Talk:Juice Plus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nominee Juice Plus was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 1, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

Balance??[edit]

I've heard a lot of great things about this product, backed by some very prestegious institutions, yet none of that appears in this article. It appears to be very one sided and biased. Can we at least see a balanced report of this product? Including, for example, studies like that conducted at the Medical University of Vienna, (http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/205) which concluded that supplementation with mixed fruit and vegetable juice concentrates effectively increased plasma levels of important antioxidant nutrients and folate? Most of this article seems like it's straight from the "opinion" section of a periodical than based in fact. Jala7777 (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)jala7777

We use review articles not primary research typically. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, a research article directly assessing the product is a gold standard type of source, cited correctly. --Icerat (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:MEDRS review articles are required to support the benefits of a treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't see the problem (well, apart from the fact that it contradicts policy at one point!) it says "edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge". As long as it's straightforward and no WP:SYNTH a primary source is perfectly acceptable. --Icerat (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You could ask for a second option over at WT:MED. The study in question discusses no hard end points that people care about. Thus no health claims can be made using it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
As Jala7777 stated it, there was no health claim, merely a claim about increased plasma levels. Not our job to decide if "people care about" it. --Icerat (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It appears there's been some serious POV editing problems on this article. I've been reading for example the "Memorial Sloan-Kettering" reference [1] and it is used numerous times in the article to support critical statements of JP, but never once used to support positive claims, which the source has a number of. That's some serious cherry picking going on. --Icerat (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Primary studies are generally not notable ( so yes we do care ). The reason why the statements are critical of JP is that the source is critical.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Notability of a source is not an issue on WP, whether they are WP:RS and WP:V is the primary concern. Your second statement avoids the point. Yes, the source reports on critical studies of JuicePlus, and it's used in the article to support critical comments. That's fine. The thing is the source also reports on supportive studies of JuicePlus. It is never once used in the article as a source for supportive studies. There's no basis I can see for that and it's clearly not WP:NPOV editing to do so. --Icerat (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

mlm watch is a subdivision of quackwatch [2] which is a non profit corporation. Thus it is not self published but published by a corporation. The site also states "This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy healt information." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly Jmh. Shot info (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_89#Princeton_University.27s_website_and_Diabetes.2C_Obesity_and_Metabolism_journal shows the issues that rise with WP:MEDRS; it simply has a higher bar then WP:RS does.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
But MEDRS isn't applicable here. This product is a supplement, not a drug. The fact that clinical trials are performed on a supplement doesn't make it into a drug. If studies suggest that it has positive effects on some aspects of health, e.g. circulation, such results don't make it into a drug. Forget MEDRS, it's irrelevant.
As for Quackwatch, even Barrett slips into the first person when explaining who runs and funds Quackwatch:
  • I have no financial tie to any commercial or industrial organization.
  • My viewpoints are not for hire. Even if they were, none of my imaginary funders would actually have a reason to hire me.
  • Standard medicine and "alternative medicine" do not actually compete for patient dollars. Well-designed studies have shown that most "alternative" methods are used in addition to—rather than instead of—standard methods.
  • The total cost of operating our many Web sites is approximately $7,000 per year. If donations fall below what is needed, the rest comes out of my pocket.
So it has no paid employees and Barrett pays for it out of his own pocket if donations dry up. Seems like a one-man-band, doesn't it. Maybe he has tax advantages from incorporating it, but it remains his project and it is obvious that he publishes it.
Oh yes, one other thing: This site (Wikipedia) complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information. So now we know. Does that make it so? I don't think so.--TraceyR (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Tracey, MEDRS is applicable any time health claims are made, whether it's a drug or a supplement or a breathing technique. Barrett is highly identified with Quackwatch and I'm not persuaded by separating the two entities further in our treatment. Though Quackwatch receives support from many donors, the vast majority of the work has always been one man. That's neither a mark for or against Quackwatch, I just think it cautions against treating the organization like a separate corporation rather than a small, dedicated group group headed by a single, opinionated expert. Ocaasi c 14:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I would suggest reading the FDA's Overview of Dietary Supplements followed by Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition 2003 ("FDA will continue to identify and take appropriate enforcement actions against fraudulently marketed dietary supplement products that make unsubstantiated medical claims in their labeling."), and Criminal Investigations, November 22, 2010: Co-conspirators Sentenced in $11.9 Million Dietary Supplement Fraud Scheme ("Under federal law, a dietary supplement may not claim to treat, cure or prevent a specific disease or class of diseases.")--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BruceGrubb: What has this to do with this article? Are you suggesting that this product is a "fraudulently marketed dietary supplement product" that makes "unsubstantiated medical claims in its labeling" or that it "claims to treat, cure or prevent a specific disease or class of diseases"? Has the FDA taken action against the makers of Juice Plus? None of the links you provide would support such claims. Please explain. Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
You stated "But MEDRS isn't applicable here. This product is a supplement, not a drug." These quotes from the FDA shows that regarding medical claims in the eyes of the FDA it does not matter--if it makes a medical claim it falls under their jurisdiction even if what is involved is neither a food or a drug (as shown by Medical Claims on Labeling and Promotional Materials of Infant Mattresses and Infant Positioners Distributed in the United States).
The FDA has a very simple definition of a medical claim: "A statement on labeling that declares or implies that the product will heal, lessen, manage, or prevent disease." In addition to drugs this also covers medical devices and supplements. Logically anything that would fall under the FDA's definition would fall under WP:MEDRS.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I'm no gambler, but I am fairly certain that if there were any health claims on the product labelling, this fact would have been mentioned somewhere in the article. Assuming therefore that this is not the case, I'm not convinced of the relevance of the links you provided. Of course supplements come under FDA control because they are classed as foods, but if no claims are made that "the product will heal, lessen, manage, or prevent disease" then surely MEDRS doesn't apply. --TraceyR (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
This product lived and died by the claim that it would improve health and wellness dramatically. I'm not an enemy of alternative medicine (I took Juice Plus in 2005), but the assertion that Juice Plus' nutritional evangelism didn't rise to the level of health or medical claims seems a real stretch to me. Even if Juice Plus didn't make such claims, the product was researched for its medical efficacy anyway, so MEDRS applies anywhere that took place, including any studies Juice Plus conducted, of which the article reviews several. Even the JPCRF's mission suggests "improved nutrition leads to healthier lifestyle and overall better health", which is a medical claim. Although in alt-med world, health and nutrition are not medicine, in medical-world, they are. You're confusing a distinction between nutrition and drugs that modern medicine--and hence our guidelines--simply does not make. Chemicals enter the bloodstream and are utilized or excreted. The results, good or bad, are medical. Ocaasi c 13:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to reply to this without 'someone' jumping in and accusing me of 'wikilawyering' or some such term, but here goes: We're talking about two different things here. The first point is about claims made by Juice Plus about the product, which, of course, would fall under the FDA's jurisdiction. Those are what are given above as reasons for MEDRS being invoked here, i.e. if the FDA regards it as making health claims, MEDRS is relevant. Surely the fact that a university somewhere performs a study, into e.g. bioavailability, doesn't automatically bring a product under the FDA's jurisdiction - it's a health claim that would do that (see above). The second point is about what is in the article. You say (in an edit summary) that the article is full of health claims; if by "health claims" you mean the reporting of the results of clinical studies, these are not claims but results. The distinction is important, since the results are not controlled by the company but are the objective assessments of those who conduct the studies, reviewed by the journals which publish them; claims (were there to be any) would come from the company. If explicit claims were made in the article which were not made by the company, then these would (long ago) have been deleted, I'm sure. There's a difference between "a statement on labeling that declares or implies that the product will heal, lessen, manage, or prevent disease" and a claim that a product will "improve health and wellness dramatically" (was such a claim made by the company?). The statement that "improved nutrition leads to healthier lifestyle and overall better health" is not about the product but is a truism about nutrition in general; is it a medical claim? Hardly. Even if it were, it 's about improved nutrition, not Juice Plus. Would apples fall under the FDA's drug rules (and therefore MEDRS) if someone were to claim (heaven forbid) that eating an apple a day would keep the doctor away? --TraceyR (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS applies to "biomedical information in articles". There is certainly an ample amount of that in the article. I can see how editors would be concerned about MEDRS in this case because a lot of the research discussed is from primary sources. I realize that primary sources in such cases can be problematic and that they must be presented cautiously, particularly in cases where the research is company-sponsored because such studies are often guilty of cherrypicking and overstatement of the significance of the results. For example, a company might publish a test tube study on isolated cells and then have a bold overstatement in the conclusions along the lines of "...and our results suggest that product x may be useful in stopping cancer progression". When I went through the JP research, I was careful to make sure that the data were represented accurately and that no such overstatements were included. Nonetheless, it's still problematic because it is primary research. We could instead simply rely on what third-party sources have said about the research -- that would be highly unflattering for JP because such commentary has been universally negative. Still, it's an option. I'm curious to hear what those who aren't hawking JP have to say about this.
As for medical "claims", Juice Plus has a long history of making them. The company has disseminated such claims about JP prevention and treating cancer via their key spokespersons (e.g. Jim Sears,[3] Susan Silberstein[4]) and even the chair at Sloan-Kettering (Cassileth) commented that "aggressively promoted to cancer patients based on claims of antioxidant effects"[5]. Then there's also the issue about the claim that the products are "the next best thing to fruits and vegetables". That misleading claim has been the cause of considerable consternation, as indicated by the Better Business Bureau,[6], CSPI[7] and Australia's TGA[8] (and yet suprisingly the company continues to use it). Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Some more interesting (but incorrect) assertions, e.g. (1) that the company publishes the results of studies. This is so obviously incorrect that it is a shame that it needs to be stated explicitly: the studies are published by the journals which accept them for publication, not by Juice Plus. The same applies (2) to the statement about cherry-picking, of course: the results are published, whether the results are positive or not. This is stated in the article in an edit reinstated by Rhode Island Red today, so there's no excuse for not knowing this fact (the reason it was ignored was probably that it contradicted his cherry-picking assertion). Another statement is (3) that primary sources are problematic: not so. There are WP guidelines indicating how to use them (already mentioned above). No problem there either. Another error (4) is to assert that Sears et al are company spokespersons; of course you know that they are not employed by the company. However they do recommend and do make speeches in support of the products, presumably because they think that the products are useful. Now (5) about that claim that Juice Plus is "the next best thing to fruits and vegetables": is this misleading? If so, in what way? It's no good to say "I don't like it, so I'll say that it is misleading". If it is misleading (and indeed "the cause of considerable consternation" - wow!) to make this claim, then something else must be the next best thing instead. If so, do the world a favour, Rhode Island Red: tell us what is? --TraceyR (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
That was a non-rebuttal and did not pertain to the comment about MEDRS. As for primary sources, they can indeed by problematic as outlined in WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. As for the banal indictment about "the next best thing to fruits and vegetables" being an "I don't like it" argument on my part, well that's just silly. I cited three reliable third party sources that criticized JP specifically as a result of that claim. If there is any fingerpointing to be done, it can be ponited at the BBB, CSPI, and Australia's TGA; but it will be a waste of time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, the sequence has been established: (1) you throw in loads of irrelevant, unsubstantiated and/or incorrect statements (2) I and/or others point out some of your errors and (3) you say that it's all irrelevant because it wasn't about MEDRS anyway. Brilliant, you may think, but why spout all that irrelevant rubbish in the first place? Stick to the subject and progress may eventually be made. But I'm not holding my breath - I've experienced this before. I'll just wait for you to overstep the mark (again) and get banned for 6 months (again). Aah, the very thought stimulates endorphine excretion! ---TraceyR (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I had wondered why you were pursuing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT while maintaining WP:CPUSH—you have just revealed your plan. However there are more people watching this article than Rhode Island Red and your POV is contrary to consensus. Attempts to promote or whitewash products on Wikipedia will not succeed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
More irrelevant POV comment. Amazing! But by all means keep on watching if it does things for you. --TraceyR (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

