Talk:Açaí palm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Antioxidant activity of acai juice[edit]

I previously deleted the following statement as I believe the study is flawed or incredibly biased, as I put it in the change section:

"When a commercial acai juice was compared for in vitro antioxidant capacity against nine other fruit juices, wine or tea, it ranked lower than pomegranate, Concord grape or blueberry juice and red wine, was the same as black cherry or cranberry juice, and was higher than orange or apple juice and tea.[9]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markrobinson1982 (talkcontribs) 17:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The change was pretty immediately reverted. Apparently there's "no evident bias" and "it's published so is legit". I strongly disagree with both sentiments, but I will try to muster up evidence against the first.

First off, the research was performed by:

"Center for Human Nutrition, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095;
Lipid Research Laboratory, Technion Faculty of Medicine, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel; and
POM Wonderful, LLC, Los Angeles, California 90064"

This quote and, unless otherwise noted, all quotes are from:

Note that last line there. Surely there's no conflict of interest. Of course, they did only use their own product in the sample:

"A, POM Wonderful 100% pomegranate
(POM Wonderful LLC,LosAngeles,CA;15MAY07Y0038,16MAY07Y1804,10MAY07Y0137);"

Their product is enriched with PomX, which is just a bunch of antioxidants.

I could pour a capsule of antioxidants into water, but I couldn't then go claim that water has more antioxidants than wine.

As far as I know, açai is the only product that claims to have more antioxidants than pomegranate:

"Per gram, the acai berry’s pulp, which is really all that is used of the berry, has an antioxidant potency of 167 while pomegranates have 106 ... Since the berry itself cannot be transported from Brazil (it must be harvested, pulped, frozen, and then shipped)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This information misses the point of the Seeram study. Studies and comparisons of fruit pulp are not the same as comparing processed juices.--Paul144 (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I never stated that the studies were comparable. I don't think that page even references any legitimate studies. I just stated that açai producers claim to have more antioxidants than pomegranate. I suppose I could have found a better quote referring specifically to juice, but I felt that the quote I chose was sufficient to demonstrate the tangential point about açai producers' claims. Damncrackmonkey (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that it's also the only fruit tested that doesn't grow in California.

Unlike all the other juices that were either labeled as pure or 100% with added vitamins, the following were used for açai:

"acai juices (3),
A, Bolthouse Bom Dia Acai-Mangosteen
(Bolthouse Juice Products LLC, Bakersfield, CA; lot 061107, lot 051107, lot 062607),
B, Bossa Nova Acai Original
(Bossa Nova Beverage Group Inc., Los Angeles, CA; lot 09 16 07, lot 10 10 07, lot 10 09 07),
C, Sambazon Mango Uprising
(Sambazon, San Clemente, CA; lot ASA07029 APR 2007, lot 0610THA16PTK13, 4/07/2007, lot ASA07073 12 JUN 2007); "

Sambazon Mango Uprising is a "blend of Organic Açaí, banana, mango, apple and grape juice"

Bom Dia mixes the açai with other things including mangosteen, apple juice, and grape juice.

Bossa Nova only adds agave, but still does not indicate what percent is actually açai.

The sample with the (likely) highest percentage of açai (Bossa Nova) substantially outperformed the other two. Of course, there are products on the market that claim to be 100% açai, and the testers just chose to not use those even though they did for every other juice.

Between that and the fact that they only used an artificially enhanced sample for pomegranate juice, I believe this study fails to really give a clear indication about the true antioxidant levels of either pomegranate or acai juice, and believe that it should therefore not be referenced from this article.

At the very least, it needs its link updated to "", since that gives both the full text and a clearer picture about the nature of the study.

