mention "organic" so I don't understand how it can be the reference to say that 1-MCP is "allowed for organic foods".

--Madeingermany (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

One company called out

Why is this one company called out? To me that doesn't add anything to the article...

"One customer of Smart Fresh is Carlson Orchards in Massachusetts, who provide apples to Still River Winery." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmartFresh#cite_note-7

--Madeingermany (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)