TraceyR I advise you to immediately tone down the bombast and personal attacks. I don’t plan to tolerate a resurgence of this behavior from you yet again. You have been violating WP:COI and POV pushing on this article for years and it’s been tolerated for far too long. Incidentally, I was never banned; I was blocked, as you well know, for a matter related to inadvertently outing one of your fellow Juice Plus distributors, who had likewise terrorized this article (and made repeated personal attacks against me) in violation of WP:COI for years. I won’t make the mistake a second time. If you continue along this line of conduct, I will report the matter privately to WP admin. I have a right to edit in peace without your constant badgering and harassment. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Rhode Island Red, Doc James, et al., From what I'm reading throughout this entire discourse, it doesn't appear you're any more qualified to be editing this article than TraceyR is. I realize it's difficult to not form an opinion about JP, but you do seem to lack the skills to write about it objectively. You obviously dislike the product on a personal level, and it shows quite clearly in the article (you mention OJ Simpson but not Bear Grylls--that doesn't seem like a minor slip-up). Would you want Charles Manson as presiding judge over a murder case? Likewise, one who has a personal vendetta against JP is not capable of writing a neutral article about it.
Bringing this back around to the original point of this section, this article is indeed unbalanced. No matter how much you sling the WP:MEDRS excuse, it's apparent you just don't want to present a balanced view. There's enough information out there, even presented on this talk page, that you could.
For the rest of us who are not so passionate either way about the product, please re-write this article with a balanced view.
Jubican (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

I propose this article and the National Safety Associates article should be merged, probably into this article since JuicePlus seems to be the more notable name and the one the company promotes itself under these days. Makes little sense to have both --Icerat (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of +[edit]

Some mentions of Juice Plus include the + after the name and others don't. If they're the same product they should be the same. Which one is correct? Ocaasi c 01:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I just had a brief look at the home page and the "+" is used consistently. It appears to be part of the registered name (see the browser header), so ideally the article should have the "+" too. --TraceyR (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
From WP:MOSTM: "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love"). In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used". Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Studies "funded" - to what extent?[edit]

The article creates the impression that the peer-reviewed studies were paid for in full by NSA, the implication being that this is why the results were favorable. This might be deemed a slur on the reputation of the scientists involved, so ought care to be taken with the wording to avoid legal problems for WP? It would be useful to get information about the degree to which the studies were funded by NSA and whether they were independent studies, i.e. whether the company exerted any sort of pressure on the scientists. --TraceyR (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What do the sources say? If the Wikipedia article agrees with the sources then there is probably little legal recource (per Barrett v. Rosenthal). Of course if the article performs some editorialising, then then is original research. From my reading and looking at a couple (not all) of the provided sources, I would say that you cannot get much simplier than: "Of the published peer-reviewed studies on Juice Plus products, the majority were funded and/or authored by the manufacturer, Natural Alternatives International (NAI);[12][13][30][31][32][33][34] or the main distributor, NSA.;[31][35][36][37][38][39][40] two were funded by individual Juice Plus distributors;[41][42] and one was conducted independently.[43]". However perhaps the term "funded" could be amended to "fully or partly funded"?
Also on an aside, why does that section have a tag on it? Reading through the section it appears it's only issue is that it's overlinked. Shot info (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Yes, my concern is that the impression is created that NSA gets the results it pays for. Something along the lines you suggest would mitigate against readers getting that impression. It certainly seems very unlikely that any scientists whose professional ingerity has been thus smeared would stand much chance of legal redress, but that makes it all the more important for WP to deal fairly with them. There is a recently published study which contains a statement specifically denying that NSA had any opportunity to influence the results (perhaps they had read this article and wanted to clarify the issue). Perhaps there are others such statements in other studies. The fact that NSA refers to the studies as "independent" indicates that no influence is brought to bear. I'll dig out the recent study statement and post it here some time. --TraceyR (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Stephanie Roll et al.: Reduction of common cold symptoms by encapsulated juice powder concentrate of fruits and vegetables: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. In: Br J Nutr. 2010 Aug 23: 1-5. DOI:10.1017/S000711451000317X
Mittel kann Ausgaben für Medikamente langfristig senken / Remedy can reduce expenditures on medications in the long term.
"Die Neutralität der Studie wurde dadurch gewährleistet, dass dem Hersteller des Präparats als Sponsor der Studie keine Studiendaten übermittelt wurden und dass dieser auch nicht an der Interpretation der Studienergebnisse beteiligt war." Charité University Clinic, Berlin
"The neutrality of the study was ensured by the fact that as a sponsor of the study, no study data were transmitted to the manufacturer of the preparation and they were also not involved in the interpretation of the study results." Cambridge University Press Office
It would be interesting to know whether the authors of other studies into Juice Plus had taken such care to ensure that their results were treated fairly and their reputations not besmirched. Can anyone help here?--TraceyR (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Study funding information in itself is neutral. Funding does not imply that the grantor directly influenced the results; such information is simply reported as an SOP. As an interesting aside, the article by Canham discusses how NSA pulled its name off a study that it funded becuase the results were unfavorable: "Juice Plus+ decided to remove its name from the research after its anti-oxidant supplement, in the form of a gummy bear, had no effect on healthy children. The company approached the University of Utah's Division of Foods and Nutrition with the idea for the study and $30,000 to pay for the research. It hoped the supplement would reduce the level of oxidative stress in children, but the results showed otherwise."[9] Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe that this detail (Canham) has already been added to the article. What is the point in bringing it up here again?
The information about the Charité study is not mentioned yet, however. --TraceyR (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Tracey - can you post your proposed changes to how you would like the section to appear here, so that editors can comment? Shot info (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Investigators are required to give Information about affiliations, and grants from sponsors have to be mentioned (but not the amount). The article wording must therefore make it clear that the sponsor's funding need not cover the total cost. How about "Of the published peer-reviewed studies on Juice Plus products, the majority were funded to some extent by grants from the manufacturer ... or the main distributor ...". To say "in part or in full" would imply that there is at least one source stating that a sponsor bore the full cost of a study. We don't know that.
The mention of authorship needs to make it clear that John Wise was the lead author of one (or two?) of the early pilot studies performed by NAI itself; he is mentioned as co-author on approx. 50% of the more recent studies, which were all done by universities etc. elsewhere.
One way of reducing the ugly over-citation would be to have a table of the studies which would include this sort of information. A source for such a table can be found here.--TraceyR (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
There's a list of NAI's "Sponsored Clinical Research Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals and Presented at Scientific Conferences" here. --TraceyR (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so you've IDed what you think are the problems - now, what do you want the pertinent section actually changed to. I've noticed that there is very little discussion on actually editing the article on this talkpage. So I'm not interested in discussing any of the "issues", I'm only interested in seeing what you propose to actually change the article to. Until then, there is very little discussion to actually be entered into. Shot info (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The NAI document cited above is innacurate and unreliable. I looked up two Juice Plus studies (Bloomer et al 2006; Nantz et al 2006) from the list of studies which NAI says they sponsored and in fact the articles themselves list the funding support as coming from NSA, not NAI (and in the case of Nantz's study, NAI spelled her name wrong -- i.e., Nance). So in other words, there are is a serious problem with that source. I would deem it to be essentialy useless. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Section "Conflicts of interest in studies"[edit]