I added the above reference to the article allowing it to be read as a full report. The study by Seeram et al. is valid to include because it
  • was conducted by a group of well-respected scientists (UCLA authors)
  • was published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal
  • fairly evaluated a cross-section of national retail beverages, including the Pom Wonderful brand of pomegranate juice as sold publicly
  • included a test of phenolic content measured across all specimens (Table 3)
  • used different measures of antioxidant strength measured in all specimens (Table 4)
More manufacturers of superfruit juice products need to follow the example of Pom Wonderful: pay for objective research conducted by independent expert scientists who will publish the results, no matter what the outcome. I feel there is no evidence of bias in the Seeram publication.--Paul144 (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The assertion that respected authors published in a peer-reviewed journal are unassailable is the antithesis of the entire peer review process.
I do believe that the numbers published in the article are quite accurate. As a comparison between Pom Wonderful w/ PomX and numerous other juice products on the shelves, it is a legitimate study.
However, the sentence in question implies that açai juice has far less antioxidant properties than pomegranate juice. Since the study did not actually use either açai or pomegranate juice, I do not believe that conclusion is a valid one.
I recognize that there is a lack of substantiated information on the actual antioxidant capacity of açai juice, and can understand the rationale that this study (while flawed) still presents some tangible information and should be included on this page. Perhaps a rewording to something similar to the following would be an effective compromise:
"When three commercially available juice mixes containing unknown percentages of açai were compared for in vitro antioxidant capacity against red wine, tea, six types of pure fruit juice, and pomegranate juice with added antioxidants (provided by Pom Wonderful, the sponsors of the study), the average antioxidant capacity was ranked lower than the antioxidant enhanced pomegranate juice, Concord grape juice, blueberry juice, and red wine. The average was roughly equivalent to that of black cherry or cranberry juice, and was higher than that of orange juice, apple juice, and tea." Damncrackmonkey (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
That revision seems generally ok for the article, with the understanding it can always be re-edited.--Paul144 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that the following quote from "Antioxidants of açaí raw materials" needs to have its link updated to a working server or be deleted:

"A comparative analysis reported that açaí had intermediate antioxidant potency among a variety of frozen juice pulps tested. Antioxidant potency was: acerola > mango > strawberry > grapes > açaí > guava > mulberry > graviola > passion fruit > cupuaçu > pineapple.[5]" Damncrackmonkey (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree this study and the results are questionable because the samples appear to all be derived from a commercial supplier who may not have harvested and processed such a wide variety of fruits similarly.--Paul144 (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I am unable to find the full text of the article cited, so I am unable to verify your assertion about the origin of the samples. I would appreciate it if you would provide the link where you obtained this information. Damncrackmonkey (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
MATERIAL E MÉTODOS. As polpas (100% natural) de frutas comercializadas de amora, uva, açaí, goiaba, morango, acerola, abacaxi, manga, graviola, cupuaçu e maracujá foram obtidas aleatoriamente no comércio de Florianópolis, SC Brasil, em embalagens de 100g, e conservadas sob congelamento (–15±0,1°C).--Paul144 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I am still unable to access any content on as I have been unable to even ping the host on any computer I've used. If the link (which is the same as the one cited in the article) works for you and other people, I withdraw my complaint about that specific quote. Damncrackmonkey (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What about this study: "Research shows Brazilian acai berry antioxidants absorbed by human body" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The scientists cited in that study are in vitro biochemists and apparently do not have this view consistent with a more physiological interpretation.[2]
Also now are published regulatory guidance documents about keeping the antioxidant message in check on labels of food and beverage products -- Europe[3] and the USA.[4]
This is the new "reality" for the hundreds of product manufacturers who think they have an antioxidant story to tell. Most "antioxidant" foods or products do not contain sufficient amounts of the only confirmed dietary antioxidants -- vitamins A, C and E. Polyphenols like those in açaí do not count.--Zefr (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the "citation needed" at the end of this sentence: "Marketers of these products make unfounded claims that açaí and its antioxidant qualities provide a variety of health benefits, none of which has scientific confirmation to date." My reason is that it is not even possible to cite a source to prove an absence of data. If the absence of data is disputed, the data that does exist should simply be cited. --Theboogog, 18 November 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboogog (talkcontribs) 14:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My recent addition was reverted and I'd like to know why. I referenced a recent peer-reviewed and published study in Nutrition Journal that contradicts the claim that "When the entire scientific literature to date and putative health claims of açaí are assessed, experts concluded in 2011 that the fruit is more a phenomenon of Internet marketing than of scientific substance.[31][32]" The study I referenced is: Effects of Açai (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) berry preparation on metabolic parameters in a healthy overweight population: A pilot study, Nutrition Journal 10:45, 12 May 2011, doi=10.1186/1475-2891-10-45, Can anyone explain why this was reverted? Thanks Amazon00 (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the structure and results of this poorly designed study, it's startling to see that trash like this gets published. The authors admit an absence of blinding, no use of a control group and small sample size (10 in total), to which can be added no dietary control of the subjects and standard deviations so large that statistical significance within subjects as reported is not credible. One wonders: where is the quality control by the editorial board of this journal?
The statement in the article certainly still applies, as there is no outcome from this study worth describing: "When the entire scientific literature to date and putative health claims of açaí are assessed, experts concluded in 2011 that the fruit is more a phenomenon of Internet marketing than of scientific substance."
For the record, I was also unimpressed with the lead author's previous report on XanGo juice,[5] critiqued similarly by a different reviewer.[6] This kind of sloppy research brands Udani as careless and disrespectful of seeking truth through science. --Zefr (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Link hijacked?[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}Looks like the link "Pictures of açaí palms trees and fruit" at the end of the article has been hijacked and is now pointing to a commercial site rather than the Nature Conservancy article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddie283 (talkcontribs)

