Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:40, 1 October 2007

Juice Plus is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 2007-09-03 Please use the |page= parameter to specify the number of the next free GAN review page, or use {{subst:GAN}} instead to find the next free page automatically. This article is not categorized by subtopic. Please edit the |subtopic= parameter on this talk page to include one. For a list of subtopics, please see Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations.

Food and drink Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Archives

2006 discussions January 2007 article rewrite February-May 2007 May 2007 early June 2007 Official message from Juice Plus, June 2007 July-August 2007

Dispute Tags

With regard to the dispute tags placed on the following text:

1. …the product contains too little fruit and vegetable powder to offer significant clinical benefits ,
2. …complaints that the products are excessively priced relative to their potential benefits

The specific supporting references have been clarified so as to eliminate confusion, and the dispute tags have been removed. The first disputed point is supported by the article Juice Plus—and minus from the University of California Berkeley Wellness Letter (reference 32), which stated:

• "No matter how compressed these capsules are, or what they contain, it’s impossible to deliver the nutrients of five to ten servings of fruits and vegetables in several capsules weighing 800 to 850 milligrams (about one-thirtieth of an ounce) each. It would take two dozen 800-milligram capsules just to provide all the nutrients in six ounces of carrot juice."

The second disputed point (i.e. “that the products are excessively priced relative to their potential benefits”), is backed up by references 4, 25, 27, 30, and 34, which stated the following:

"Many studies have shown similar effects with supplementation with antioxidant supplements, but whether this has practical value is not known and the effect can be achieved with very inexpensive products... NSA's "Preferred Customers" who buy a four-month supply of Juice Plus+ capsules at a time, pay about $480 per year. If every American did this, the total annual cost would exceed $100 billion. Do you think this would be a wise allocation of our national resources?"

"The JuicePlus product contains added vitamins, and as such may have some value, although regular vitamins cost only a fraction of the JuicePlus product."

"…pricey supplement… Juice Plus is distributed through a multi-tiered marketing scheme with exaggerated value and cost..."

Moreover, Juice Plus is distributed through a multi-tiered marketing scheme with exaggerated value and cost.

"Salespeople armed with impressive sounding promotional literature are selling these products and making money. A month’s supply of capsules costs $90.00. A gallon of fresh orange juice costs $ .09 per serving. The promotional literature for Juice Plus billed as a whole food concentrate is a carefully worded blend of incorrect information, misleading health claims, and nonscientific jargon… Juice Plus probably won't harm you, but can hurt your pocketbook."

Rhode Island Red 00:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the above statements, cited as 'proof' of the disputed statements, are themselves simply statements of opinion without scientific corroboration. This reminds me of the story of the old lady who believed that the world was carried on the back of a giant tortoise; when asked what supported the tortoise, she replied that it was carried by another tortoise. When pressed about what supported 'that' tortoise she replied "Don't be silly; it's tortoises all the way down!". So where's the proof behind these opinions? Or is it assertions all the way down? --TraceyR 20:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Renee Schwendinger

This dietitian is cited with an opinion about Juice Plus, but is she 'notable' enough to warrant being cited? Google returns the amazing total of seven (!) hits on "Renee Schwendinger", two of which refer to an assistant manager at Book World. Of the other five, one is this article, two are wiki mirror sites and one is a dead link (to valuemedica.com) What are we left with? The (notoriously biased) so-called 'research blog'. Even the original source cited there is a newspaper article from Missouri which can only be accessed for a $2.95 fee!

A Google search on "Schwendinger dietitian" brought much the same result - 49 hits, with the blog being the only relevant, non-wiki site to mention Renee Schwendinger.