Which type of "conflict of interest" is supposed to be highlighted here - the fact that J.Wise was employed by NAI and is named as a co-author of several studies? If so, what is the relevance of the paragraph about USAI to "Conflicts of interest in studies"? --TraceyR (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, can you propose the changes you would like to see? Shot info (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
That's easy: just remove the section altogether. The whole USAI paragraph is irrelevant to this article and the information about John Wise in no way notable enough to warrant a section of its own. This information could be included elsewhere in the article. --TraceyR (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Nah not a complete whitewash, but I agree with reducing it down to Juice Plus related bits. ie/
NSAs Juice Plus website cites various research articles in support of the company's marketing claims about the biological effects of Juice Plus, maintaining that these “studies were conducted by independent researchers” at various universities.[65] Several of the studies were authored by John A. Wise [12][32][33][66] and Morin.[12][66] Both these authors have been criticised by consumer health advocate and alternative medicine critic Stephen Barrett of MLM Watch [1] [12].
Incidently it's not out of the ordinary in Wikipedia for information tangentially related to the subject to be included in the subject's article because there isn't a "home" for it yet. Shot info (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that the correct term for Wise and Morin is "co-authored" (see recent entry here); Wise was lead author on one study only, published in 1996. ...Two early studies were co-authored by John A. Wise, Morin and others [12][66], two other studies by Wise [32][33] ... As for Barrett, let's not get into that one again. He's a self-publishing self-publicist retired psychiatrist, for heaven's sake, with a bee in his bonnet about all things MLM and 'natural'. He's certainly not neutral!
It is normal for a manufacturer (e.g. a pharmaceutical company) to conduct pilot studies into new products. To highlight this with a section title as being a "conflict of interest" in unusual.
It's not about whitewashing but article neutrality (i.e. colourless rather than white). The mention of USAI is just "blackwash" in this article. It (USAI) should be mentioned in the article about John Wise, of course, which this article links to anyway. USAI has its own article too, so the USAI/Wise stuff has a good home. --TraceyR (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Please post what you want the article changed too rather than going into things that you brought up but then don't want to go into. BTW, you might want to redact your statement above - BLP applies. Shot info (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The argument about whether Wise/Morin were co-authors or lead authors is irrelevant in the context of a discussion about company-influence in the research and COI. In that context, where these authors appear in the author list is not important; it's only important that a company executive (and insider stockholder in the case of Wise) was an author at all. And just for the record, Wise was an author on 6 of the JP studies, not two as stated above. The article only listed 4 of them, but I just updated it to show all 6. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Poorly Written[edit]

As an avid WP reader, I read through this article today and was very disappointed with how it's written, and that no WP writers have done anything about it. The writer is clearly biased based on these observations:

1) Comments on the studies of each section opens with a statement of doubt. However, the product has plenty of well-documented and neutral studies available which were not highlighted.

2) The whole feel of the article is aimed at swaying the reader to form a negative opinion. For an encyclopedia, that's a huge no-no. Take a look at the article on Adolf Hitler. While few, if any, consider the man to be helpful to the human race, the article is written quite neutrally. This article on Juice Plus, however, appears to be written by someone who is skeptical of the product, rather than simply presenting the facts.

3) I feel like I've been subtly-gossiped to. How did this article get through QC?

4) OJ Simpson reference is quite negative. Yet no mentioned of Bear Grylls.

This article needs to be completely re-written by someone who is not emotional either way about the product. It's distastefully written and lacks mature authoring.

I am not a writer, so I appeal to someone who is: please re-write this article, and write it encyclopedically. I would be glad to offer my assistance in information gathering.

Jubican (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Better than if written as an infomercial as there is less chance of harm. There is no good research on this product is the issue. Thus it is not possible to display it in a positive light. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Doc James, I'm afraid you're wrong. First, "Positive" is not better than "negative". It's just as irresponsible, as it's not fact-based, and therefore not encyclopedic. The article should be deleted if no one is going to write it correctly. Second, unbiased evidence of "anti-product" research is severely lacking. As we've seen in our research labs, if one sets out to prove the sky is purple, they'll somehow be able to prove it. The JuicePlus product has been reviewed positively in prestigious medical and nutrition journals. But the negative research does not appear to have been performed by any organization who is trustworthy to present the facts. For most of these organizations, the goal is to debunk the product, so of course their findings must match their goal in order to get their money (they're typically hired by a competitor).
Quite frankly, I'm not interested in someone's opinion on the product...good or bad. If the article needs to be shrunk down to 2 paragraphs, then so be it. But let's aim to provide an opinion-free article that is consistent with the goals of Wikipedia.
Jubican (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to ask just what non fact-based information is in this article? Also I might add that WP:PRIMARY per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_89#Princeton_University.27s_website_and_Diabetes.2C_Obesity_and_Metabolism_journal limits just how we can use such sources. Heck, one of my problems with the Weston Price biography is that two articles that show a possible change in attitude by Weston Price are primary sources (Journal American Medical Association and Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers) with (so far) no secondary sources for interpretation. Like it or not there are major limits on how you can use primary sources in wikipedia.
There are practical reasons for this. For example the conclusions of K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al., "Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843. regarding Homoeopathy was NOT supported by later studies ([Clinical Trials on Homeopathy Published from 2003 to 2006]) and the quality of the 1997 study was questioned in Linde, K, et al. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Jul;52(7):631-6; Ernst E, et al. Meta -analysis of homoeopathy trials. Lancet. 1998 Jan 31;351(9099):366) and shown to be seriously flawed in the August 27, 2005 issue of Lancet.
Focal infection theory is another example as even at the height of the tooth and tonsil extraction binge where were serious questions regarding the quality of the supportive studies.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi BruceGrubb--that's a good (and constructive) point. However, for this article, the author clearly hand-selected facts to support his/her own opinion. While this article doesn't have overtly-stated opinions, the writer did purposely include negative research while purposely excluding the positive research performed by well-known and trusted organizations ([see a few here]). Also, as I mentioned previously, the celebrity endorsement section is a joke. The end result is an expression of the writer's opinion by manipulating factual information.
I'm not suggesting that the negative portions of the article be removed simply because they're negative. I am suggesting that the article be balanced and unbiased. There's plenty of research to support both positive and negative positions. For those who are familiar with both sides of the argument, this article is borderline inflammatory and is not neutral.
Let me put it this way. Imagine removing all mention of the Holocaust from Adolf Hitler's article, and only mentioning what wonderful changes he brought about to Germany. No opinions, just facts. Yet, the reader would be left with the impression that Hitler was a great fellow. You see? Stated opinions aren't required in order to get your opinion across. That is the problem with this article.
Jubican (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Godwin's law aside this has to be the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time as you are comparing apples to oranges. A better example would be the full scale migraine that is the Jesus myth theory where despite the article acknowledging the fact there is no one definition for the term much of the counter argument presented is based on the most extreme versions of the concept while more moderate versions like that of John Remsburg get lost in the shuffle. Right now product research section is so full of primary material that I doubt that many laymen can even understand it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Grubb is missing Jubican's point here, which is that being selective in what is mentioned and what is omitted can produce a bias in any article. What is ridiculous about that?
Bruce Grubb also thinks that the primary material in the article is incomprehensible to the layman. Is he suggesting that it be removed? How would this improve the article? --TraceyR (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
TraceyR seems to have missed Bruce's point. Bruce said that comparing the Juice Plus article with Hitler and the Holocaust was ridiculous (i.e. he appropriately referenced Godwin's Law, and I fully agree. Such invocations are not constructive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
So someone else is missing Jubican's point! Godwin's Law is so gloriously, ridiculously irrelevant, a Red herring, a Straw man, indeed a tacit admission that Bruce Grubb and, of course Rhode Island Red, cannot rebuff Jubican's point. But then there's none so blind as he who will not see. --TraceyR (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
@Jubican, TracyForget the rhetoric... We don't just remove sourced information that meets MEDRS. If you have other sources to balance it, or proposals to make the phrasing more even-handed (but in line with the references) go ahead and mention them. But we're not going to stub a well developed article because the conclusion of the studies is not favorable. Also, accusing the negative studies of setting out to prove the product ineffective is a quite bold claim that I doubt can be reliably sourced. So, what specific suggestions do you have?
I agree that we should not start sections with a 'doubt' but rather with an overview. Do you understand, on the other point, that primary studies are not acceptable as support. We're really looking for systematic reviews. We might be able to mention that 'JuicePlus' cites published primary research' but we probably won't do more than provide a link in the references to where JuicePlus does so. Otherwise it becomes a highly speculative and unencyclopedic game about citing primaries.
@Doc James, 'doing less harm' is an admirable but not encyclopedic goal, in my opinion. Risk aversion is a kind of bias that we should not practice to here so long as we otherwise follow policy...else we slant too strongly towards the mainstream and don't fairly present alternative and fringe views in full. Ocaasi t | c 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup article is a prime example of the problem you can have regarding MEDRS with primary sources. Sometime studies are so new that there just are not the type of secondary sources required by MEDRS and other times the follow up are so obscure they might as well not exist. The Weston Price article has the later problem as there is a primary source papers that seems to indicate that he later changed his mind regarding focal infection theory ("I have been unable to find an approach to the problem through the study of affected individuals and diseased tissues" and that "the evidence seemed to indicate clearly that the forces that were at work were not to be found in the diseased tissues") but so far no secondary source supporting that reading of the primary material has been found.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Bruce, yes you've covered this territory well ;). I think where we encounter a gap between primaries and MEDRS we should consider using a summary-style to let readers know what types of sources are out there and what claims are made within them. Without citing specific results we can at least give the lay of the land regarding that research. Maybe that's an option here, to summarize the primary research that has been done, without advancing any new points. Ocaasi t | c 02:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to draw your attention to the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view article. The first paragraph is quite clear on how to achieve neutrality, specifically, "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." On this discussion page alone, many have complained about the bias, which for some reason is not causing the authors to check their own motives. But in particular, I want to point out the second item on the series: proportionately.
There's a very good reason for this. It obviously took a lot of work to find and reference the unfavorable studies. Yet, the same people who located these studies are not / have not put the same energy into locating favorable studies that are suitable for this article. Now, per the 3 core principles of Wikipedia, the article should be proportionate in it's entirety. Some editors have admitted this article is disproportionate in one form or another (Doc James did so in his initial reply in this section). So by an editor's own admission this article is in violation of NPOV--the same editor who previously removed the NPOV warning. In order to achieve proportion, there must be balanced sources. That means either favorable sources must be added, or the unfavorable should be removed. For instance, I've mentioned Bear Grylls 3 times now, yet no one has acted on it. If you were to put the Man vs. Wild hero in this article as an endorser, it would certainly become even more clear to the average reader that there's something wrong with this article (is that why you don't add it?).
Editors should be responsible to remove themselves if they cannot be neutral. Like many people, I visit Wikipedia all the time, and load myself up with all kinds of good information. However, this article is strikingly biased, and if you all allow this kind of "Seattle Times" article-writing to creep into Wikipedia, the integrity of the entire system will begin to fall. I can just hear, "Well, they did it on the JuicePlus article, why can't I do it here!".
Again, I ask that you folks just stick to the spirit of Wikipedia. I'm not a scholar, but I have enough sense to know that what I'm reading is not written by people who are neutral. If you can't fix that part, please be decent and responsible and remove yourselves. Nothing personal, just please fix.
Jubican (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Many may also wish to look at WP:COI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@Jubican. It's great that you're reading policy. The only thing you're missing is you. If you have sources for Bear Grylls, post them. If you have a draft of a section including his endorsement, propose it here. If you are comfortable adding it to the article with a proper reference, go for it. We'll continue to work on phrasing content neutrally; part of that relies on other editors to provide the raw material. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 05:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The "Editors should be responsible to remove themselves if they cannot be neutral" comment IMHO shows a total misunderstanding of just what is meant by WP:NPOV. The requirement is NOT the editors are totally neutral but that an article's subject be presented in as much a NPOV as is possible within the guidelines of Wikipedia. WP:RS directly states "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context" as shown by the examples above things may not as cut and dried as that particular source paints them.
Primary sources are generally written for experts in that field which is why WP:MEDRS restates "All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse." (sic). In this case Stephen Barrett fulfills that requirement in any reasonable manner any we have yet to see anything of similar quality on the other side so the article is going to be slanted.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Italic text