Thank you for pointing it out. I've changed the link back to the original one. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Polyphenols and Bias[edit]

I have removed the sentence denying the existence or credible scientific evidence for antioxidant activity of polyphenols in vivo. A simple search of google scholar will reveal that many studies have found polyphenols (namely in green tea rather than acai berry) can have antioxidant effects on cells. Others have found contrary results, but conflicting data is a far cry from the snake oil that the original paragraph made it out to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinu (talkcontribs) 23:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Dubious" section[edit]

I restored this section using a better source to replace the UK health blog. Here are a few other sources I found that satisfy WP:Reliable sources guidelines: Consumer Reports,CBC News, AZ BBB, Wired. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Good Job[edit]

Editors. The editor who had given significant (and biased) weight to a particular study of in vivo antioxidants had, I believe, done something similar to other pages. While the new information is somewhat technical, it is far more balanced. I had made a similar edit along those lines, mainly requesting that such discussion be moved to the page on polyphenols or antioxidants. However, this works too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Acai Berry Viral Spam[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Aminoacids condensation[edit] If proteint %(dry mass) > % aminoacids (in dry mass) then wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Acai-berry-fruit.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Acai-berry-fruit.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Improvement on the Fruit section[edit]

I improved on the Fruit section, simplifying it for ordinary encyclopedia users by identifying the fruit as Açaí berry, which already redirects to that section, but the section does not identifies it as such initially, I also brought together related single sentence paragraphs that were left scattered and undeveloped to form better paragraphs, and expanded some of them by adding more information with citations to support them. My effort was rewarded with an undoing by Rhode Island Red as being poorly sourced, unsourced, or misquoted, but I think that he is wrong and took a rash decision so I undid him. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I only said that because it was poorly sourced, unsourced, and misquoted. I've cleaned it up again. Statements that were unsourced[7][8] or unreliably sourced[9] were removed, and the text about the LA Times article has been edited for NPOV[10] (the article had been summarized in a one-sided manner). Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Those statements are well sourced, cited materials covers works of Nicholas Perricone, and it is properly written too and improves the section, making it better and simpler to understand. Have you asked yourself why Açaí berry redirects to that section? Use WP:COMMONSENSE; instead of getting yourself worked out running down other users' edits, do a better judge of improving on them; the Fruit section had never been better. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The statements are not well sourced. Some are totally unsourced, others rely on sources that are not reliable by WP standards, and one include a false attribution and a non NPOV interpretation of a source. All statements must be attributable to a reliable source -- this is a fundamental rule. Unsourced and unreliably sourced statements are to be removed. You had no justification for reverting these edits, and if you continue to WP:EDITWAR you may be blocked for WP:DE and violating WP:3RR. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