I suggest that this 'expert' is not an authority worthy of being cited in a wikipedia article and propose that this material be deleted. --TraceyR 09:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Schwendinger is not directly cited as the source. The source that is cited is an article from a reliable publication, the newspaper St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which clearly meets WP:RS. Schwedinger was refered to in the original article as a dietician at St. Anthony's Medical Center in St. Louis. The article was published on Jan. 15, 2007. It was available free online for quite some time and Schwendinger's comment in that article was accurately quoted by Elonka, who wrote the section in question on July 5, 2007. The fact that the article is no longer posted online is not a basis for deletion under WP policy. Furthermore, Schwendinger's basic point (that people should eat real fruits and vegetables -- not Juice Plus -- and failing that, should take a multivitmain) is very much the same as that of other reliable sources that have written about Juice Plus; for example, nutritionist Rosemary Stanton, whose credentials are impeccable. Most of the other sources who have commented on Juice Plus were far more critical than Schwendinger. Shall we also quote a few of those sources so that Schwendinger's comments don't stand alone? Rhode Island Red 16:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

appox. 50 tedious, minor and opinionated edits in 48 hours from Rhode Island Red, now that all the moderation and review failed, despite being directly told to stop editing this page--just couldn't stay away could you? Is Wiki/JuicePlus now back to ownership/dictatorship of one editor? Not an attack, an obesrvation. Schwendinger did not read ONE research paper on Juice Plus, based her decision on reading on line. Goodness, reading MLM, quack and researchblog and Wiki would make even a 3rd grader much less a "researcher" like Schwendinger come to the conclusion it is a bad product--however, biased agenda filled sites are NOT the place to get the whole picture. As for Stanton, she is the most closed minded biased person, she looked at the title of a book and summed up it's contents without taking even 5 minutes to skim the material before making her negative expert opinion about it. She's Austrailia's expert? Whoppie! We have our own here in the States, Dr. David L. Katz for one and his research on Juice Plus is sound and his opinion on the product is positive, but you don't read about him here because YALE isn't nearly as credible as the outback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.211.228 (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Much as I understand your frustration, it would be more productive to cite alternative opinions (such as Dr. Katz) in the article itself than to make intemperate 'observations' here. --TraceyR 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Schwendinger, Stanton et al are, to say the least, ill-informed and, inasmuch as their opinions were expressed later than 2002, out-of-date with their recommendations to take a 'multivitamin'. A benchmark study published in The Lancet, 2002; 360: 23-33 available here left little room for doubt:

• In the Conclusions section the authors wrote: "But, in light of the unpromising results during at least 5 years of treatment in several large randomised trials, the lower risks of vascular disease and cancer found in observational studies among people with higher intake of these antioxidant vitamins must have been largely or wholly artefactual (ie, due to other differences in lifestyle that were actually responsible for the lower risks). Hence, continued recommendation of supplementation with such vitamins is difficult to justify." (my emphasis).

  The article should not be giving an airing to the out-of-date opinions of ill-informed 'experts'. --TraceyR 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You quote comments on the effects of three vitamins on two forms of disease. When I hear "multi-vitamin", I usually think of something with quite a long list of vitamins. Schwendinger said you should eat sufficient fruits and veggies; a multi-vitamin was suggested as a second-rate alternative. Schwendinger did not suggest everybody should have a "higher intake", which is what the research you quoted refers to.

Schwendinger talked about multi-vitamin supplementation for people who eat insufficient quantities of the right food; the study in The Lancet spoke of a "higher intake" of only three. Given such a significant difference, I'm confused as to how you can call Schwendinger "ill-informed." Do you have any studies that refute Schwendinger's actual advice? Bhimaji 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Was the characterization of Rosemary Stanton and Renee Schwendinger as “ill-informed” intended as an argument that their criticism of Juice Plus should be expunged from the article? If so, the suggestion seems to be based solely on unsubstantiated opinion and is not supported by published sources; it sounds like soapboxing.