Edit request from Uglysquid, 6 August 2011[edit]

Please update the ingredient lists as they are not accurate. The ingredients listed on the bottles (recently purchased) I have in front of me are:

Garden Blend: Vegetable juice powder and pulp from carrot, parsley, beet, kale, broccoli, cabbage, spinach and tomato; gelatin, glucomannan, cellulose, calcium ascorbate, calcium carbonate, Lactobacillus acidophilus, d-alpha tocopherol, beta carotene, natural enzyme blend, sugarbeet fiber, garlic powder, oat bran, rice bran, mixed tocopherols Dunaliella salina, folic acid.

Orchard Blend: Fruit juice powder and pulp from apple, orange, pineapple, cranberry, peach, acerola cherry, and papaya; gelatin, calcium ascorbate, citrus pectin, beet root powder, citrus bioflavoniods (sic), glucomannan, Lactobacillus acidophilus, natural enzyme blend, d-alpha tocopherol, beta carotene, date fiber, prune fiber, Dunaliella salina, folic acid.

I don't have a more publicly available source for the information, but the currently posted ingredient list has no citation, either.

Thanks.

Uglysquid (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the ingredients and nutritional info altogether, as they are not at all encyclopedic, and, as you say, they are unsourced --Jac16888 Talk 18:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
(1) What could be more fundamental to explaining Juice Plus than the basic ocmposition of the product? This information has stood uncontested for years after being reviewed by multiple editors; no one even raised concerns about ingredient info being unencyclopedic. (2) If you are worried aboust sourcing, then simply add a citation needed tag; don't blank content. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Removal of that information is not vandalism, but a citation needed tag would be better. I do think that a discussion of ingredients would be encyclopedic content, but it needs to be sourced to a reliable secondary source - to establish weight (what is in front of an editor on a bottle does not qualify, btw). Yobol (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec)I've already commented on your talk page for your incredibly inappropriate labelling of my edit as vandalism, and I'll reply further here. Wikipedia is not a directory, we do not list things such as a full set of ingredients. The fact that nobody has raised concerns before is irrelevant, and per WP:BURDEN I am well within reason to remove unsourced content such as this--Jac16888 Talk 21:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion of the ingredients perhaps, but not a full list, which is a ludicrous violation of WP:NOT#DIR--Jac16888 Talk 21:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I diasgree with your assertion about notability of the information, and merely citing WP:NOT doesn't make your case. As I alluded to previously, a reader should be able to see what's in the product -- the information is fundamental -- it doesn't detract; it adds to to one's understanding. As to the issue of sourcing, that's another matter entirely. An appropriate response would have been to add a citation needed tag. I've seen the brochures and I've see the bottle labels myself so I know that the information is accurate. I'll dig up a source. No need to be so dramatic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
If we were to follow that logic, we would list the ingredients of every product there is an article for on wikipedia, you'll notice that is not the case. WP:NOT is a a key policy and the key point being made is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, the information you're so in favour of preserving belongs on the brochures and the labels you keep bringing up, not here--Jac16888 Talk 22:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Invoking the slippery slope fallacy doesn't make your argument any more compelling. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing in WP:NOT that would expressly preclude inclusion of this information. You are being overly broad in your interpretation IMO. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd say its more you're choosing to interpret it overly narrowly due to whatever vested interest it is that you have with the product. You have yet to give any kind of convincing reason as to why this content is in fact encyclopedic rather than a meaningless list, nor have you been able to produce the many sources you appear claim exist--Jac16888 Talk 22:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Vested interest? Better stow that garbage ASAP. Haven't produced sources yet? I'm eating dinner on a Sunday. Are you in some kind of rush. The references will be forthcoming. In the meantime, chew on this one.[10] You can simply add a citation tag in the meantime. If you have concerns about whether or not the information is encylopedic, post an RFC and get a second opinion....easy enough right? Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd call it a vested interest since you added the content in the first place, and going by your talk page history and this page you have a real issue with WP:OWNership on this page. And fine, guess it will have to be an RFC, goody. I'll sort it out in the morning, although if in the meantime you feel like removing it yourself instead of wasting time drawing this out, It would be much appreciated--Jac16888 Talk 02:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
(Quoting Jac16888) -- "If we were to follow that logic, we would list the ingredients of every product there is an article for on wikipedia, you'll notice that is not the case."[11]
Really??? What you're implying is that in the the past few hours since we've been having this discussion, you somehow managed to confirm that there isn't a single article on any product in all of WP in which the ingredients are listed? ROFL. The first article I checked on a hunch --Extenze -- contains an extensive list of ingredients. Second article checked -- same story -- Airborne_(dietary_supplement). Maybe you can take a break from shooting salvos out of your nether-regions and apologize. Ah, what's the point...don't bother; just eat your crow and move on. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
That response is very rude - I'm sure that it contravenes plenty of WP rules. Apologies are certainly due, but not from Jac16888. A constructive response would be for someone to post an image of the current bottles and labels. That way there would be both a recent image and a list of the ingrediaents. BTW, just citing that a couple of articles have a list of ingredients does not prove that every article has a such a list. To confirm Jac16888's assertion it is merely necessary to show that one other article has no list of ingredients. Logic 101. ---TraceyR (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Uglysquid's report on Garden Blend ingredients agrees with the RS ConsumerLab source. Unfortunately, ConsumerLab did not test the Orchard Blend and thus doesn't have the ingredients for that product. I am assuming Uglysquid's report is correct on Orchard Blend, but we still wouldn't be allowed to use that as an ingredient list.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 15:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Full list of ingredients and nutritional information[edit]