My improvement on the Fruit section has been termed poorly sourced, unsourced, or misquoted, and considered disruptive by Rhode Island Red. We have undid each others' edits already. I am asking for other users' comments, and possibly an improvement of this section by a third party. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, so both of you have been edit-warring over this. The typical way this is handled is that 1) Johnmoor makes the bold edit, 2) Rhode Island Red disagrees with edits and reverts, 3) Discussion and consensus is formed on the talk page before anyone re-reverts or edit-wars on the article. It's part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. I've reverted to the last stable version before Johnmoor's initial edit. This is not a statement of what I think about his contribution, rather just the normal procedure when there's disagreement. Let's start with the versions you would each prefer.
  • Johnmoor, I assume the last revert you performed on 1 September would be the revision you prefer: [11]
  • Rhode Island Red, you made a few edits to Johnmoor's contribution to clean it up - would you prefer the original before his edit ([12]) or the last revision you did on 31 August ([13])?
I'll read through each version and start to form a few opinions. We're generally just dealing with the fruit section here, right? Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time Rkiitko. The Aug 31 version is preferable. I think you'll find that this issues we're having here is cut and dried. I've outlined already which edits were reverted based on the absence of WP:RS. The text about the Times article was revised because of an attribution issue and because the material from the article had not been presented in an evenhanded manner. Johnmoor has provided no valid reason to justify reverting the edits (vaguely citing WP:COMMONSENSE is not a valid reason for ignoring WP:RS). Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, a few things.
  1. I agree with Johnmoor that the section should mention in the lead sentence that the fruit is commonly called açaí berry, especially since acai berry redirects to this section and users may not know why they landed there. (Of course it would need a reliable source, which Johnmoor neglected to provide, so I was ok with the revert. Perhaps a better reaction would have been to provide a reference for this one since it would have been easy to find.) Alternative, the redirects could be changed to point to the article and not just the fruit section.
  2. One of the edits performed by Rhode Island Red, "addition of unsourced statement reverted", was again probably ok given that the material had remained unsourced for a few years. Best practice is to move the information to the talk page to see if others in the future might be able to source it. However, Johnmoor did not add this information; he simply reorganized it. I know it's tough to unravel sometimes what was added or moved in diffs with a lot of changes, but recognize here that Johnmoor was not responsible for the content of that particular edit.
  3. I agree with Rhode Island Red that the new information provided by Johnmoor was not backed up by reliable sources and the removal of that information was justified. Johnmoor, if you have not yet, please read through that link on reliable sources to get a sense of what would be acceptable. If you have questions about why the sources you provided were not acceptable in my opinion, please don't hesitate to ask.
  4. On the LA Times article NPOV issue, the treatment of that article preceded Johnmoor's editing of the article, so any issue Rhode Island Red has with the wording could not be attributed to Johnmoor. I applaud your efforts to make it more neutral, though!
After that was just an edit war. I've concluded that most of the issues Rhode Island Red had with the text came from previous contributors and in cleaning a bit of it up, perhaps Johnmoor felt that his work was being assailed. For your part, Johnmoor, the text you did add was unacceptable because the references you added were not reliable sources. I do, however, agree that a referenced mention of the name of the fruit should appear at the beginning of the section. For the most part I would prefer Rhode Island Red's version from August 31 [14] that made some NPOV improvements and got rid of problematic unsourced statements. I hope these comments have helped. We should wait for Johnmoor to join the discussion again before any action is taken on the article. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Good assessment. Thanks for the input. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
