Jump to content

Talk:Açaí palm/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Transmission of Chagas Disease

The CDC (Center of Disease Control) recently published a study implicating the consumption of acai berry juice/paste/fruit, as a way of getting infected with Chagas disease. The theory is that the insects that spread this disease (reduviid bugs) like to eat this fruit as well, and when the berries are being harvested, the bugs can get harvested and end up in the juice as well.

http://www.cdc.gov/EID/content/15/4/pdfs/653.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671433/

This information is mentioned in the Wiki article on Chagas, but I thought it should be included here given the increasing popularity of acai juice. People are more likely to look up "Acai" than "Chagas". Thank you for your time. 165.123.99.209 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


Pronunciation

The pronunciation is: Ahh - Sah -EE

Pronunciation would be helpful, if anybody knows. Cat Parade 00:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

IPA doesn't have the stress... -Iopq 11:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The current Brazilian pronunciation is [a.sa.'i]. Nevertheless, Brazilians are used to several regional variations on the exact pronunciation of vowels, so [ɐ.sɐ.'i] or even [ʌ.sʌ.'i] would be understood -- though wrong. jggouvea 01:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Trademark issue

Asahi Foods registered açaí as a trademark in Japan. The case has been dealt with by the Brazilian foreign office -- and Brazilians have strong feelings regarding this. One of the consequences is that the Brazilian government is distributing to Patent Offices all over the world a list of about 3,000 names of plants, animals, foodstuffs, beverages and spices typical of Brazil to prevent foreign companies from doing this type of brand piracy (which is tantamount to an attempt to steal what belongs to us). jggouvea 01:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


I could not find Asahi Foods in the Japan patent search. Do you have the link to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.72.196 (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


Yes. Plenty. 

1 - ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1189e/a1189e04.pdf
2 - http://www.csvz.ic.cz/foreign/info-07/BRAZIP37.htm

But not exactly Asahi Foods, I was quoting from memory and incidentally mistook 'asahi' (the alleged brand used) for the name of the company. Sorry for that. jggouvea (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

User:Kungfuadam posted a copyvio notice on this page, copied from http://www.recipeland.com/facts/A%C3%A7a%C3%AD. However, I have restored the text because the above website is a mirror of this article from Wikipedia. SCHZMO ✍ 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Unsourced claims

"Even web sites purporting to warn about açai-related scams are themselves perpetrating scams." The [2] cite has nothing to do with this claim. The claim is unsubstantiated, and non-sensical within the context. The line needs to either be backed up (well), or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianfreud (talk • contribs) 04:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"Testimony." Everyone in Brazil, (where this stuff has been a staple in their diets,) has perfect skin, they are well proportioned with perfect weight, they all sleep wonderfully at night, and the men have 12 inch dicks. Testified. Excuse me, I now have to visit my chiropractor who will write me a "prescription" for an acai berry smoothie, twice a day, swish, gargle, swallow. Seems the talk page guidelines are long, long gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.14.186 (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Having done a quick search of the medical literature, I'm a bit skeptical of the claims in the last section of the article--claims regarding weight loss, for example. I haven't found any basis for them. Could someone more Wikipedia-savvy than I slap a "needs attention from an expert" banner on this article?

An Americans testimony I have a MonaVie testimony, whether you believe it or not. I started sleeping like a baby after 2 weeks of drinking the juice and my Cerebral Palsy stricken right hand and arm that has tensed up more and more over the years. It has started relaxing. You nonbelievers out there, when the medical community catches up, you'll jump on. Life is short, don't be so skeptical.

--With all the fads and money envolved with diets I say you should be skeptical. Question stuff. Educate yourself. I will not blindly follow a diet or fad. It may work for you and it may harm someone else(may interfere with medicine like grapefuit does, I dunno).

