|Individuals acting on behalf of this person or organization are strongly advised not to edit the article. Click here to request corrections or suggest content, or contact us if the issue is urgent.|
I don't know much about editing wiki pages, but someone please change one clause that, in my opinion, is HIGHLY inflammatory as written (I'm sure unintentionally). In the Backlash section, it currently says, "that Senomyx uses aborted fetal cells in its products and testing, ,". Is that really true? I read the Senomyx paper - and nowhere does it says that it uses aborted fetus cells "in it's products." The key tricky word is "IN." That statement might lead to rumors that there are "aborted fetus cells" IN flavor enhancers made by this company- yuk! I suggest a better clause would be: "that Senomyx uses aborted fetal cells in the testing phase of sweeteners." Then, after the last sentence which reads- Senomyx has not confirmed this, but the pro-life group cited the Senomyx paper "Human receptors for sweet and umami taste" in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. .... I would add the following: In the paper, the authors describe isolating a particular taste receptor in both rat and human cells and then measuring the responses of these cells to various sweeteners with enhancers and inhibitors present. The reference would be the same as  (the paper itself)
By the way, a new development for this article is that a boycott is now (July 2011) underway of Pepsi by various Prolife groups for Pepsi's refusal to disassociate themselves with Senomyx- a company which uses aborted fetal cells as part of it's testing procedures. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/05/30/pepsi-ignores-criticism-on-use-of-aborted-cells-in-research/ .Bearden184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It's ridiculous how pro-lifers feel the need to make Pepsi the scapegoat when companies like Nestle and Campbell's Soup are also connected to Senomyx; I guess it makes a better sensationalized chain e-mail to send around. Many of the people seem to be making the rumor even worse by implying that Pepsi may be using the fetal cells directly in their drink, which has no evidence and it just sensationalizing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not ridiculous. Nestlé SA, the world's largest food company, is currently marketing new and reformulated products that incorporate Senomyx's Savory Flavors in countries in Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. The same holds true for Campbell's. Let them start marketing here in America and you'll hear from us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suesarkis (talk • contribs) 20:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Article Needs Locked
I really think this article needs locked to only users with a history can post. People mess with this page because of a Pepsi fetus hoax and it is very biased and un-wikipedia-like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The quote you used is incomplete…
In your request for an edit to this page, you write: "In the Backlash section, it currently says, 'that Senomyx uses aborted fetal cells in its products and testing,' "
The full quote reads: "In March of 2010, it was asserted by the pro-life group Children of God for Life, which monitors the use of cells from aborted babies, that Senomyx uses aborted fetal cells in its products and testing, making use of Human Embryonic Kidney (HEK) 293 cells."
Notice that this was simply asserted, and therefore no editing of the page is necessary.
For future reference: Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral resource. From the instructions on every "Edit" page:
"Please note: • Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view."
Inaccuracy of allegations re fetal tissue
Having seen the claims from Lifesitenews.com about the use of aborted fetal tissue in product development from my Facebook feed and then followed it to this article, I'm not sure that the allegation should be included in the article at all. The only source I could find for the allegations are from the aforementioned website which appears to be anything but a reliable source, and a link to a patent application which is original research. Further I could only find a couple of reliable news sources that even mention the allegation at all and both frame it as "another rant by the right wing to draw attention to itself and delay scientific progress".
