Talk:Sunrider

Brands Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

There are several misspellings on this page. Just thought I'd bring it to someone's attention. 207.16.63.209 17:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Jeremie Delvoie[reply]

Support for Sunrider petitioning FDA to allow stevia in 1996

This discussion is to resolve that there is ample support for the statement that Sunrider successfully petitioned the FDA to allow the use of stevia as a dietary supplement. This discussion originated on User_talk:76.166.193.141. I stated in a neutral voice that Sunrider petitioned the FDA to allow the sale of stevia in the US as a dietary supplement. For proof I provided links to 2 FDA documents. Although the information was contained in these documents (as detailed on the talk page), it was clear to User_talk:Axlq. Here are 5 links to non-Sunrider materials that unequivocally state that Sunrider petitioned the FDA to allow the sale of stevia in the US as dietary supplement. Under the DSHEA, stevia was not allowed as a dietary supplement (the article stevia is incorrect- DSHEA did not allow sale of stevia), until Sunrider petitioned the FDA successfully to allow the sale in the US as a dietary supplement.
http://www.natmedlaw.com/NML%202007/SEPT2007NML.pdf (see page 3)
http://www.gcnm.com/newsletter/newsletter_february_2008.html
http://www.thenhf.com/articles/articles_790/articles_790.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=7ZtWW8oor6UC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=sunrider+stevia+fda&source=bl&ots=topHE2kuES&sig=YDUj-xSukyIwxQWEmCcFLNLpwjU&hl=en&ei=R2mYSqrzKpSksgOEk6CvAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=sunrider%20stevia%20fda&f=false
http://www.intent.com/donnagates/blog/sweetener-diabetics-other-health-conscious-people-most-want-avoid

The first source looks interesting. It shows that Sunrider had already gotten in legal trouble with the FDA over stevia in the past, resulting in Sunrider agreeing not to sell stevia unless the FDA approved it as a food additive. Therefore, the petition was an attempt to get out of that agreement in light of the DSHEA passed by Congress. However, it was the mandates of the DSHEA, not the petition, that forced the FDA to modify its stance. The FDA was already forced to allow stevia as a dietary supplement; the result of the petition allowed Sunrider specifically to sell it in conflict with Sunrider's earlier consent decree.

The second source (gcnm.com) fails WP:RS criteria. It's essentially a paraphrase of the Wikipedia article on stevia, authored by an "owner of a health food store, and and actor" and contains no references, just claims.

The third source (thenhf.com) says that the passage of the DSHEA merely allowed Sunrider to file a letter, but says unequivocollay that it was the DSHEA's mandates that forced the FDA to change its stance. Other sources agree with this.

The fourth source (books.google.com) states that the FDA had to follow the mandates of the DSHEA, and Sunrider's notification caused the FDA to acknowledge that fact, but does not state that Sunrider's petition is what changed the FDA's stance.

The last source appears to be a blog and fails WP:RS criteria.

In light of those sources, I would say it's correct to write that Sunrider successfully petitioned the FDA to sell stevia as a dietary supplement. It is an interpretive stretch, however, to state that Sunrider's petition resulted in the FDA changing its stance. That is a misrepresentation of the sources, violating the WP:SYN policy. =Axlq 05:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 11 edits to article

The large addition made to the article by Pelegrim on January 11 appear to have a few problems:

a seemingly biased tone
the section addresses issues that deal more with people in the company's management, and not with the company itself.
there are words that would indicate that this is copied/pasted (plagiarized) from a third party source (unknown). E.g., several verbs in the present tense, suggesting that the material was copied from an article when the legal proceedings were actually taking place in the 1990s.
This section gives disproportionate weight to one single incident that is not necessarily representative of the company's history and activities in general.

For these reasons, we should call into question the necessity of including the addition by Pelegrim. Admins, please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.108.174 (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits don't seem to be in harmony with Wikipedia standards for formatting, relevance, and writing style. It appears that the added text is likely copied and pasted, and isn't necessarily a relevant addition in all its length. This sort of large addition that drastically changes the course of the article must be discussed with other editors and probably with admins as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.108.174 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference note 18

Reference 18 leads to a website that doesn't mention Sunrider at all. This brings into question the entire validity of the related information in the article. Should we remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Washingtonianbaby (talk • contribs) 03:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Practicing medicine without a license ?

The claims made to me for diagnosis of the 'actual' cause of my PD symptoms and "that it is in your head" ( what would my neurologist say to THAT ! ) ... and her ignorance that PD does not ALWAYS begin as tremor ... but that with the INDIGO device I could have my Sun Rider supplements adjust daily to prevent my symptoms AND that I would be buying from her ( even my MD does not try to sell me herbal remedies and he IS Chinese from Hong Kong and DOES like herbal when something like PD does not respond to L-Dopa. )

And no, when PD does not respond to L-DOPA it does not PROVE that you do not have PD ( others will have to wait for my autopsy results.

But NOTHING in this article would suggest just how far beyond, say, Scientology, this marketing scheme is able to go with their claims and products.

Comic : that they are a better alternative to chiropractors ! The unlicensed massage therapist visiting our seniors centre last week made THAT claim for herself and HER vitamin and herbal supplements program to rid me of my symptoms. In PD that would be a cure !

Why do these quacks not claim their Nobel prizes in physiology and perhaps the award for economics as well ?

Is there no editor experienced in tackling quackery on wikipedia who is able to take on this advert ? G. Robert Shiplett 11:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)