Another Americans experience.... I started drinking MonaVie after a month of research on each fruit and its potential health benefits for me and my family. I have 3 kids and work very hard labor wise and play lots of softball. The simplicity and overall health value of the MonaVie Active was a no brainer for us. Results have been better than we ever expected. GREAT DEEP SLEEP and lots of natural energy are my main benefits. I'm gaining so many other vitamins, nutrients and antioxidants that since I'm in pretty good shape its more of a proactive and preventative maintenance JUICE for me. Simplicty, potency, and value were the BEST of all the available products.

Hey folks, Let's just use Wikipedia for the dissemination of knowledge and not to pump up some pyramid scheme. Thanks!Sea Wolf 23:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

HEY FOLKS...(above) dissemination of knowledge is what this site is for! don't you think anyone is pumping up "some pyramid scheme"... perhaps you are not familiar with the facts that all business is created with someone at the top and many more beneath across the board and patterned- try looking at any businesses building blocks and management arrangement-

As to the experience of the Acai product Mona'Vie... great stuff! Am diabetic and have many health issues, but the Mona'Vie product with Acai has improved my over all health and well being, as has been documented by my doctors!

NOT trying to advertise or promote, just give personal opinion and experience with the Acai fruit products- they all have something to offer and are very healing in many ways! We Americans are so biased against anything holistic in nature, perhaps that is because we have been brain washed into believing contemporary medicines are the only answer! I for one, am a believer of everything natural, the way God intended it to be when he created it for all mankind!

"Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted from Wikipedia."Sea Wolf 08:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Your referring to it as a pyramid scheme is an OPINION. It is a legitimate home based business. Just because you dont agree with MLM does not make it a "pyramid" or a "scheme". I never mentioned my website, or where to buy it, or how to become a distributor. I left it very basic and professional. You should do the same.

Be a beleiver!! Cancer survivor of three years and I have never felt better!!! Drink it, and live better life!! Headaches gone! muscles aches gone! joint pain! tiredness gone! I can play with my kids after working a 12 hour day, like I'm nineteen again, never thought I would feel this good, again. no pyramid, no scheme a better life!! embrace what science has done, and mother earth you wont regret it!!!!

Regardless of weather or not it is a pyrimid scheme or a valid business, mentioning the name of the business has no relivance to the enclyclopedia entry for "Açaí Palm" IMHO... maybe in an article called "products containing Açaí palm berrys"... but what a waste of wiki space, especially if it started to be done with everything part of a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.187.23.246 (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


200.241.255.250 23:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC) wow, not sure if it a miracle thing, but I read in a newspaper, that there is a research that Açai+Fish diet is better "Mediterrain diet" (who is only fish). Anyway, I love the thing ;3

Note: these testimonials by an unknown person have nothing to do with this article. KP Botany 18:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: these claims of extraordinary powers are not believed in Brazil, where people have consumed Açaí for centuries. It's just another hype of miracle cure in the United States. People here just take it for the taste or for nutrition. jggouvea 00:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but these claims sound like spam. If you're an affiliate, make money or receive free stuff from Mona'vie, and you talk about it here, you're probably advertising. --Arvash (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not --Arvash (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Monavie gave me a second head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.225.229 (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Theobromine content

I've read elsewhere that açaí berries contain the stimulant theobromine, but I haven't been able to find a legitimate source for this.mmortal03 (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The Mona Vie is just another marketing technique for juice...not that's it's bad for you. I went to a "meeting" last night and the sellers, believers, users, whatever they are...I call them a cult; don't know anything about the fruit itself. The representative told everyone that you can't eat the fruit alone! What a bunch of bull! Then he proceeded to testify that once the fruit is harvested it wilts and turns to mush in 48 hours...again...another lie! They don't know their product. Plus, who the heck needs 13 servings of fruits a day! That's obsurd! The FDA says 5-7 fruits and vegetables! If you are a diabetic you can't eat that much sugar...I had some of the reps tell me to stop my brain medication and stay on the Mona Vie! I almost had a fit! Since when do they have their Ph.D? Wow....this is rediculous cult acitivity! you know what if you want to spend $180 a month on juice go ahead...I would rather eat fresh fruits and vegetables...at least I know what I am consuming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.161.113.34 (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Well I tried the acai chews and saw immeadiate results I have way more energy. I'm no longer sleeping through first and second period. And I'm not being paid!