One a side note, one thing that would help to improve the article would be to have a separate section dealing with issues related to agribusiness economics and impact. There are some details dealing with subject in the "Fruit" section, which is not where it belongs ideally. It's an interesting issue though. Some sources (eg, often the major acai producers and acai-based product manufacturers) argue that the acai boom is a plus for the local economies and has a positive net effect on the environment, while other sources argue that the net impact has been to inflate the price of acai beyond the reach of locals who depend on it as a dietary staple and that it has a negative environmental impact, related to use of pesticides, large-scale industrial farms, and moncultivation methods. This issue needs to be presented in an evenhanded manner using high quality sources. Normally, I would consider Greenpeace a fairly reliable source, but the Greenpeace article that's currently cited in reference to acai economics seems shallow. The article makes claims about dollar figures but doesn't cite any sources as to where those figures came from, which is not ideal. I think we could find better sources for those details. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Very good assessment, Rkitko. What prompted me to improve on the Fruit section is the fact that Açaí berry redirects there, but has no mention. Rhode Island Red, you should have left an explanation on the talk page, your edit summary was not enough; let us put this behind us though. Thank you both. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Apparently my explanation on the Talk page wasn't enough either. Whatevs. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
That is because you initially saw all my efforts as needless, but there are already good enough sources cited within the article that supports my contribution, and that is why I cited WP:COMMONSENSE. In any case, the fruit of Açaí palm is also known as Açaí berry, and I think that that section should be clear about it, especially to people who uses Wikipedia only as an information resource. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm glad I could help a bit here. So now that we all agree there's room for improvement in the article, could we agree on which version to work with and then begin to move forward? I would propose working from the 31 August version by Rhode Island Red as that contained the NPOV improvement to the language regarding the LA Times article. It did remove some unsourced material, but we can move than here to the talk page until it can be sourced, then it could be reincorporated. I don't have a real interest in editing the content of the article, so if the two of you want to collaborate to make the necessary improvements, that would be great! It's definitely one of the top-searched plant articles because of the links to health and diet industries. I know very little about these industries, but it would important to explain the topic clearly with good references. I'm more of a botanist, so I could perhaps contribute more of a botanical description of the plant itself. If any further conflicts arise, let's remember to bring it to the talk page first :-) Let me know if this is a suitable plan. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I would prefer that Aug 31 version along with my last modification to the lead sentence that mention açaí berry, and the last paragraph of the 12:01, 1 September 2012‎ version be included, because those are details about the fruit that people who uses Wikipedia only as an information resource should know. There are citations already within the article which I cited in that 12:01, 1 September 2012‎ version; those that are not reliable can be dropped, and here are more citations: Acai berry scam: You'll lose money, not weightMSNBC and Acai berry: small fruit, big wonderThe Indian Express. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm down with you proposal Rkitko and look forward to working with you on this. The article could definitely benefit from a botanists perspective. Johnmoor, it's unclear exactly what you were proposing in your last comment, so can you please provide diff edits or quoted text here.
On a side note, I noticed a couple of statements in the article that are dated or hazy; e.g. in the lead "Global demand for the fruit has expanded rapidly in recent years, and açaí is now cultivated for that purpose primarily." "Recent years" should never be used because it is imprecise and becomes dated over time. If there are data for specific years showing an increase in demand, the the data and the specific years should be cited, otherwise the detail is sketchy. The same logic applies to the sentence that reads "Today, a half-dozen brands market açaí in the beverage space." It cites a 2007 article, which is clearly not "today", and I don't have a lot of faith in the claim that there are only 6 brands. Also, the article has two sections called "other uses" -- these should be harmonized or retitled -- and the Nutrition section contains subheadings for "dietary supplement" and "food product", yet the content under those heads has no obvious relation to nutritional content.
Lastly (for now anyway) the sentence "The palm heart is widely exploited as a delicacy.[11]" is vague and the source is not ideal. As I recall, palm hearts are harvested from a few different varieties of palm that are farmed (not wild harvested) in Central America. This touches one of the myths that got hyped up during the acai craze (i.e. that manufacturers of acai berry products were indirectly protecting acai trees from being harvested for the palm hearts. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I have moved the article back to 31 Aug as agreed and added a referenced mention of the berry name to the section. I understand what Johnmoor would like to see regarding the last paragraph, but it was the one that had a few troubling references, so let's work on sourcing it first on the talk page (see below) and then add it to the page. Rkitko (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph on brands, etc.[edit]