Short and sweet, Having come across this article I noticed the hackjob infobox, containing a full list of "supplement information" for 2 of the products, i.e. full ingredient list, RDI information etc. Considering this to be against a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information I removed the lists with a clear edit summary [12] only to be reverted as vandalism [13]. My attempt at a talk page resolution has gotten nowhere so here we are. To sum up, the article has a full list of ingredients straight off the label, and I think it should be removed as a clear violation of WP:NOT--Jac16888 Talk 11:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are both right, in different ways. This is far too much info for an Infobox, although very cleverly written. The current standardized Infobox is Template:Nutritional value. Note this does not list ingrediants, but does list the nutritional values. The ingrediants should move to a section in the article, rather than an Infobox. However, instead of listing all of the ingrediants out straight from the label (and hence some WP:NOT issues), I would only list ingrediants that are particularly sourced as unusual or unique. On a side note, I am very curious why the manufacturer doesn't list the nutritional facts on their website - that would be an easily accessible RS. The Consumer Lab source currently used is fine, although I will tag it with a {{subscription required}} tag.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 12:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
In this case I think that it is relevant to list the ingredient fruits and vegetables. To list 'nutritional facts' is fine for ordinary multivitamin tablets, which all have a recipe combining a limited number of specific vitamins, minerals etc., and the manufacturer knows just how much of each it adds to the mix. For a blend of fruit or vegetable juice concentrate in powder form it makes more sense to list the fruits and vegetables contained in the supplement. There could well be tens or even hundreds of thousands of phytochemicals in there, but none in sufficient quantity to report in the 'facts' table. That could also be why the manufacturer doesn't list the nutritional facts on its website.--TraceyR (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
That is a reasonable explanation about why the manufacturer doesn't list the nutrition facts. Is it also possible that the nutrition facts could change from batch to batch produced due to the variances in the source fruits and vegetables? It also would be nice to find an updated source for RDI/ingediants than 2006. Even though we can't use Uglysquid as a source, we have to AGF that his transcription of the bottle he holds in his hand is accurate. It also seems likely that there could be a product reformulation in the past 5 years since ConsumerLab.com released their findings. If a new RS that matches Uglysquid's report can be found easily, then this is a simple fix. Otherwise, some sort of tag marking that source as outdated may be appropriate.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 12:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so we've heard from a wikistalker and a Juice Plus distributor; input from uninvolved parties would be more compelling. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red: You really can't just lash out at everyone who doesn't share your apparent deep-seated loathing (negative POV) of Juice Plus, being coarse and just downright unpleasant. Either be civil or stop editing this article. Your behaviour here is unwarranted, unpleasant and needs to stop, unless you want to be blocked again. --TraceyR (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove ingredients [from uninvolved editor] - The Infobox as it stands now (including ingredients and nutritional facts) is a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. The infobox is way too promotional, and reads like and looks like advertising. I looked thru dozens of WP articles on comparable products, and I found no InfoBox remotely like it. Editor Leef5 above mentions Template:Nutritional value, and perhaps that template could be used. However, even that template is presently used primarily for raw foods (eggs, apples, etc). There are a few instances where that template is used for processed food, such as Pizza Pockets, but those are very rare. I suggest that, as a compromise, the current infobox be removed and replaced with Template:Nutritional value. The ingredients, if they must be mentioned, can be in the body of the article, but as an editor points out above, that information is ephemeral and could quickly become out of date as the formulation changes. --Noleander (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
In what way is it like advertising? There's no comment, no sales-speak, no advertising copy, just a list of the contents. --TraceyR (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
An encyclopedia article should not give the appearance of promoting or endorsing products. It is misleading to have a colorful display at the top of the article that looks nearly exactly like a product label or product advertisement. The WP community, as evidenced by the lack of similar displays in comparable articles, has decided that such displays are unacceptable. Read WP:NOTADVERTISING. If you could produce 20 or 30 other WP articles that have similar InfoBoxes, you might have an argument. If the ingredients information is important (and it may be), I have no objection to including it in the body of the article. --Noleander (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove from infobox Agreed about the infobox, after further consideration. Discussion about ingredients should be in the article proper, not listed in the infobox. It does look like an advertisement as is. Yobol (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for the retention of the image: if it makes the article look like an advert (but that's a subjective judgement), then take it out. I would just point out that, since this product isn't to be found in the shops, having a picture in the article is not going to increase sales, i.e. it isn't fufilling the purpose of an advertisement here; it is just an illustration. If WP rules that it is nevertheless 'like an advert', then it has to go. Putting the list of contents in the article body would, in my opinion, reduce the usefulness of the article (the reader would have to search for the contents information, rather that finding it summarised in the Infobox), but again, if that's what WP requires, so be it. FWIW, I think that WP has become too bureaucratic in such things. Didn't Jimbo say something like that recently? ;-) --TraceyR (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe the image is appropriate since this is a product page as long as the image is non-free fair use, as I believe it is notated as.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 23:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the image and the Template:Nutritional value template would be acceptable in the InfoBox, provided they do not look too much like an advertisement or an actual product label. That is the key point: it cannot look like a promotion of the product. --Noleander (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not having any luck finding an (updated) RS with the label/nutrition facts info. Hopefully another editor can dig something up.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 15:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Once upon a time, the ingredients were listed in the body text. They got moved into an infobox becuase it seemed like a more convenient location (and I still think the article is better with the details in the infobox vs body text). I don't buy the argument that listing the ingredients in this particular manner makes the article appear promotional. I really don't see it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
RhodeIslandRed: WP has thousands of articles on food products. We can get some sense of community-wide consensus by seeing how the other articles look. Can you cite some other food articles that have ingredients listed in their InfoBox? My point is: this particular article is not the best place to establish a new approach to food InfoBoxes. Better would be to go to the Talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink and start a discussion there on a uniform approach to food product InfoBoxes. But we cannot give preferential treatment to JuicePlus and let its InfoBox look nearly identical to its own product label. --Noleander (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
On this point I agree with the previous statement by RhodeIslandRed. The Juice Plus website lists the fruit and vegetables used. This is surely a reliable source for this infobox data. The 'nutritional facts' table presents a difficulty: the information may well differ from country to country, since many countries specify their own RDAs, leading to different percentage values for the same quantity of a given substance. Which country's percentage values would be valid for English-language WP - the USA's? Canada's? Australia's? the UK's? South Africa's, etc.? If no reliable source can be found for the data in the 'facts' table, then they can (should?) be omitted until a RS can be found. I'm not sure about the "preferential treatment" - could you explain what advantage Juice Plus gains from having its contents listed in the infobox? Surely that's the logical place for them?
The current image was lifted from a German website (click on the image for the details). This same website has since replaced this image by a newer one, with German product names. Whether the current image is therefore legal on WP I can't say; whether it is valid as an illustration on English-language WP I also don't know - the US, UK etc bottles may be different now.--TraceyR (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Tracey: Why do you say the InfoBox is the "logical place" for the ingredients? To the contrary, the consensus of the WP community, as evidenced by thoursands of other food product articles is to put the ingredients, if anywhere, in the body of the article. Making the InfoBox look like a product label could be construed as promotional. --Noleander (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
With respect to terminology, this is a dietary supplement; not a food product per se. I haven't looked to see if other supplement articles use similar infoboxes, but if they don't, I would not say that the alternative formatting was by design. Putting it in an infobox just makes for a nice clean design and puts key information (what could be more key than the actual ingredinets) in a convenient and prominent location. As for the compoisition information on the company's website (re:TraceyR's comment), that list is woefully insufficient -- it's almost like the manufacturer doesn't want consumers to know what's really in the product. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Surely the infobox is there to provide headline information about the subject of the article. If the subject is a fruit and vegetable juice concentrate, the reader is entitled to expect to find that information summarised there. As RhodeIslandRed says, "what could be more key than the actual ingredients" - i.e. in this case the various fruits and vegetables used? What then is "woefully insufficient" about "the composition information on the company's website"? There are regulations in most developed countries about what must be on a label, what can be on a label and what cannot be on a label. Is RhodeIslandRed really suggesting that the company is hiding something that should be there by law? If so, what? --TraceyR (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The law only requires that the company list the product's ingredients accurately on the product label. The information provided on the company website is not up to those standards -- it is superficial and does not match the bottle label. In contrast, the list given by Consumer Reports (a reliable secondary independent source) was complete and shows the exact same ingredients as on the bottle label. They were also listed in the same order as on the bottle label, and as you may or may not know, the law mandates that ingredients on the label must be listed in order of amount (highest to lowest); note that the list you are suggesting from the comany's website is alphabetical and gives no clue about relative amounts. The company website also fails to list many of the ingredients that are listed on the bottle lable -- many of which are fortifiers and additives (extra vitamins, etc.). It's clearly not a complete list of ingredients -- it is inadequate. It is also misleading because it implies that the product contains substances that are constituents of the native fruits/vegetales but may not be constituents of the processed fruit/vegetable powders that are actually used in Juice Plus. That's been a major point of contention in the critiques of Juice Plus written by independent experts/secondary sources. It's easy to see why a Juice Plus distributor would try to argue that the actual ingredients should be hidden from public view and replaced with misleading, superficial, marketing-friendly list that suggests the product contains things that it doesn't contain. One list is reliable and reflects reality; the other is a machination of the Juice Plus marketing spin-doctors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep ingredients Uninvolved here through Wikipedia:Feedback request service - I think listing the ingredients as they are listed on the label or ConsumerLab or Consumer Reports makes sense for a product like this. Seems plenty encyclopedic, altho if there's controversy about whether these ingredients are actually inside it may be best to remove the ingredients. II | (t - c) 04:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The controversy is in the imagination of an editor with a negative history here, but even he cannot deny that the label conforms to the legal requirements. In his opinion, the information on the company's website is "woefully insufficient", but that's all it is - his opinion, no doubt coloured by his known POV. AFAIK there is no requirement for a product website to provide such information. For those who wish to examine the (rather complicated) FDA requirements for food labels, see the appropriate FDA website here. Regulations in other countries will differ. I don't agree that putting content information in the infobox should be considered as product promotion.--TraceyR (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
FDA regulations??? You're making this overly complicated. The simple fact is that the company website does not provide an accurate/complete ingredient list. Consumer lab and the bottle labels do however provide an accurate/complete list of ingredients. No need to go chasing windmills. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Quoting TraceyR) -- The controversy is in the imagination of an editor with a negative history here, but even he cannot deny that the label conforms to the legal requirements.”[14]
Oh good grief! What an absurdly inappropriate comment. First of all, the controversy is far from "imaginary" and you know it. The controversy is well documented by RS -– this is patently obvious to anyone who has even skimmed through the article.
The company says that it adds extra vitamins C and E, beta-carotene, and folate to Juice Plus+ to “achieve uniform levels,” but it won’t say how much. (The extra C and E and folate aren’t listed on the label as added ingredients, as required by law.)” [15]
"In December 2007, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) filed a complaint with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to “halt the marketing of NSA's Juice Plus Orchard Blend and Garden Blend capsules because the products appear to be adulterated and misbranded”.[47] CSPI said it was “concerned that the products' claim, ‘the next best thing to fruits and vegetables,’ may lead consumers to believe the pills are closer to real fruits and vegetables than is likely to be the case." According to CSPI, the labels say the capsules contain high levels of vitamins A and C and folate naturally, but “do not disclose that these vitamins and minerals are added to the capsules during processing and are nutrients only characteristic of the original fruit and vegetable sources.”
“Our major criticism relates to the fact that the fruit and vegetable capsules used in this study, according to the manufacturer, were enriched with pure ß-carotene, ascorbic acid, vitamin E and folic acid, which was not stated in the article. The only significant changes due to the intervention were an increase in ß-carotene, ascorbic acid, vitamin E and folic acid. The supplemented micronutrients explain much of the reported effects and leave the question open as to whether the fruit and vegetable supplement itself induced any significant effects. Knowing that the capsules contained added micronutrients.”[16]
Secondly, hypocrite, look in the mirror and then re-read WP:COI (the policy that you have been ignoring all this time). Juice Plus distributors should tread lightly here; you certainly shouldn’t be throwing out red herrings about other people’s conduct (i.e., the mudslinging campaign embodied by the comment about “negative history”), particularly when it has no bearing on the issue at hand. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red: The few comments that you have cited do not make a controversy: the product has been on the market for over 15 years, and yet all you can come up with are three comments? As you know well, the CSPI's opinion was not upheld, because the slogan "the next best thing to fruit and vegetables" remains in use by the manufacturer. Some controversy! I'm sorry (but really not surprised) that you find it impossible to remain civil - at the slightest sign of a comment which does not conform to your strongly-held opinions, you lash out with personal attacks and coarse remarks - as above, in the comment directed at Jac16888: "Maybe you can take a break from shooting salvos out of your nether-regions and apologize. Ah, what's the point...don't bother; just eat your crow and move on". If you wish to continue editing this article, please restrain yourself; it does your arguments no good to act in this way. No mud-slinging by others is necessary when you do it to yourself. --TraceyR (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
What an asstonishing act of denial! The Juice Plus distributor buries her head in the sand and proclaims “I didn't hear that” once again. WPs COI rules -- the one’s you have been chronically ignoring -- exist to prevent exactly this type of self-serving nonsense and obstruction. If you have nothing better to add than to repeat the same lame off-topic gripe about civility, then it’s clearly time to move on. Rhode Island Red (talk)
(Quoting TraceyR)[17]“…all you can come up with are three comments? As you know well, the CSPI's opinion was not upheld, because the slogan "the next best thing to fruit and vegetables" remains in use by the manufacturer.”
Only 3 comments?!? How many does it take to get the point across? And “upheld” by whom exactly? If the company is still using the “next best thing” slogan, it’s because they’ve simply ignored the criticism from multiple high profile sources. It’s not evidence that CSPIs “opinion was not upheld”. That’s a fabrication/unwarranted assumption/original research on your part. It would be accurate to say that CSPI's warning apparently went unheeded. Like CSPI, two other reputable sources -- the Better Business Bureau's National Advertising Division[18]] and the government of Australia[19] (Therapeutic Goods Administration) -- hammered the product/company precisely because of the “next best thing” slogan:
“According to Consumer Reports, in 2005, National Safety Associates used advertising featuring Dr. William Sears (a distributor of Juice Plus products), which implied that Juice Plus Gummies are low in sugar and a nutritional alternative to fruits and vegetables. This claim resulted in consumer complaints to the Better Business Bureau's National Advertising Division (NAD). The BBB issued a complaint that NSA's claims were misleading, and as a result, NSA promised to modify its ads and stop calling Gummies “the next best thing to fruits and vegetables”.[3] However, the Juice Plus homepage continued to advertize the products as “the next best thing to fruits and vegetables”.[23]”
“In November 2007, the Complaints Resolution Panel for the Therapeutic Goods Administration Advertising Code Council ruled that statements on NSA’s Juice Plus website were in breach of Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code. According to the panel, the “clear message” in the ads was that Juice Plus tablets/capsules are “equivalent to fruits and vegetables” and that “consuming Juice Plus tablets would help Australians to consume the ‘recommended 5–7 servings’ of fruits and vegetables”. NSA was sanctioned by the Council to withdraw any representations that the products “are equivalent to fruits and vegetables or that their consumption can aid in meeting dietary recommendations relating to fruits and vegetables.”[49]”
Reputable sources have damned the “next best thing” slogan so many times that the criticism represents an overwhelming consensus POV. This underscores why an accurate ingredient list (as opposed to the misleading type of list provided on the manufacturer's website) needs to be as an integral feature of the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red: Please stay on topic. This section is about the list of ingredients in the infobox, not about "the next best thing" slogan etc. If you want to discuss that again, don't try to hijack this thread - start another if you insist. And please note: you cannot sweep the warnings from uninvolved editors about your rudeness, personal attacks etc under the carpet: your behaviour (and the subsequent warnings about it) remain a matter of public record and sooner or later will have serious consequencs for you unless you start to conform to WP standards. --TraceyR (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I see where you’re coming from now. It’s on-topic if you say something that's spectacularly untrue about the “next best thing” slogan or the controversy being “my imagination”, but it’s off-topic and “hijacking” the thread when I correct you? It’s not a personal attack or off-topic when you make a vague accusation about my “negative history”, but it’s somehow a personal attack when I call you a hypocrite for making false statements and point out that you are ignoring WP:COI? What you seem to be saying is that the rules don’t apply to you; just other editors. Again, I’m choking on the hypocrisy. As a non-admin editor, you're in no position to be making threats about "serious consequences" either. How about we all play by the sames rules (including WP:COI) and get back to the topic at hand? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red I'm not going to bother to respond to these dramatic, intemperate and illogical responses. Just be aware that silence on my part should not be interpreted as a nolo contendre or a tacit admission of whatever you conjure up in your imagination. Take the good advice you have been given on your talk page and put things in perspective. After all, this is, as you put it in your RFC, "in the grand scheme, a trivial and insignificant small-fry product whose market share would barely be a blip on the radar". As such, it is surely not worthy of so much of your time. --TraceyR (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Replaced the custom infobox with the {{Nutritional value}} template using an up-to-date reliable source (ConsumerLab - 15 June 2011). It should be noted that ConsumerLab only tested Garden Blend, and not Orchard Blend. This is the ingrediant list that ConsumerLabs has at the same source I listed should we wish to include this in the article text as discussed above:

Other Ingredients: Vegetable juice powder and pulp from carrot, parsley, beet, kale, broccoli, cabbage, spinach, and tomato; gelatin, glucomannan, cellulose, calcium ascorbate, calcium carbonate, Lactobacillus acidophilus, d-alpha tocopherol, beta carotene, natural enzyme blend, sugar beet fiber, garlic powder, oat bran, rice bran, mixed tocopherols, Dunaliella salina, folic acid. This product contains no artificial colors, flavors or preservatives and contains no added starch. Kosher.

I also put 0 for any vitamin/mineral not detected by ConsumerLab. This makes the table look a little long/messy however. Can we assume that if that particular vitamin/mineral isn't listed in the infobox that it doesn't have any? That would de-clutter the box.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 15:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I was just going to comment, the new infobox looks a lot better and that yes, there is no point in including all the things that it doesn't contain with a zero, just take them out--Jac16888 Talk 15:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Done- and agreed it does look better.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 15:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ConsumerLab test results - new Reception section[edit]

I also added ConsumerLab's test results of Garden Blend. I wasn't sure exactly where to put that material, as the current section did not seem to fit. I created a new section titled "Reception". I've found that to be a useful section in other articles to discuss how well the article subject has been received to the public. It is possible we may be able to move other tidbits from the article into this section as appropriate.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 15:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Primary research articles[edit]

Per WP:MEDRS we should not be using primary research articles. As this articles uses them extensively have tagged it until this is resolved.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

would you mind tagging the appropriate section instead of the top of the article. As I see it, this would apply only to the research section. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. I couldn't find a relevant section tag. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Doc James: Why is WP:MEDRS relevant for a nutritional supplement? Surely this is a food, not a medicine. --TraceyR (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Health claims need high quality evidence. We are a little more stringent than the FDA here. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, any health claims, food or medicine related, apply to MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If this cant be resolved, and it hasn't for over 4 months, this section needs to be removed.--RadioFan (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Which section? Which health claims? Claims by whom? Who is the 'we' who are "more stringent than the FDA"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some government agency. If a study finds that a product has effect "A", that doesn't constitute a claim that it has this effect. --TraceyR (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Any claims of health/nutritional effects ARE health/medical claims, and should be sourced to secondary sources. Yobol (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes I will remove all the primary sources if this is the consensus.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
You've got quite the job ahead of you, because it looks like quite the mix. Good luck! -- Brangifer (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Yobol: that's not a response to the comment that the results of studies are not claims. Would it be correct to remove all references to studies as primary sources which are not related to health claims?--TraceyR (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Any health related information should to be referenced to secondary studies, per WP:MEDRS, "claims" or not. Yobol (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
So what health related information are we talking about in this article? --TraceyR (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Any health related information, in any article, falls under WP:MEDRS. So, the answer to your question would be, "All of it." Yobol (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yobol: Do you really mean that no primary source can be cited in any article which is in any way related to any aspect of health, be it physical, mental or social? This seems IMHO to be a very - er - fundamentalist interpretation of WP:MEDRS. The section on "biomedical journals", for example, states that "peer reviewed medical journals are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date medical information in Wikipedia articles. They contain a mixture of primary and secondary sources as well as less technical material such as biographies. Although almost all such material will count as a reliable source for at least some purposes, not all the material is equally useful, and some, such as a letter from a non-expert, should be avoided."? I'm not sure how this part of the article could lead to this opinion. Perhaps you could explain where the "no primary source" dogma comes from. Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not what I mean. I mean that health information should be sourced to secondary sources, because that is what our guidelines and policies say, and that is how we determine how much WP:WEIGHT to give primary studies. There is no "no primary source" dogma, as MEDRS clearly says primary sources are allowed, in limited circumstances. This, however, is not a such a circumstance, as there are plenty of secondary sources to discuss the health effects here. In this instance, since secondary sources are available, we can then assume that primary studies which are not discussed in secondary sources do not deserve WP:WEIGHT here because no one else in the scientific community has decided it's important enough to talk about. The situation here, where discussion of primary sources vastly outweighs secondary sources, screams of WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS problems. Yobol (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
But in this case there are at least two secondary sources (review articles): Lamprecht et al ("Obst- und Gemüsesaftkonzentrate zur Nahrungsergänzung" i.e. "Fruit and vegetable juice concentrates for nutritional supplementation" in the Schweizer Zeitschrift für Ernährungsmedizin i.e. Swiss Journal for Nutritional Medicine, 2008, 6(5):47-52, which is not readily accessible for non-German speakers) and Esfahani et al ("Health effects of mixed fruit and vegetable concentrates: a systematic review of the clinical interventions." J Am Coll Nutr Oct 2011, 30(5):285-94). For some reason these have not found their way into this article. The fact that they exist but have not been included here could also be deemed to suggest an WP:NPOV problem in this article. Truly neutral editing would lead to their inclusion; the fact that they have not been cited in the article implies the lack of true neutrality (perhaps even a fundamental weakness in the WP model). How do such secondary sources find their way into an article? --TraceyR (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT, with the caveat that this is the Juice Plus page, so any reviews must discuss the product, not juices in general.Yobol (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Tricky, since the English source isn't available without a subscription. I could cite the German source - would that be acceptable?--TraceyR (talk) 07:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The Swiss source does not appear to be MEDLINE-indexed, a red flag for reliability among medical journals. Not being able to read German or have access to said article I can't comment further on its reliability. Yobol (talk) 13:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The Lamprecht review, aside from being in German, was conducted by paid consultants to the manufacturer (NSA) of Juice Plus. First, please don't proffer articles from clearly non-NPOV sources as though they were independent reviews. Secondly, Juice Plus distributors (past or present) should disclose their COI or refrain from participating in discussions like these. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red: Both review papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals, so both are valid secondary sources as far as WP 's rules go (with the caveat about the possible MEDLINE index issue, which Yobol mentions). No doubt the affiliations of the authors (past or present) were disclosed when the Lamprecht paper was submitted. The reviewers and editorial board considered it to be sound science and of sufficient quality to deserve publication. You may not like it, but that is irrelevant; in any case, your long-standing and persistently negative POV on this article is a matter of record and has attracted warnings from several admins down the years. If studying a product and finding it scientifically sound is enough to disqualify an author's work from mention, then having such a negative POV about it should certainly disqualify you. --TraceyR (talk) 20:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Putting the articles aside for the time being, as well as your silly POV accusation, you have a COI issue that you are hiding. You need to come clean or face the consequences. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Please tone down the personal attacks and try to AGF, please. We've been over this numerous times already - Alison 00:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you everyone who has pointed out how biased and clearly one sided the Juice Plus information is. I have never seen WP be so biased. They ususally just state the actual non biased facts but clearly whoever wrote this article went to great lengths to make sure the article was not balanced. Had the person actually done real homework on this product they might have realized that most of the 28 studies that have been done aren't something that JP could buy their way into nor does it mean because JP used their own money to help fund the studies that they had someone on the "inside" misleading or falsifying the test results. JP does not anywhere on their site claim to be able to cure any disease. Had the person actually went the JP website they would have seen how often the doctors and other supporters of JP say that JP isn't a replacement for fruits and veggies. Time after time they state that you need to eat a wide variety of both. If you are going to try to discredit a company please at least do a little bit of research first and present both sides and let the viewer/reader come to their own conclusion not the one you want them to come to. KK Stoltz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.139.125 (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Article not balanced[edit]