The Lancet article cited above is not even remotely supportive of an argument that Schwendinger’s criticism (and now Stanton’s as well) should be removed. It was a study on antioxidant supplementation (vitamin A/C/E combo) for the prevention of heart disease. It’s not even current (published in 2002) and it is only one of hundreds of articles written on this topic in the past few years, but most importantly, it was quoted out of context. The author’s statement “continued recommendation of supplementation with such vitamins is difficult to justify” was specifically in reference to trials on antioxidant supplementation for the prevention of heart disease (for which the authors instead recommended several standard pharmacological therapies, such as aspirin, ACE inhibitors, and beta-blockers, and lifestyle changes such as exercise and quitting smoking).

The Lancet article had no bearing whatsoever on general recommendations regarding multivitamin use in healthy populations (Schwendinger is quoted in the article as saying “the average person should eat actual fruits and vegetables, not take a supplement such as Juice Plus… barring that, a single multivitamin will give you all the nutrition you need if your diet is lacking, and it's less expensive”) nor did it mention Juice Plus, so it is irrelevant to the WP article. It does not even remotely refute Schwendinger’s and Stanton’s statements or support the accusation that they are “ill informed” or otherwise unreliable. Stanton didn’t even recommend using a multivitamin; she was quoted in the article as saying “Juice Plus…contains added vitamins, and as such may have some value, although regular vitamins cost only a fraction of the Juice Plus product". Rhode Island Red 02:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that no-one aware of the science disputes the importance of eating fruits and vegetables for general health and the prevention of disease. I'm not sure why it is considered axiomatic that "a single multivitamin will give you all the nutrition you need if your diet is lacking". Where is the science to back up this assertion?

The Lancet study did not report solely on the effects on antioxidant supplementation (vitamin A/C/E combo) for the prevention of heart disease:

Findings: There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality ..., or in deaths due to vascular ... or non-vascular ... causes. Nor were there any significant differences in the numbers of participants having non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death ..., non-fatal or fatal stroke ..., or coronary or noncoronary revascularisation ... . For the first occurrence of any of these “major vascular events”, there were no material differences either overall ... or in any of the various subcategories considered. There were no significant effects on cancer incidence or on hospitalisation for any other non-vascular cause. Interpretation: Among the high-risk individuals that were studied, these antioxidant vitamins appeared to be safe. But, although this regimen increased blood vitamin concentrations substantially, it did not produce any significant reductions in the 5-year mortality from, or incidence of, any type of vascular disease, cancer, or other major outcome.(my emphasis)

As the editorial comment in the same issue of the Lancet stated:

"These findings emphasise the need to generally view claims of treatment benefit from observational studies with considerable scepticism, unless confirmed by large well-designed randomised trials."

IMHO considerable scepticism is also required for the generalisations à la Schwendinger (who is still non-notable, although her Google hit-count has now no doubt reached double figures).

The supplements used in the study (alpha-tocopherol, ascorbic acid and beta-carotene) are also found in mega-doses in many multi-vitamin formulations, so its findings can be considered relevant to the massive, long-term, uncontrolled and indiscriminate trial currently in progress in the western world. Caveat emptor!

It is also insufficient to state that this 2002 study is "not even current" without citing later studies which have contradicted its results. --TraceyR 10:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems like an exercise in futility. No valid reasons have been raised to warrant removal of the comments by Stanton and Schwendinger or to support the opinion that they are “ill informed”, and the quoted sections from the Lancet article are irrelevant. Once again I will point out that the Lancet study examined the effects of A/C/E on disease incidence. It has no bearing on Schwedninder’s general recommendation regarding multivitamins vs. Juice Plus for healthy individuals. Lastly, most multivitamins do not contain megadoses of A/C/E; they merely contain RDI amounts of each. If anything, it is Juice Plus that contains megadoses of these vitamins (250%, 390%, and 150% of RDI, respectively). I will consider this case closed unless anyone has anything relevant to add. Rhode Island Red 13:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Article Owner, Rhode Island Red; by all means consider it closed if it makes you happy! However, Schwendinger's opinion should not be cited because (a) she is not any sort of recognised, published authority and (b) her opinion about "a single multivitamin" has not been supported by any evidence. You did not refute these point before closing the case (which you are not empowered to do, by the way).