I'm no research biologist but it's pretty clear from even a cursory glance that the technique they are discussing is a mainstream scientific technique using cultured cells and it is hugely inaccurate to describe them as being aborted fetal tissue. So, either the section should be removed entirely in the abscence of a reliable source and for failing undue weight or, at the very least, it should be made clear that the claims are wrong. However I'm aware that, as with anything on this topc, this may be controversial so I'd welcome comments before I make any changes.Robinr22 (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The claims aren't wrong, HEK uses the cells of aborted fetus, that is where the labs get them, prove that it's false. Dreg102 14:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs)
Of course they were using the HEK cells - PepsiCo’s VP of Global Public Policy, Paul Boykas stated that “Senomyx will not use HEK cells or any other tissues or cell lines derived from human embryos or fetuses for research performed on behalf of PepsiCo.” “We took the matter very seriously,” stated Mr. Boykas. “We have an official Statement on Responsible Research and we intend to live by that policy.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suesarkis (talk • contribs) 20:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Reply to above comments
So because YOU cant find the evidence online, (note: Google is now openly censoring internet searches left and right) which people have gone out of their way to find, you're just assuming its not true? What are you an insider or lobbyist pusher for this company? Do you give benefits of doubt to the cheating liar corporations who everyone KNOWS are evil to no end? Yea that makes perfect sense! Sticking up for the giant guy eh? Kinda strange to just offer up a sided argument for a biotech's. Creepy too if you ask me. I find it funny you don't even know what else this company is up to. Better look into that and wake up.
All biotech companies are involved in massive corruption, that's 110% safe to say 9.99 times outta 10. This company is also involved with coverups in how they list their ingredients, arguing that "PPM shouldn't require any listings on food packages". I guess this goes along the lines of FDA saying mercury tooth amalgams don't leak mercury when they were proven to leak over 1,000 times the EPA allowed limit for condemned buildings, IN YOUR MOUTH! Sure enough the lies they spewed out were proven just that when people began removing amalgams and having them tested under phosphoric screens to view the extremely high levels of mercury escaping the filling.
Give a biotech company leeway and it will lie cheat and sell the worst products, then offer a treatment. Absolute corruption. Anyone who DOESN'T feel the need to investigate Senomyx, but rather stick up for a biotech giant who on record makes deadly additives and carcinogenic substances in food, should NOT be involved in any discussion of true debate over legitimacy of evidence, seeing as you already have a strange inclination to believe in a sinister corporation or even suggest the slightest hint that, even if this isn't true, there is DOZENS of other HUGELY corrupt truths about Senomyx that are JUST AS BAD, if not, WORSE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
To the unnamed User at 126.96.36.199.157, perhaps You would be so kind as to provide some citations to Your accusations, then? I am not saying You are right or wrong but this is Wikipedia, after all. As the page says, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that biotech companies don't have the finest record in the world in terms of openess and accountability but it's pretty obvious, and very easy to find verifiable sources to back it up, that the allegations made by Lifesitenews are patently false. If you have any specific changes to make to any article about a biotech company that are verifiable then go ahead and make them. But this is an occasion where this particular company has been unfairly maligned and it is entirely right that the article should reflect that the allegations aren't true and present an utterly misleading picture of the research they are involved in.Robinr22 (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The whole controversy section should be removed. 1) The site it comes from is bias which makes it unreliable. 2) Since there is absolutely no information about this anywhere. If this was true or other groups claimed it was then it would be all over the news on something like CNN or Fox News. 3) Since it is obviously made up by a pro-life group the source itself is false even if there is a claim it is true. EDIT: I just noticed that I wasn't the only one who said this. I also forgot to mention that this whole thing is also about Pepsi. Gune (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The whole controversy section should NOT be removed. The fact that in your biased opinion the original site is biased is purely subjective. However, I want to know more about the procedure itself rather than whether embryonic stem cells are used versus others. Doesn't it seem a little disturbing that a company that functions to create proprietary flavor ingredients involving savory, sweet, salt, and cool taste, as well as ingredients that block bitter taste are using stem cells in their creation? And please do not even remotely try and state that it can be for research purposes without actual introduction into the product. I'm personally feeling slight discomfort over the use of HUMAN stem cells as an additive to food products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suesarkis (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It isn't a bias opinion at all. Google it and you will find that pro-life sites are the only ones that even mention it. So what you call "bias" is an actual fact. If it was actually true then it would be all over the news, especially Fox News. I will keep on removing it from the article because it does not belong here. Gune (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)