Feel free to edit the below paragraph until it is up to everyone's standards. Comment below. Once we're all in agreement, we can add it back to the article! Rkitko (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

A host of brands market açaí in the beverage space.[1] The nutritional value of the fruit, specifically the claim that it lowers or controls cholesterol,[2] has earned it the title of a superfood[3] and made it renowned in recent years, but the many claims to its medicinal value still remain largely unproven.[4] Many dietary supplements supposedly made from or containing açaí berry or its derivatives and with claims of healing power over almost all kinds of ailments has earned it the name scam berry.[2][4][5]
  1. ^ Bounds, Gwendolyn (19 March 2007). "Running the Show" (PDF). The Wall Street Journal. 
  2. ^ a b Center for Science in the Public Interest (2009-03-23). "CSPI Warns Consumers about Web-Based Açai Scams". CSPI. Retrieved 2012-09-02. 
  3. ^ Ishi Khosla (July 30, 2011). "Acai berry: small fruit, big wonder". The Indian Express. Retrieved September 2, 2012. 
  4. ^ a b James, SD (2008-12-12). "'Superfood' Açaí May not Be Worth Price: Oprah's Dr. Oz Says Açai Is Healthy but No Cure-all; Dieter Feels Ripped Off"". ABC News. Archived from the original on 19 December 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-30. 
  5. ^ Herb Weisbaum (September 2 2010). "Acai berry scam: You'll lose money, not weight". MSNBC. Retrieved September 2, 2012.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
As pointed out earlier, the powersupplements and dieting direction references aren't reliable. ABC News is fine and some of the other sources Johnmoor pointed out in the above discussion would be good as well. My main concern is that this doesn't fit very well into the "fruit" section and fits much better into one of the other sections later in the article. It may also be a bit redundant. What are your thoughts? Rkitko (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I have improved on it. I replaced PowerSupplements citation with that of the Indian Express, and removed other unreliable ones. About "A half-dozen brands", the writer is writing in simple terms for the ordinary user—WP:NOT PAPERS, but figuratively; I have changed that to "A host of brands". Exact statistics should not be necessary there, because if we must in all such situations, then Wikipedia articles may never get written. And I cannot see any better section for this paragraph than the Fruit section. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The Indian Express article is a weak source for the origin of acai's designation as a superfood. We have to be careful to choose high quality sources when it comes to key background details, and not just fluffy articles that may be merely echoing industry hype. Also, any basis for acai being a superfruit has little if anything to do with alleged cholesterol lowering properties; it is based on nutritional content (eg, anthocyanins, polypehnols, omega-3s, etc.). Furthermore, the CSPI article cited after the word cholesterol in the proposed text above doesn't even mention the word cholesterol (it's about weight loss claims). The term superfruit is a buzzword used in marketing and by fad diet book authors. It lacks a concrete scientific meaning, so I would suggest being very careful as to how any super-fruit claims are treated in the article; for instance, any such statements if they are included should be attributable to high-quality sources, qualified (e.g., "claimed", "alleged", etc.), and clearly attributed (claimed by X, Y, and Z to be a superfruit).
As for the sentence "A host of brands market açaí in the beverage space", I would word it something along the lines of "Several companies sell pure acai juice and acai juice-blended beverages in the retail marketplace" or something along those lines; but even that version seems weak and uninformative, and most importantly, redundant because the Food Product section[15] already says "In the general consumer market, açaí is sold as frozen pulp, juice, or an ingredient in various products from beverages (including the grain alcohol, VeeV), smoothies and foods to cosmetics and supplements." That says basically everything the proposed sentence says and more, and it's so straightforward and self-evident that I wouldn't even worry about adding citations to it.
The part about the medicinal value being unproven and the last sentence about scam berry looks OK though. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I just tagged a few weak/unreliable sources and dead links too.[16] Let me know if you have any questions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if you have access to it, but the article I cited for the name of the fruit in the opening sentence also contains a mention of the superfood bit: "Açaí gained popularity in North America after being promoted by Nicholas Perricone, MD, as a “Superfood for Age-Defying Beauty” on the Oprah Winfrey show." (doi:10.1016/j.jada.2009.09.017) It's not a proper scientific article, but a "from the society" question of the month in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Perhaps this is a better reference for the superfood mention. I'm sure there are even better ones out there. Rkitko (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The JADA is definitely a good source and this is an important piece of the history. It looks like acai suddenly became a "superfruit" because it was touted as such in a diet book mentioned on Oprah (and then Oprah had to sue various companies to stop them from falsely claiming that she endorsed it). BTW, did you have a look at the WP article on superfruit? Puts things into better perspective. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Rkitko, I would leave it to you to decide now. As it is, if we must remove every weak source with the contents that goes with it, then this article would lose its essence. Besides, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be simple and more general in perspective than technical, so I do not see why we should, anyway. Thank you again for being a good and sincere mediator. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand that comment. Which sources and content are you referring to now? In what way would the article's "essence" be lost? What does simplicity and generality have to do with the quality of sources? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced information queue[edit]

The following paragraphs were removed at some point during editing because they had remained unsourced for some time. Perhaps someone can find reliable sources for them in the future and reincorporate the material, if appropriate. Rkitko (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In the northern state of Pará, Brazil, açaí pulp is traditionally served in gourds called "cuias" with tapioca and, depending on the local preference, can be consumed either salty or sweet (sugar, rapadura, and honey are known to be used in the mix). Açaí has become popular in southern Brazil where it is consumed cold as açaí na tigela ("açaí in the bowl"), mostly mixed with granola. Açaí is also consumed in Brazil as an ice cream flavor or juice. The juice has also been used in a flavored liqueur. In the regions of açaí production, such as Pará, açaí palms have replaced sugar cane and other cultivation choices more damaging to the natural environment, such as cattle farming. Such practices indicate that systematic cultivation and reliable commercial supplies may be more prevalent.