The seeds...

The seeds seem to have a dehydrating effect simular to that found with deoderant... :] 206.149.192.233 03:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Taste?

I only scanned the article, but was wondering if you could put in a section that has what acai berries taste like. For example like blueberries, but has a very bitter aftertaste, or a sour or zing, I'm just curious is all, don't really know if this kind of thing belongs in an Encyclopedia

They have a thick, sweet taste, slightly adstringent. Think of raspberry juice mixed 1/10 molasses and chlorophyl.jggouvea 01:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
They have a very strong, but pleasant taste. Kind of a mix between sweet cherries and blackberries. 138.87.227.181 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

hahaha one biased too far against and the other too far for. They are very strong, with a somewhat pleasant beginning taste, with a bitter aftertaste. Rasberries + bitter aftertaste, not as sweet. --Arvash (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I actually like that taste... ;-) --- As a sidenote, I have tasted whole, pure açaí juice. Commercial brands may add flavorants to it... jggouvea (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I can only attest to the taste of the Monavie juice which has the acai berry plus 18 other fruits - but that combination is so delicious - I crave it now, plus it makes me feel good, not like a high, just energy and well-being like you get after just exercising. I think the acai berry alone from what I have heard and read is sort of bitter but chocolately. Marhea (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Industry Information

I think this passage intended for the introduction is relevant for understanding acai's place among consumer products where its popularity will be established.

KPBotany has chosen to remove this section as unscientific. I think we need to discuss this here to see what others think. --Paul144 19:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the early 21st century in the United States and other such industrialized countries, there has been a rapidly growing recognition of açaí for its nutrient richness and antioxidant qualities, with 71 new product introductions worldwide during 2006[1]. Such rapid commercial development includes açaí among a novel category of functional foods called "superfruits" expected to be a double-digit growth market over the next several years[2][3][4].

That's correct, the passage claims nutritional qualitites, which are determined by laboratory experiments, and ditto antioxidant qualities. If these have been established for this plant, there should be no issue finding resources in the scientific literature about the plant, then the information can be referenced to this literature. But linking to commercial sites that sell and promote the product? No, Wikipedia is not an advertising directory or free yellow pages. If they have been tested, in the time it took you to post this, and in the time devoted to discussing the issue, you could have simply found the references and cited them. KP Botany 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've contributed scientific information elsewhere in the article and felt that the reader can access those references (mainly Schauss et al., 2006). What I've proposed is a passage discussing an industry trend that gives the unscientific reader background about the consumer potential of acai. It's more than a scientific story so I don't see why we shouldn't cite it. None of the references used is a commercial advertisement but rather displays industry information and already exists for acai among the superfruit category as contained on Wikipedia.

I can add the scientific references if you feel that's essential, but to me it seems redundant to be using them in the introduction where the industry/consumer information is better located.--Paul144 20:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your specific reference for the "consumer potential of acai." This, unfortunately, without a solid reference from the literature will really only come across as advertising its potential, that's why this particular type of information comes with more stringent requirements. So, post the specific source about the consumer potential, and I'll reconsider, with some tweaking in wording, and tied to the reference. KP Botany 06:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The scientific reference for nutrient content and antioxidant quality is from Schauss et al. (2006a and b). The market research reference -- not identical in rigor to laboratory science, but nonetheless valuable as a reference for consumer potential -- is the article by Starling reporting 71 new acai product introductions worldwide during 2006[5](see bottom of article, green box).