In addition, although not essential to the arguments for removing the Schwendinger/St. Louis Post-Dispatch reference, the Lancet article showed that isolated antioxidants (which are used in many of the multivitamins she would prefer on cost grounds) "did not produce any significant reductions in the 5-year mortality from, or incidence of, any type of vascular disease, cancer, or other major outcome". --TraceyR 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Scwendinger is not the source, the St Louis Post-Dispatch is. Do you have some reason for doubting their reliability or fact-checking? You're now making assumptions about which multi-vitamins the dietitian was recommending; that's going far, far past the bounds of original research. You are welcome to disagree with a source and provide alternate viewpoints, but attacking the sources statements by producing a single research study that only tangentially addresses the topic at hand (and I'm being generous there) is not a reason to remove the text.

Additionally, please refrain from discussing other editors and try to stick to discussing the article. You and Rhode Island disagree on many things about the article; this does not make either of you wrong - you two need to learn that and find a way to work together. Shell 19:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported correctly what Schwendinger said; as I stated at the beginning of this section, Schwendinger herself is not an authority and, whatever the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's standards, she doesn't satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria in this regard. My previous entry here made it perfectly clear that my arguments for the removal of Schwendinger's comment do not depend upon the relevance of the Lancet article. However I think that you would be hard pressed to find a multivitamin which does not contain the three antioxidants used in the study - the fact that Schwendinger doesn't specify which multivitamin she is referring to implies that she means any multivitamin - which must undermine her putative 'expert' status even further. My comment on Rhode Island Red is relevant to the article and its content: his statement "I will consider this case closed unless anyone has anything relevant to add" indicates that he has once again assumed proprietorial authority over this article, which is in contravention of Misplaced Pages's WP:OWN guidelines and is therefore actively to be discouraged. --TraceyR 23:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

She was apparently authority enough for a reasonable media outlet like the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to take her word for it. I will not speculate about which multi-vitamin she meant or infer that she mean just "any" multi-vitamin; these types of things are WP:OR - we repeat what other sources say - Misplaced Pages isn't a primary source or a place for synthesis of things you know or believe. I imagine the reason that Rhode Island Red made that statement is because discussions seem to go on forever on this page; since no other editors agree with your points, the discussion would seem to be closed unless you have further points to make. Shell 00:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Post Dispatch is the only paper in a major city, they can write what they want, they really don't have any competition to keep them "honest", but it should be noted that their syndication is very low, most people in town don't even read the paper. Swhindinger is a staff nutritionist at a lower teir health facility in a town with some of the best medical facilities in the nation--the "health editor" doesn't do her own research she calls who she can get on the the phone and had the journalistic audacity to print ONE no-name staff nutritionist OPINION as FACT. She didn't source other "experts" she didn't offer differing opinions. The only place that anyone has listened to Schwindinger is on this forum.

And Shell, how dare you as a voice of authority on Wiki not admonish one editor from commanding from high "I will consider this case closed" and further enable ONE editor's obvious bias and ownership of this site. It is this type of biased editing that makes 80% of teachers in this nation instruct their students NOT to use Wiki as a reliable source.

Let's discuss this small ommission from Schindinger's "opinion", what about the fact that most americans do NOT eat enough fruits and vegetables? Are we to just suck down a lab created "multi-vitamin" as she recommends or maybe, just maybe might the nutrients from actual whole foods/fruits and vegetables benefit our health more.

what is the big deal with this article? Fruits and Vegetables shredded up and stuck in pills, no one is making you take it. But this article as edited by a few, would certainly make one think that vitamins created in a lab are better than what nature gives us. we do not have to agree with you RED and this case is far from closed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.25.138 (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for RiR, but I just have trouble not speaking up when I see blatantly misleading statements - such as yours, for example. You refer to JuicePlus as being natural products "shredded up and stuck in pills," but those pills are awfully small. You carefully gloss over the lab processing that is done in the production of JuicePlus, and you also ignore the fact that JuicePlus contains added nutrients supplied by the same "lab creation" process you are so much against.