Fantasy name "Purpura bacca"[edit]

There are many references to "Purpura bacca" on the net, it took me a while (and a query on twitter) to learn that it was nothing more than a commercial fantasy name for the açaí fruit and/or extracts of the same. Even though there is a redirect from "Purpura bacca" to the açaí palm article, there is no explanation in the article of why the redirect is there.
I tried to put a note about it

The fruit is often commercialized under the name purpura bacca ("purple berry" in Latin).<ref name=pbacca>[ Açaí palm], World Crops Database. Accessed on 2015-02-10.</ref>

However the note was deleted.
Wikipedia articles are supposed to serve the readers by answering questions like mine, not to uphold some arbitrary standard of purity of nomenclature. For that reason, articles usually mention all common names for the concept (vulgar, obsolete, regional, etc.), even if they are deprecated by scientists. In this case, I think that even nomenclature purists should want to tell the readers that "purpura bacca" is not a scientific name but merely a commercial fantasy label. That information may also have material consequences to readers, e.g. they might pay more for "purpura bacca" if they do not know that it is just açaí.
I still don't know where the name "Purpura bacca" originated. It seems to be valid Latin for "purple berry", and apparently is not meaningful in any other language. It is definitely not Portuguese, Spanish, French, or Italian. Google search turns it up in many health supplement websites, and only some of them are in Brazil. Here açaí was known to everybody as "açaí" long before it beame a dietary fad, so it is not clear why one would want to invent a new name for it. It does not seem to be a trade mark either, and there are zero hits in Google Scholar.
There are two possibilities that I can think of. It may be the "technical" name of the berry in homeopathy (although I have not been able to find it clearly associated with homeopathy). Or it is a made-up binomial-like name, that some health food marketer invented because he could not find the correct one or because Euterpe oleracea did not sound sexy enough.
Either way, I believe that a note like the one above should be in the article, for the sake of readers. While the reference given (a commercial but fairly substantial and long-lived database) would not be authoritative for scientific information, it seems quite sufficient to document the use of a commercial name. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it's a "made-up binomial-like name that some health food marketer invented". There certainly is a tradition of giving Latin names for medicinal plants (in a separate system from the Linnaean binomials used for all plants). That's not just in homeopathy; Chinese medicine has Latin names for medicinal plants, and Western medicine does too (or at least it did a century or so ago when plant based remedies were still being used in mainstream medicine). But the Latin names almost always are genus+plant part (e.g. "bacca euterpe"), and I don't think something as general as purpura/purple is likely to be used as medicine name. I don't think Wikipedia should include poorly attested (0 hits on Scholar) names made up for marketing purposes, but a made-up marketing name could become a common name. I'm not sure whether purpura bacca has made the transition from marketing name to common name. Plantdrew (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Açaí palm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Açaí palm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Açaí palm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Bot repaired Pom Wonderful ref accurately, but Bloomberg ref was dead; not needed, so I removed it. --Zefr (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Source quality[edit]

The following sources were removed, with explanation for why.

AçaíBaby and Cathry, please provide your feedback. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Açaí oil[edit]

A separate article on oil seems rather pointless, particularly as there is virtually nothing in it, AçaíBaby (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Harvesting and Uses: Fruit[edit]

The two harvesting seasons are stated as Jan to Jun and Aug to Dec, with a gap in harvesting for the rainy season. This sounds like in reality that the Acai can be harvested for 11 months non-stop from August to June yearly, while only stopping during July, which I am to equate to being the "rainy season." Was this the intent of the statement of two separated harvesting seasons? Does the rainy season only last one month? Or is it simply a statement of the imprecision of the defined season periods, that may actually vary from region to region? Either way, it is not a very definitive statement of an actual harvesting season, if they are in fact harvested 11 out of 12 months off the year. SquashEngineer (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)