This is not advertising (Starling is a reporter for an online industry journal with no commercial interest specifically in acai products) but rather is evidence from market activity showing consumer demand (i.e., potential) for acai products, a worthy piece of information to provide in an encyclopedia to indicate the beginning of a commercial trend for this fruit.--Paul144 16:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the wikipedia and seen more than enough articles to state that while wikipedia is not a site for advertisers to openly push their agendas, it does quite often provide users information about products and how or where they can be obtained. Often in the links section for video games there are links to the publisher's website where more often than not visitors could theoretically purchase the game. If there is a section that discusses how people are becoming consumers to this produce, then it stands to reason that products or companies containing or marketing this acai berry could or should be described. Even if the companies or products no longer exist..this is all information for the record.24.14.79.153 (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Readability

It reads like a regular wikipedia article; right till the end of Other Uses. After that it reads like a brick. I fail to make the connection between color and anti-oxidants.

While there is ample evidence to support the health benefits of diets rich in fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains and nuts, evidence that these effects are due to specific nutrients or phytochemicals is limited. http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals.html

"Antioxidant values of the seeds of the açaí fruit have also been reported" - Ok, they had values.. what were they. It seems the Mona'vie crew who happily gave their testimonies on the discussion forum, despite its irrelevance, might have a mild bias toward the "healthy food medicbabble"; Is there anyone who can find data that contrasts these claims as to show both sides?

Instead of stating possible or theoretical benefits, could we simply state the make up of the fruit, and allow people to read the anti-oxidant article for health information? I figured I should ask here before making edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvash (talk • contribs) 02:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it pronounced ass-eye? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.92.43 (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Opti-Acai, Schauss, Monavie

It's important IMO for the article to include some background on the freeze dried acai powder developed and studied by Schauss (which he refers to as ("Opti-acai"). The main source cited for acai composition and nutrients is Alexander Schauss. Schauss submitted a patent application for Opti-acai to the WIPO. The pending patent seems to have been rejected by WIPO.[6][7] Opti-acai is the main acai ingredient in Monavie juice.[8] Monavie quotes Schauss's research extensively and in fact, it appears that Schauss's contract research company (AIBMR)[9] may have been hired by Monavie LLC to conduct research on acai (ultimately, for product promotional purposes).

Some of this information should be included for context as a preface to the discussion of the properties of acai based on Schauss research. WP editors should also consider the information when assessing the reliability/credibility of Schauss's research and how much weight it merits in the article. Schauss has a clear financial interest in Opti-acai (and by extension, Monavie) and none of his data have been replicated by other researchers, nor have any scientific sources (reliable secondary sources) commented on the data in depth. It should therefore be presented with caution and without undue weight.

I agree this deserves more scrutiny and should be part of the wiki article. Although remaining skeptical, I'd give Alex Schauss the benefit of the doubt, as his credentials and reputation are excellent, and there should be nothing wrong with working for/with a commercial interest as long as his work remains rigorously peer-reviewed.
On another matter specifically addressing Opti-acai and the exceptional ORAC score of the FD powder, I take issue with the inevitable comparisons to other fruits and vegetables, as none of them (to the best of my knowledge, having checked Methods of several research articles) were preserved and prepared prior to ORAC analysis by freeze-drying, a process usually too expensive for research purposes. Acai demands special freezing methods rapidly after harvest, as the equatorial climate where it grows and its high fat content hasten rancidity.
This potentially accounts for the huge disparities between acai's high ORAC score and the next in line, whatever it may be. For example, if densely phenolic fruit like black chokeberries (Aronia melanocarpa) or black raspberries (Rubus occidentalis) were freeze-dried immediately after harvest, their ORAC scores would certainly be higher.
By Olympics analogy for the 100 m sprint, it's like acai was allowed to use the typical sprinter's minimal clothing and lightest, optimal track shoes, whereas competitors were forced to wear a leather coat and steel-lined work boots.
In his new 2008 booklet on acai, Schauss essentially admits this but doesn't discuss it. On pgs 85-7, he shows that spray-dried acai powder (heavily processed fruit presumably from juice, sometimes like other comparison fruits) has an ORAC score less than 5% (below ORAC of 5000 units per 100 g) of the ultimate FD powder's score > 102,000 (booklet Figure 18) which he claims, to his "surprise" was "over ten times higher than the highest ORAC scores for any food...". The large differences are an artifact of inconsistent scientific method.
This is a major error in reasoning that has pervaded the entire acai literature and public understanding of acai's place in ORAC rankings compared to other fruits. --Paul144 (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you regarding the ORAC scores. The comparisons made between the ORAC of Opti-acai vs. other fruits are very misleading, and the methods used to measure ORAC in these studies differed enough to invalidate the comparisons. The methodology yields different results when different solvents and conditions are used, and they did in fact differ between the two studies that were used to make the ORAC comparisons. No study has yet examined the ORAC scores of acai and other antioxidant rich foods under the same conditions.
As for Schauss, his credentials and reputation aren't exactly excellent.[10][11] He produces Opti-Acai commercially (and this is the main ingredient in the MLM fruit drink Monavie) and he is also the head of AIBMR,[12] the contract research group that was hired to do all of the acai research. Almost all of the literature on acai that portrays it to be a superfood emanates from Schauss and he has a glaring financial interest in acai and Monavie that no one is forthcoming about. So we should keep this in mind and be careful to not give Schauss undue weight. Seems OK to cite some of his peer-reviewed publications, but probably not the booklet. What we don't want is an article that reads like "acai according to Schauss" Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Monavie: Acai juice or the mother of all blends?