I read this article because I take Juice Plus and I have MS and I was looking for what nutrients some of the fruits and vegetables contained, so that I can supplement with things that are not found in whole food, like Vitamin D3, or B12 for example. I was appalled at the very negative stance of what should be a description or definition of Juice Plus, but instead was a mud slinging attempt to get people off the product? So, I did my own research. I read where some of your findings or excerpts came from and they were taken a bit out of context, not representing the entire article. Seems only the negative or at best questionable findings were mentioned here, even though much positive research was also given and is out there. In fact even the Memorial Kettering Cancer Center's comments caution that their page is their opinion and not to be taken as medical advice. They cite the positive outcomes of JP trials, and have no negative only unsubstantiated or that it might impact treatment comments. That is presumebly because in cancer, you are trying to kill cancer cells and they don't know if good nutrition would make that ineffective. In reality, cancer comes from mis- qued cells and under functioning killer cells, which could only be helped with a nutritious diet. We are talking about a food product here, not a laborotory drug. No one would tell a cancer patient to turn away fruits and veggies and eat a fatty diet? It is almost as if your writer wants us to believe that JP controlled outcomes and research done at University of Arizona, and Brigham Young University to name a few? What? I know Drs who are aware of the proven benefits of JP and its effects on health, dental health etc.

Now for what should have been said, I do not think anyone is saying or believes that this dietary supplement ( per Wikipedia " a Dietary Supplement is intendend to provide nutrients that may otherwise not be consumed in sufficient quantities") is a replacement for the actual food. It is a dietary supplement, which by your own definition is to provide additional nutrients to what is already consumed or for those who do not get enough of them. Most people do not eat 5-7 servings of soil rich fresh fruits and veggies each day, so they take vitamins. While this is perfectly fine, it is better to get the nutrients naturally from the actual food, and then to supplement where they are lacking with more food. Let me say it again, this is a supplement ( in addition to) not a replacement for real food nutrition. It is a extra serving or two more than you would get otherwise. The focus on your article comes from the idea that this product was intended to replace the foods it represents or be equal to. Not so, it is a dietary supplement and your writer should consult your own definition of what that really means.

This article should be revised immediately as it has made me question and trust your interpretations on other subjects. It should be neutral, not biased and what does OJ have to do with the definition of JP. I could care less what he claimed or represented at one time...it is here say, and JP is not trial! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aud88 (talkcontribs) 14:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit prompted me to search around for any new material, but I didn't find anything significant - except that we weren't using some material from Quackwatch (now added). If you judge some material is missing from the article, what sources are there we're not using? if you feel bad information is contained (because of poor sourcing) then what it that? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2013[edit]

DELETE X="critics have argued that there is no scientific proof that Juice Plus offers significant health benefits and that deceptive claims are used in the product's marketing information" because there are 30 scientific studies about Juice Plus health benefits on humans. Theu are reported on www.pubmed.gov This articles about Juice Plus on wikipedia, is completely wrong and has conflicts of interest. The Scientific Study about benefit of Juice Plus are used in the text to proof the inutility of the product. See www.pubmed.gov

Vaprea (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

But critics have argued these things, and this is sourced in the article body. Since the lede must summarize the body (and include criticism) it is right to have this content here; it should not be deleted. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Juice Plus aliens are taking over[edit]

The Juice Plus Aliens are here and it is too late to stop them, although the almighty FSM may bestow upon us his blessing and eradicate them from this planet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.218.201 (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Review Articles on Juice+[edit]

I did a few searches on medline and google-scholar for any kind of review articles on Juice+ and came up empty. Can anyone point me towards any such English language literature? I am not interested in primary studies or popular press articles. Desoto10 (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Scanning the discussions above, I find only two review articles mentioned: Lamprecht et al ("Obst- und Gemüsesaftkonzentrate zur Nahrungsergänzung" i.e. "Fruit and vegetable juice concentrates for nutritional supplementation" in the Schweizer Zeitschrift für Ernährungsmedizin i.e. Swiss Journal for Nutritional Medicine, 2008, 6(5):47-52 and Esfahani et al ("Health effects of mixed fruit and vegetable concentrates: a systematic review of the clinical interventions." J Am Coll Nutr Oct 2011, 30(5):285-94). If the German article has not been translated, then it does little good. The second article is behind a paywall and describes the effects of "concentrates". While a powdered product might be called a concentrate, this is not clear from the available abstract. My point is since there are, apparently, no secondary scientific reviews, the notability of this product seems suspect.Desoto10 (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

A search on "Health effects of mixed fruit and vegetable concentrates pdf" produced this result Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.37.126 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I am not sure what to do about it, though. The conclusion seems to be that the blood levels of the vitamins A, C, E, and folate increased when subjects took capsules that were spiked with these vitamins. I guess it relates to the bioavailability issues. The quality of the review is poor, as it is simply a summary of all of the primary studies that the authors identified, without any screening on their part. No efforts were made to do any kind of meta-analysis. As usual, CSA contributed to the cause. Desoto10 (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Antioxidant activity[edit]

Today, Rhode Island Red reverted my deletion of the statements:

One study, which measured in vitro antioxidant activity, found that 1 g of Juice Plus Orchard Blend/Garden Blend powder (500 mg of each combined) had the corresponding antioxidant capacity to approximately 10 g (fresh weight) of fruit or vegetable, amounting to 30 g (roughly one-third of a serving) per four capsulesdoi:10.1016/0308-8146(95)00223-5 Tests of antioxidant activity of polyphenols (such as those in Juice Plus capsules) in vitro likely show higher results than the negligible antioxidant activity in vivo following oral ingestion and digestion. doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2004.01.001 and [20]

Four points why I feel this information is both inaccurate and invalid:

  1. to consensus science and regulatory organizations like the FDA, antioxidant activity in foods or supplements pertains only to adequate content of vitamins A, C and/or E.
  2. the references for the first sentence and first of two for the second sentence apply to "methanolic extracts" and so infer polyphenol/flavonoid content (i.e., not physiological antioxidants as the A-C-E vitamins are). To the uninformed Wikipedia user, mention of antioxidant activity by polyphenols (in vitro) falsely implies antioxidant activity in vivo.
  3. the second sentence reads like speculation so, to me, is editorial WP:OR
  4. the last reference used is from a pseudoscience source (Optimal Life Chiropractic), not WP:SCIRS, and should be deleted outright.

Although I feel certain of my conclusions, these changes are not essential because the section overall minimizes the antioxidant value of Juice Plus. I will defer further editorial discretion to Rhode Island Red. --Zefr (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

On point 4, my bad. I didn't notice that was a bad chiro reference. I just scrapped it. As for point 3, I think the line was added by another editor as a qualifier to indicate that in vitro antioxidant activity of the extract would overestimate in vivo activity. I think that might be OK as far as WP:OR goes, as long as the lone reference that's cited actually backs up the statement. It might, but I don't have the full-text version. We could add a verify tag to the sentence or scrap it entirely, but I'm a bit reluctant to do that not having checked the reference.
The first sentence/reference indicates that the supplement's antioxidant activity is very low relative to real fruits and vegetables (whereas some of the advertising implies antioxidant equivalence to 17 servings of fruit/veg), and in that sense, it seems like an important detail. However, you raise a good point that it should at least be qualified to indicate that these were methanolic extracts, assuming I'm understanding you correctly on that point. I didn't quite get your meaning about the FDA, vitamins A/C/E, and polyphenol/flavonoid content, but I'm all ears if you want to discuss it in more detail. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
For the FDA's (and EFSA's) position on dietary antioxidants only being the A-C-E vitamins, these are succinct discussions,[21][22] and this is the FDA's current position on product labeling for antioxidants.[23]
--Zefr (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks Zefr. So I think what's required is a stronger and perhaps more detailed disclaimer about in vitro activity not being representative of in vivo activity. As for the polyphenol aspect, is there some reason why you would expect that the methanolic extracts only contain polyphenol and not vitamin antioxidants such A/C/E. A and E are both fat soluble so I would imagine that they would be present in methanolic extracts. Of course, it's also apparent that A/C/E are additives in the product and not endogenous components of the F/V extracts, which is an important consideration. Thanks for mulling this over with me. I'm open to your suggestions. Best, Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red: because a methanol extraction involves pressure, heat and alcohol, it is unlikely that any vitamins survive this process. Although artificial vitamins can be manufactured into the final product (as it appears JuicePlus does from the significant contents of vitamins A-C-E on the article nutrition panel), no label claim or promotional statement can be made for the vitamin(s) as antioxidants, nor can polyphenols be mentioned (because they are not nutrients), according to FDA labeling rules.[24]
Reviewing the section on antioxidant activity, I believe there is too much unimportant detail and speculation per WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:OR, and we would be fine keeping only the first paragraph, with the rest deleted. --Zefr (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, every extraction procedure involves exposure to some kind of non-physiological condition (heat, solvents, etc.). Is there something uniquely destructive about this particular procedure? Is there any evidence that antioxidant vitamins would not be active following the methanol extraction method used by Chambers or is that speculation? If tha were the case, the Chamber study would likely have underestimated antioxidant activity.
I don't see how FDA labeling laws pertain to this. I would be resistant to including details from the Chambers study if they concluded something counter-intuitive or if they asserted that the JP extracts had extraordinarily high antioxidant activity, but they in fact report the opposite (i.e., low activity relative to fruits and vegetables). Like I said before, addition of a suitable qualifying statement (i.e., that in vitro tests tend to overestimate activity and are not applicable to in vivo activity) seems to me the best way to go. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft suggestion[edit]

I recommend eliminating the current third and fourth paragraphs while retaining the first and second paragraphs, with an additional source to the second to read like this:

One study found that 1 g of Juice Plus Orchard Blend/Garden Blend powder (500 mg of each combined) had the corresponding in vitro antioxidant capacity to approximately 10 g (fresh weight) of fruit or vegetable, amounting to 30 g (roughly one-third of a serving) per four capsules.[52] In vitro tests of antioxidant activity of polyphenols (such as those in Juice Plus capsules) likely show higher results than the negligible antioxidant activity in vivo following oral ingestion. metabolism and digestion.[53]PMID 17157175

A succinct lay news release from Oregon State University in 2007 may be useful to add as a reference for this last sentence.[25]

--Zefr (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The proposal for the revised second paragraph on antioxidant activity works for me. But why would the third paragraph (about a study demonstrating lack of antioxidant activity of Gummies) and fourth paragraph (promotional claims about cancer and the response by MSKCC) be deleted? Those paragraphs have been part of the article for years so it's not clear to me why that's now on the chopping block. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I feel the point of insignificant antioxidant activity is made adequately by the first two paragraphs as proposed; the additional paragraphs belabor the discussion. Also, see my comments from 20 Sept, 17.44 above. --Zefr (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs refer to the fruit/veg capsules. The third paragraph deals with a different product entirely (children's Gummies, not the fruit/veg capsules), and the last paragraph deals with antioxidant activity as it pertains specifically to product claims about cancer, and contains relevant commentary from an expert source at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center -- highly notable. So it seems to me that it would be rather arbitrary to delete the last two paragraphs. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, Disagree, but have nothing to add to my comments above. Leaving this discussion now. --Zefr (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Juice Plus. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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 01:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Merge Klbrain (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Noticed that there is a parallel stub of an article on National Safety Associates, the parent company that makes Juice Plus. The company is not notable in its own right and the NSA article should be merged with the JP article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. --Icerat (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Disagreed. I know NSA but never heard of Juice Plus. MemBrain (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Closing, given no consensus for the merge, and uncontested opposition (as per WP:SILENCE). Klbrain (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Re-opening, following request from Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs). Klbrain (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Weak oppose on the grounds that NSA had a notable history before their transition to a nutrition-focused company in the 1990s. I was tempted to suggest a merge in the reverse direction, but the Juice Plus brand name seems to have more of a web presence, and they seem to be using the "Juice Plus+ Company" name, even though it doesn't seem that the company has formally changed its name. The NSA name does still seem to be in use, for example hitting the title of a 2016 peer-reviewed protocol publication indexed on PMC. Klbrain (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
As background, Juice Plus is not a company name and never was. It is a trademark name for a product. The company that markets it is and always has been National Safety Associates. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm curious as to what was significantly notable about NSA's history prior to Juice Plus. There is a total of one non-JP related reference in the NSA article (#2, with no online link) that refers to the company getting in legal trouble with their water filter sales. The remaining dozen or so references cited in the NSA article all relate to Juice Plus. The company has marketed a single product -- Juice Plus -- for the vast majority of its existence. Strip out JP from NSAs story and we'd be left with a single unlinked reference. Sorry, but I just don't see the rationale for opposition to merging. BTW, thanks for relisting the merger proposal. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Rhode Island Red: As you know, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. So, the question is as to whether 20 years of selling water filters, air filters, fire-protection equipment; with a further decade of these businesses tailing off, is sufficiently distinct from the Juice Plus line. I'd argue that it is. There is interesting material for expansion, including the companies structure as alleged ponzi scheme,[1] or illegal pyramid scheme, activities that relate to the sale of water filters.[2] So, the corporate structure is also of intrinsic interest. Klbrain (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The issue is that, based on the sources so far presented, NSAs notability seems to be predicated pretty much solely on JP. What I'm asking for is evidence, in the form of reliable sources, that would support your opposition on the basis that the company is notable for something else. If those sources don't exist, then that would support merging into JP. BTW, the 2 sources you linked to above would not meet WP:RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree the legal documents don't reach WP:RS, but non-routine newspaper coverage does,[3] as does a book chapter (for example).[4] Klbrain (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The single news article you linked to above referring to NSA pre-JP would not be considered in judging the company's notability as per WP:ILLCON; i.e., the news article (and the book you linked to) refer to a single litigation event. As for the book, I'd take a pretty firm stance that it's also not WP:RS in this context -- or probably any context. So I still don't see convincing evidence that the company is notable for anything more than JP; at least not enough to justify a separate page. If NSA were truly notable as a company, it would have received significant coverage in trade/business/financial articles, etc. There's probably a hundred sources that discuss JP/NSA together and maybe 1 or 2 that refer to NSA for anything else. It would be easy to roll that into the JP article. Otherwise it still strikes me as a needless fork. Have a look at WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ILLCON. I would argue that they make a pretty airtight case for the current merger proposal. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)]]
It is true that it easier to find sources for recent events rather than those from 30-40 years ago, when the company was founded, but that does create an article imbalance due to recentism. The 1991 episode doesn't appear to be isolated, as there were similar concerns in 1993, which relates to structures established in '86, as already discussed in the article. So the ponzi/pyramid issues does seem meet the test of multiple independent sources required in WP:CORPDEPTH. The WP:ILLCON argument argument is a good point, but the company's notability doesn't rely on the allegedly illegal activity; rather, it contributes to the case, in addition to the wider range of products and as a case study in multi-level marketing. The company seem to have drifted from there to the use of franchising, but those franchises seems to small that I wonder what the difference is! Overall, I wouldn't object to a merge; it just wouldn't be my recommendation as it seems there is scope for expansion of the NSA article independent of its most important modern product line. Klbrain (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Again, this boils down to there only being one or so articles that discuss the company outside the context of JP, demonstrating that the company’s notability is predicated, essentially, on JP solely. This does not seem to be a case of WP:RECENTISM as almost all of the articles on NSA relating to JP have spanned more than 2 decades and none are recent (it’s also possible to search news archive for older material but nothing has been offered up in that regard). Everything in the NSA article that does not pertain to JP could be rolled into the JP article in a single paragraph under a sub-heading for NSA. BTW, the company does not engage in franchising. They operate as an MLM, which is distinctly different. I appreciate you rolling back your objection to the merge proposal. I think that’s clearly the right way to go. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "MLM Law - COE v. NATIONAL SAFETY ASSOCIATES, INC. 134 F.R.D. 235 (1991)- Attorney Specializing in Multilevel Marketing and Direct Selling Reese, Poyfair, Richards". www.mlmlaw.com. Retrieved 20 January 2018. 
  2. ^ "MLM Legal". www.mlmlegal.com. 
  3. ^ Grady, Bill; Goozner, Merrill; O`Brien, John (19 February 1991). "Case Could Drain A Marketing Pool". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 20 January 2018. 
  4. ^ Walsh, James (2009). You Can't Cheat an Honest Man: How Ponzi Schemes and Pyramid Frauds Work and Why They're More Common Than Ever. Silver Lake Publishing. p. 186-7. 

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Rosemary Stanton[edit]

Please add a link to the article on Rosemary Stanton in the section "Antioxidant activity" where she is named as a critic of Juice Plus. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement in the lead[edit]

Rhode Island Red, the statement in the lead that I replaced, "according to Quackwatch it is a 'colossal waste of money'", although I agree with it, I cringe when I read it as it does not sound encyclopedic at all, especially in the lead. "...as being excessively priced relative to its potential benefits" sounds a lot more neutral to me. If you don't like this change, how would you suggest we change this to make it neutral in POV and tone? Air.light (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Juice Plus. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 01:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juice Plus. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 10:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Juice Plus. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 08:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Franchising[edit]

@Rhode Island Red: Starting a new section, as this is distinct from our discussion elsewhere. Regarding Juice Plus sales, they seem to be advertising franchises, but perhaps only for their overseas business? It's interesting that in order to start a franchise your application has to go through a ' Juice Plus+ contact' and you also have a 'Sponsor'; I wonder what renumeration they receive, and hence how close it is to corporate structures in the 80s and 90s? Perhaps I'm now too cynical! Anyway, as far as article content is concerned, is the issuing of franchises something that should be covered in the article? Klbrain (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like it is specific to Great Britain, and what they are calling a "franchise" is nothing more than an MLM distributorship. Seems rather misleading. Don't see where there's anything relevant to mine for the article though. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps not worth adding unless there was a published opinion that pitching as a "franchise" is more socially acceptable than advertising as an MLM distributorship. Klbrain (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)