Nature gives us many things; many of them are good, and many of them are bad. I remember when I was younger, reading through a book on poisonous plants that my dad had. It went into a lot of detail about what these different plants would do to you - I remember that when I see people suggest that "what nature gives us" is automatically, axiomatically better. Sometimes it is better, sometimes it isn't. Nature does not give us JuicePlus. Nature gives us fruits and vegetables. JuicePlus is a man-made processed product, made in a lab. It may be better than traditional multi-vitamins, it may not be - but it is very unreasonable to suggest that it is obviously inherently better because it fits your definition of "natural." JuicePlus does not fit my definition of natural. Which reminds me, time for breakfast; I have some real bananas and apples that look just about ripe enough to eat. Bhimaji 13:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that the vitriolic anonymous user at IP 70.130.211.228 and 72.255.25.138 seems to be a sock puppet for Julia Havey, a Juice Plus distributor with a COI who previously deleted all her comments and said that she was leaving WP permenantly? The IP address traces to the same server and block as previous unsigned comments posted by Havey several times in 2006 (e.g. ) Is this user willing to confirm or deny that their identify is Julia Havey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.236.110 (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

One anonymous editor asking another to identify him/herself? That's a bit rich! --TraceyR 22:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In view of the above comments on the way Juice Plus is produced ("Fruits and Vegetables shredded up and stuck in pills" from 72.255.25.138 and "Juice Plus is a man-made processed product, made in a lab" from Bhimaji) I have tried to identify, as far as possible, the process involved. From what is available online (and mostly not from company sources, which are not very informative - perhaps this is something the company representative who offered help some time ago could contribute to this discussion) the process appears to be:

1. Harvesting fruits and vegetables when they are ripe
2. Cleaning them (separately)
3. Juicing them (separately) in an oxygen-free environment
4. Removing water at low temperature/pressure in an oxygen-free environment, leaving dried powder (proprietary process; temperature range involved is said to be non-destructive of vitamins)
5. Mixing the fruits powders together and adding some natural (i.e. not synthetic) vitamins (to meet regulatory requirements?) and encapsulating them
6. Mixing the vegetable powders and adding some natural (i.e. not synthetic) vitamins (to meet regulatory requirements?) and encapsulating them

The degree of processing, i.e. juicing and drying, would therefore appear to be minimal and certainly less than for most packaged products available for human consumption; describing it as a "man-made processed product made in a lab" or as "fruits and vegetables shredded up and stuck in pills" would both appear to be incorrect.

Years ago I looked up how instant coffee and Coca-Cola are produced and the processing involved there really is 'awesome' (in the sense of "shock-and-awe" awesome). They really are man-made processed products made in a lab. Yet most of us have consumed instant coffee and Coke at some stage in our life without giving it a second thought. --TraceyR 09:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The comment above is unrelated to the topic of this thread. Rhode Island Red 15:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red: Then why didn't you comment first upon the off-topic comments I was commenting upon? Was it because the earlier comments might be construed as negative and were therefore OK to you? Please be consistent. My previous entry was in response to something written here, so it 'was' on topic. --TraceyR 16:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

This article was nominated for GA on 3 September. The article is fairly well-developed but I have some concerns in relation to WP:WIAGA:

• Jargon: although most technical terms are linked, it may still be difficult for some readers to to determine the significance of "a non-randomized, non-blinded, non-controlled study", for instance.
• Broadness: there are five headings about product research, but it's not clearly stated what the product marketers claim about the product.
• Neutral: overall tone seems a bit on the critical side. Critical views should certainly be reported, but usually controversial products have at least two sides: see Baby Gender Mentor. Similarly, the significance of John Wise (at the end) seems overplayed. For example, what is implied by saying he "co-authored several other Juice Plus research studies"? Is it appropriate to link to "insider trading", which has overtones, rather than merely link or define "insider" in the SEC sense?
• Stable: Although it appears mainly one editor edits the article, there seems to be unresolved issues on the talk page.