Published in the August 2008 of J Agric Food Chem: Jensen GS, Wu X, Patterson KM, Barnes J, Carter SG, Scherwitz L, Beaman R, Endres JR, Schauss AG. In vitro and in vivo antioxidant and anti-inflammatory capacities of an antioxidant-rich fruit and berry juice blend. Results of a pilot and randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study. J Agric Food Chem. 2008 Aug 22. Epub ahead of print[13]

The main conclusions of the study are that drinking Monavie caused a short-term increase in blood antioxidant activity and inhibited oxidation of lipids.

Rhode Island Red makes a valid point that no interpretation of effects in this study can be attributed singularly to acai, as it is only one of 19 total fruit juices used in Monavie. Consequently, I would agree there is no place in the article for citing this paper.

Our assessment of this research is actually a good foundation for other comments that promoters of Monavie may make about its acai content. It's not reasonable to assume any specific actions due only to acai from a juice containing 18 other fruit juices. --Paul144 (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Opti-acai: a trademark, not a "form" of açaí

Yikes, this is terrible: "Nutritional content: Most of the research to date on açaí has focused on a particular freeze-dried form referred to as Opti-açaí." It's not a form, it's a brand, OptiAcai(TM), see OptiAcai.info. This section should be deleted, definitely not encyclopaedia material, it's an advertisement. DukeLukeM (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Acai scams

{{editsemiprotected}} There have been a number of disputes regarding the legality of some sites that have been using the free publicity created by Oprah's show[1] and other celebrities to sell online acai-based products (mostly juice, pulp, powder or capsules). Some of these companies, according to the Better Business Bureau, have lured consumers into accepting 'Free' samples of acai berry supplements for weight loss and then used their credit card information for unauthorized charge backs. The BBB warns consumers of these type of practice and advises them to carefully read the "Terms of Service" pages[2] of these sites. In most of the times, the strategy of these companies is to offer customers free trials. People that sing up to are endorsed to pay the shipment fee. With this occasion, the companies register subscribers with their credit card details and after a few weeks, start charging them for other products that will be sent on a regularly basis. In many cases, the only way to cancel these programs is by phone. Using this glitch, these companies usually do not respond to the number printed on their site, thus letting the program to flow indefinitely[3]. People have been reporting unauthorized charge backs to their credit cards and in most of the cases credit cards or even bank accounts had to be closed in order to put and end to this situation[4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dugut (talk • contribs)

I think I can speak for an autoconfirmed user when I ask what is it that you actually want changed in the article? AdmiralKolchak (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
More than likely, the user would like the text to be added to the article; however, it smacks of OR, and the source provided is insufficient to warrant adding the material. GlassCobra 23:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not done: I agree with GlassCobra. The reference doesn't cover on the first sentence at all and the overall tone is bloggy rather than encyclopedic. Can you try to rewrite the paragraph to capture facts supported by the reference in a neutral tone? If I were to insert this for you in the current form, someone would take it right back out as OR. Celestra (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for directions. Yes, I want the text included, please excuse my way of writing (I am a little angry as I got scammed like this too, that is why I have also built the scam information site acai-berry-scams.net). I have reformulated the hole paragraph that should be included, I hope this time it's more useful. Please feel free to modify it if you have something to add. I have edited the text above.