GA nomination is on hold awaiting responses. Gimmetrow 03:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for some great comments, it's good to get an outside opinion. My own main concern is about stability. I don't feel that the article reflects consensus. If it's "stable" right now, it's simply because other editors (including myself) got sick of the edit-warring and went off to do something else for awhile. See also: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red. Though I think that this can be a Good Article someday, my own recommendation would be to fail the nom for now, until the issues can be addressed, and we're sure that we're dealing with a stable article, with readable text, that accurately reflects all points of view in a neutral fashion, without giving undue weight to anything, and without violating WP:NOT. --Elonka 04:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My concern about tone relates to a sort of "undue weight" with the selection of information. For instance, while it appears true that NAI/etc. funded most of the studies, has any reliable source noted this point as important? If not, relating it here gives it a significance that seems to me undeserved. (I suspect most clinical trials are funded by the drug manufacturer.) Things of this nature create an overall negative tone, rather than a dispassionate tone. Gimmetrow 16:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I frequently read news stories concerning the funding of studies by parties with a conflict of interest; insufficient disclosure of interests is something that is often raised. I think any list of product research should include clear information about any conflicts both in funding and in study design.

Regarding specific news coverage about NAI, I would only expect coverage of a particular company or researcher if there were some sort of egregious problems. Bhimaji 18:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Bhimaji: Are you saying that there is an automatic COI if the manufacturer funds a study, or only if there is a failure to disclose the source of funding? As far as I am aware, there has been no failure to disclose NSA/NAI funding of research into Juice Plus. If the article in its current form creates the impression that there is something egregious about a company funding research into its own products, then it needs amending to prevent this happening. This issue has been raised here in the past but no consensus was reached - an example of the reasons for the inherent instability of the article.

I agree with you on the subject of specific news coverage about NAI in the absence of problems with the company and researchers and also with Gimmetrow on the issue of general tone of the article, as shown by the overplayed coverage of John Wise. This too was raised here, to no effect. --TraceyR 19:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Notability of Company Involvement in Juice Plus Research

There is ample evidence that the company’s funding of the studies is notable, and in previous discussion of this issue on the talk page, various editors favored inclusion of funding information.

Several sources, which are referenced in the article, have referred to the issue of the studies having been sponsored and/or written by the manufacturer, thereby establishing notability. For example registered dietician Kathleen Goodwin noted that “while there have been some clinical research studies about the effectiveness of Juice Plus, the evidence overall is inconclusive, the research flawed, and the funding provided by the manufacturer of the supplements themselves." Nutritionist Rosemary Stanton also commented on the company’s involvement in the research, noting that “the same distributors were also given proof in the form of results of a pilot study on 15 people, with one of the researchers being a principal of the company selling the supplement. It was a particularly poor study…” MLMWatch also noted that an executive (John Wise) of the company that manufactures Juice Plus had authored some of the Juice Plus research and referred to the fact that “several” of the studies were “sponsored by Juice Plus”. The true source of the Juice Plus research funding is also relevant given that NSA (which markets Juice Plus) and various Juice Plus distributors have deceptively referred to the studies as “independent”, “third-party” research. (see “What Juice Plus clinical research shows”) (see page 24)

Other articles which have discussed past Juice Plus research and clinical trials that are currently in progress have also noted that NSA paid for the studies. In one case, it was not only noted that NSA paid for the study but also that they had apparently attempted to hide their involvement after the study's results turned out to be unfavorable to the product.

Additional evidence of notability stems from a lame-duck defense issued by NSA regarding their role in funding the research.