Done Pleasure doing business with you! Your rewrite seems quite good to me and is better cited as well. I had to drop the final reference, the one for complaintsboard.com, as it is on a blacklist. If you can come up with another reference of some sort, I'll add it, or someone else will. Please add a fresh {{editsemiprotected}} to draw attention to the request. I also made two tiny changes, dropping the capital from 'Free' and moving two of the refs to be after the punctuation marks. I hope you don't mind. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. I am really happy as this is my first contribution to Wikipedia project. Thank you for helping me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dugut (talk • contribs) 07:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Increased Acai use in developed countries causing 3rd world suffering Someone should add this imo: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ai8WCgSJrhmY&refer=home Soverby (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are some reputable sources to consider including: [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Oprah on Acai Berry"
  2. ^ "BBB warning"
  3. ^ "Acai Berry Scams"
  4. ^ "Acai Berry Complains"

Removal of "testimonials" from Talk page

This talk page has too many "testimonial"-type comments, offering glowing praise for Acai, and having nothing to do with improving the article. The way some of them are written makes me wonder whether they're just put in here by some marketing dept. If they don't offer reliable sources and they aren't about how to GENUINELY improve the article, I think they should be purged from this page. [After that, this section can also be removed.] Tragic romance (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. This page is to discuss the article, not the subject of the article itself, and certainly not in subjective terms of whether or not it's "good". D. J. Cartwright (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What's with all the hoopla?

Acai "berry" seems to be good for at least one thing healthwise - increasing the health of advertisers' wallets. Other than that, I dunno. What can acai do that blueberries can't? Eh? I did, however, drink acai juice mixed with some other fruit, and it seems to taste reasonably sweet. That being said, most of the hype seems to be for furthering someone's revenue than for furthering people's health. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

True that - the article also fails to mention that the new international trade in acai has made it all but unaffordable to the people that traditionally relied on the acai fruit as part of their diet and culture. One can only hope the fad dies soon IM(non-encyclopedic)O. delvebelow168.7.81.149 (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly enough, nobody here in Brazil ever drank açaí as medicine, it's just a fruit that some find tasty and nutritious. People working-out at gyms take açaí, but here in Brazil they mostly take it mixed with other things, so it's not easy to tell how much of the supposed effect is actually due to açaí. That said, I must say that I don't like it very much.jggouvea (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that the pages Açaí Palm and Euterpe oleracea should be merged, since they contain very similar information. Probably the few new information in Euterpe oleracea should simply be moved into Açaí Palm and the former page then deleted. Note that several wiki pages of other languages link to either one or the other of these two pages; they should all link to the one merged page. Note also that the page Euterpe (genus) is fine; it deals with the general plant family; here were talking about one of its members. -- 85.3.251.194 (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that its pointless to have two pages on the same subject. Some kind of merger and redirect is needed. Can we revive this discussion? Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge, obviously. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I fourth that notion. I know in the French Wikipedia, at the very least, they're the same article already. CharonM72 (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Medicine Tags

Just curious why this article has all the alternative medicine index tags at the bottom of the page. To the best of my knowledge, and according to the content of the article, there is no evidence that the acai berry has ever been used as traditional medicine or that it has any medicinal value at all.Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


Açaí Berry

I think that the fruit should have its own page. Every other fruit i have looked up has separate articles for the fruit and plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anakus (talk • contribs) 11:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)



complaint

  • There should be notes about the alternative applications of these terms.
  • If you apply this subject to a substantive searchengine, you would find that about half of the results are of some sort of complaint, of a variety of category. There should be a segment thusly, specifically, clearly, noted.

[[ hopiakutaPlease do sign your communiqué.~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina.]] 16:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Antioxidant activity of acai juice

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 (talk • contribs) 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: www.pomwonderful.com/pdf/Antioxidant_Beverage_Study.pdf

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.
http://www.pomwonderful.com/pomX.html

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)"
http://www.acaiberryjuice.org/antioxidants.htm http://www.order-acaiberry.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.91.253 (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"
http://www.sambazon.com/shop2/p-34-mango-uprising.aspx

Bom Dia mixes the açai with other things including mangosteen, apple juice, and grape juice.
http://www.bomdia.com/
http://www.bevnet.com/reviews/bomdia/

Bossa Nova only adds agave, but still does not indicate what percent is actually açai.
http://www.bossausa.com/products_antioxidants_natural_acai_juice.html

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 "www.pomwonderful.com/pdf/Antioxidant_Beverage_Study.pdf", 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)
[21]
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 scielo.br 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" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081006112053.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.142.72.35 (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.[22]
Also now are published regulatory guidance documents about keeping the antioxidant message in check on labels of food and beverage products -- Europe[23] and the USA.[24]
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 (talk • contribs) 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, http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/45. 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,[25] critiqued similarly by a different reviewer.[26] This kind of sloppy research brands Udani as careless and disrespectful of seeking truth through science. --Zefr (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

{{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 (talk • contribs)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Dubious" section

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

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 173.21.106.137 (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Acai Berry Viral Spam

http://mashable.com/2010/12/13/acai-berry-twitter-worm-warning/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Aminoacids condensation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_bond: If proteint %(dry mass) > % aminoacids (in dry mass) then wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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[27][28] or unreliably sourced[29] were removed, and the text about the LA Times article has been edited for NPOV[30] (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: [31]
  • Rhode Island Red, you made a few edits to Johnmoor's contribution to clean it up - would you prefer the original before his edit ([32]) or the last revision you did on 31 August ([33])?
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 [34] 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 weight—MSNBC and Acai berry: small fruit, big wonder—The 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.

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]
References
  1. ^ Bounds, Gwendolyn (19 March 2007). "Running the Show". 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. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Herb Weisbaum (September 2 2010). "Acai berry scam: You'll lose money, not weight". MSNBC. Retrieved September 2, 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Comments
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[35] 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.[36] 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

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"

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>[http://world-crops.com/acai-palm/ 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)

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.

checkY 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.

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

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}}).

checkY 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.

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

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}}).

checkY 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.

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

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

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

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)

Açaí or acai

The article needs to establish whether to use the special characters. I appreciate that someone took the time to make the word authentic throughout the article. However, I would argue that as an English encyclopedia, the regular English letters should be used (acai). The foreign spelling could be introduced in the lead. Bod (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

What "foreign spelling"? Açaí occurs in English books. This is the correct spelling of the word in books with full font sets. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
When a word is taken into the English language, it uses the 26 characters of the English alphabet. Although this might look like a bastardization, this is how it is done. See Ngrams: acai, acai, acai. Bod (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sambazon company intimately tied to the history of acai

I keep being reverted, but to understand the growth of acai as an export cash crop, read this article: Strange Fruit. So this company has to be mentioned in the article. It's like mentioning Chiquita on the banana page or Dole on the pineapple page. The fruit's popularity has to do with demographics, the zeitgeist of the times, and its marketing as being superhealthy. Saying how it was marketed is not the same as claiming all those claims to be true. Bod (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sambazon was already mentioned in the article before you began editing it recently. I reverted it back to the last stable version for now. If there are additional edits you'd like to make, please discuss them here first because there were some WP:PROMO issues. Cheers. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah the New Yorker was a good ref. I added a bunch of stuff from it. I took the speculative stuff about what "might" happen. It would be useful to have a source that had actual harvest data and what is actually going on, ecologically. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Açaí_palm/Archive_1&oldid=1089041946"