We have discussed the funding issue previously on the talk page and various editors agreed that the funding source was relevant, notable, and merited inclusion. For example:

"Even if the study is controlled, there's still a subtle implication that when the manufacturer funds it, there's pressure to present findings that the manufacturer wants, otherwise the manufacturer isn't going to fund more studies there. --Elonka 21:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)"

I believe that knowing which studies were financed by the manufacturer is useful information and I know that medical journals have requirements that their authors disclose conflicts of interest. I think this is sufficient evidence that disclosure is worth doing, besides the common-sense argument. EdJohnston 20:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Also relevant is the position expressed in the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which are followed by virtually all top-tier medical journals. The guidelines state:

“Conflict of interest for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process—author, reviewer, and editor—has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, regardless of whether judgment is, in fact, affected. Financial relationships with industry (for example, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family, are usually considered the most important conflicts of interest."

"Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how well conflict of interest is handled during writing, peer review, and editorial decision making. Bias can often be identified and eliminated by careful attention to the scientific methods and conclusions of the work. Financial relationships and their effects are less easily detected than other conflicts of interest. Participants in peer review and publication should disclose their conflicting interests, and the information should be made available, so others can judge their effects for themselves. Because readers may be less able to detect bias in review articles and editorials than in reports of original research, some journals do not accept reviews and editorials from authors with a conflict of interest.”

As an aside, the position of the ICMJE clearly answers TraceyRs question as to whether “there is an automatic COI if the manufacturer funds a study”; that answer is yes. Rhode Island Red 01:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Curious. According to http://www.icmje.org/#conflicts, a "conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties)." So, is a COI a tie which "could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, regardless of whether judgment is, in fact, affected", or one which "inappropriately influencE his or her action"? Answer: both. COI has two senses, one the mere potential, which is reported in most journal articles and carries no particular negative connotation, and the other which is revealed in the actual twisting of the scientific process. The line in this article, by its placement and phrasing, implies, by innuendo, the second. Is that justified? Gimmetrow 02:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not inclined to agree that there is a dual meaning behind the ICMJEs position. Their 2006 version of the guidelines (the source of the quote above) also states: “The potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself.” It seems pretty clear that, according to the ICMJE guidelines, a COI exists merely by virtue of the company funding the research. However, the issue of whether a COI exists is not of paramount importance because the WP article doesn’t mention anything about COI; it merely identifies the sources of funding. Nonetheless, to avoid any untoward implications as a result of the placement and phrasing of the funding source information, I reset it as a separate paragraph. I also took you up on your suggestion to include some of the product claims. Rhode Island Red 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, as you will find, you may have an opinion on this article, but unless it is in line w/ Rhode Island Red it will not be allowed by him to stay in the article. and the only points he allows are those critic to Juice Plus. Regardless of any polite suggestions not to edit or act as owner, w/ less than 2 month break...He's Back! and w/ 50 edits in 24 hours. If that doesn't spell "OBSESSION", I don't know what would. It would take an act of God to make this article non biased or fair. It is negative, meant to be negative and ain't nothin changing it unless Red says it can be so from his roost on high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.178.9 (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn’t dignify an off-topic personal attack like that with a reply, but just for the record, I had only made 2 edits on the page in the past week, not 50 edits in 24 hours. Rhode Island Red 23:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, you are correct, this week you didn't do as many, 67.108.178.9 may have been talking about about 14, 15 of September. You seem to be fairly proficient on Wiki, in the event you don't know how to see your edit history just go to History of this page or your contributions and you can count up your numerous contributions. Without knowing much more about the article, it would certainly appear that you have a real interest in maintaining control on this site. I think that goes against the spirit of Wiki and concerns me. I agree with Gimmetrow that many references on this page are here simply to imply a negative opinion of the product. And, editor RIR seems to be very hostile to other editors if they do not share his opinion or seem to want a nonbiased article. Artice should not be considered a good article

• GAN error
• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees awaiting review
• Good article nominees without a subtopic
• Start-Class Food and drink articles
• Low-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles