Talk:Juice Plus/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Towards Good Article status

I thought I'd compile here a list of additions which could further improve the article, towards the possibility of promoting its status on Wikipedia. Can anyone help with sources for these?

A picture of the logo
More product history. When was it first released, and who was responsible for the idea?
What kind of sales numbers has it had?
How many people have tried it?
What kind of market penetration does it have? Is it popular in other countries besides the United States?
More info about the multi-level marketing aspect of it. How many distributors are there?
An infobox such as {{Foodbox}}. See Big Mac and other popular foods for an example of usage. --El on ka 03:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to anticipate what other types of comments might come up in a formal Peer Review. Can we think of anything else? --El on ka 03:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of that information would originate from the manufacturer (NAI) or distributing/marketing company (NSA), if it were available at all. I would guess that we would have a very hard time finding any reliable sources, particulalry for sales figures and number of users. Because it is sold by MLM, rather than by retailers, sales are not monitored by the usual organizations that conduct market data analyses and reliable data probably does not exist. I think I really like the foodbox idea. I don't love the logo/picture idea because it strikes me as a bit promotional, but others might disagree. A bit on product history might be good. According to the accounts I have seen, the inventor is Humbert "Smokey" Santillo (a naturopath), although the product does not have the same composition as Santillo's original, according to NSA. Rhode Island Red 04:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I like the article and support the food-box idea as well as a survey of the product history. I also think the multi-level marketing should receive more attention, since it seems the distribution and tactics of the sales force are very different than other supplements, food or medication. Some history on why this is would be interesting. Also the reader should be aware of why this product is so controversial; perhaps aided by a reference to the whole idea on the issue of form over substance for food. It is a very unique idea that you can divorce a food from it structure and still retain the health benefits. As if the structure of the food is superfluous. Have there been other movements which deny the gestalt nature of food, i.e. that food is nothing more than the composition of its constituent elements? Perhaps some of this would be speculative and not wiki-worthy, but if relevant research has been done in this area, it would be interesting to reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tbbooher (talk • contribs) 05:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I wonder whether the cats and dogs product really warrants mention as a "primary" product? In the absence of sales figures it is hard to say but by its very target market it would seem to be less important than a nutritional supplement for humans and not significant enough to mention.

Tbbhooer's question re food structure and its "gestalt naature" is a very interesting one. Juice, which is obviously "divorced from the structure" of the original food, has been shown to retain many of the health benefits of the original food, so the issue goes further than the simplistic issue of appearance ('macro' structure). The process of dehydration as a means of preservation for storage and successful reconstitution is evident in nature (in seeds) and in recent developments its viability is shown in sperm and tissue banks, so there would not appear to be in principle any reason to suggest that the concept is faulty on the basis of the product's "gestalt nature". It is not a unique idea but a novel application of an old idea.

On the other hand, look at most of what you eat and drink, e.g. breakfast cereals, bread, margarine, hamburgers, pizzas, a glass of wine, and you'll be hard put to it to find anything, apart from fruit and vegetables that is, which hasn't been processed in some other way, often merely to prolong its shelf life (usually for logistical rather than health reasons). Heat treatment, irradiation, pasteurisation, which leave the "gestalt nature" of food intact, have been shown to reduce its health benefits (e.g. enzymatic activity). TraceyR 07:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR, great thoughts. Agreed this is an application of an old idea, I wonder how old. Where on Wikipedia/anywhere would we first find mention of the idea that the essence of food could be separated from its structure? What civilization/timeframe was the first to understand food and nutrition? Is there an article, branch of science which answers what in the composition in the food is transport material and what is nutritive. Have there been futurist movements which envision a world where we take one pill a day which is the perfect blend of nutrition. Certainly, current supplements, and even smoothies could fit into this category -- the whole concept of superfood. I see a development of slow food movement on one hand, which is closely tied to organic food type ideas and products like JP on the other hand which seem to be focusing on the chemical nature of food. (Not meant in any way to discredit the product or get the angry distributors edit-vandaling again, just some thoughts that might lead to an interesting link in this article or a new article altogether.) Tbbooher 18:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea that JP focuses on the "chemical nature of food" is a misunderstanding, I believe. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. This was why there was a long dispute about the use of "concentrate" and extract" earlier: the process by which JP is made is a physical one (i.e. juicing, then low-temperature dehydration); no "chemical" extraction process is involved, so the 'concentrate' is said to contain as much as possible of the nutrients of the original f&v (hence the "next best thing to f&v" claim, I suppose). Another misunderstanding is that this "superfood" is supposed to replace f&v in the diet, whereas JP is sold as a supplement. If these two points were generally understood I think that there would be a lot less criticism of the product. TraceyR 18:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Very late reply on this but was just re-reading and felt a few comments were warranted. First of all, it is a misrepresentation to claim that JP is nothing but whole food (i.e. fruits and vegetables). It is know with certainty that the product does not provide the fiber or potassium of fruits and vegetables (who knows what else gets washed out during processing), so clearly it does not preserve the nutritional essence of the source material as is widely claimed by distributors of the product.

Secondly, it is totally apparent that the concept behind JP does indeed focus on the chemical nature of food. Nutrients such as folate, beta-carotene, vitamin C and E, and small amounts of iron and calcium are added to the product artificially after the fruits and vegetables are processed (i.e. to replace the nutrients washed out during processing). In addition, JP marketing strongly emphasizes the value of phytochemicals, which are the chemical constituents of fruits and vegetables thought to provide some of their health benefits. By focusing on the importance of phytonutrients while ignoring the role of fiber and potassium in the health benefits of fruits and vegetables, NSA clearly is taking a reductionist view that emphasizes the chemical nature of isolated components of food. Additionally, those who consume plant-rich diets have a lower intake of cholesterol, staurated fats, nitrosamines, etc. and these widely known benefits are not obtained by taking JP.

Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that the manufacturer of Juice Plus does not itself process the fruits and vegetables but rather buys processed juice powders in bulk from third-party distributors. Similarly, the added nutrients in Juice Plus, such as the algae Dunaliella salina (the source of beta-carotene), vitamin E, etc. are also purchased in bulk from run-of-the-mill chemical companies.

The claim that Juice Plus is sold exclusively as a supplement to, rather than a replacement for, fruits and vegetables is false. JP advocates are trying to argue the exact opposite; i.e. that JP is not a supplement but rather a food. Just look at the latest discussion wherein Juice Plus distributor/spokesperson Julia Havey claims:

“Juice Plus is not a supplement but the whole food nutrition of many different fruits and vegetables encapsulated--read the lable (sic); it reads "nutrition facts" not supplement facts, it was it is, a FOOD.”[1]

NSA has even made marketing claims that their research suggests that JP is BETTER than the real thing. Lastly, referring to JP as “the next best thing to fruits and vegetables”, as in NSA marketing materials, indicates that it is being offered as a substitute for fruits and vegetables; maybe not as a perfect substitute but a substitute nonetheless. Were this not the case, NSA would not try to market the product to those “who can’t, won’t or don’t eat” the real thing. If JP is not a substitute for the real thing then the message to those who can’t won’t or don’t eat the real thing should be that they are simply out of luck and will probably have higher rates of diseases than those who do eat wisely. Rhode Island Red 15:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just tried the GNLD reference again - it still doesn't exist. I think that this reference should be deleted, for the same reason as before: it presents WP in general in a bad light if it contains references to non-existent sources and mitigates against "good article status" for this article if it stays in. Any objections to it being removed? TraceyR 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted as inactive, not removed. Refer to previous discussion. [2] Rhode Island Red 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that the GNLD (Golden Neo-Life Diamite) 'article' (it seems to have been a marketing flyer) has been found on an archive site. I'm not sure that it meets the WP standards for being (a) research and (b) secondary. It certainly isn't a bona fide scientific source. Should it be used at all? I fear that allowing a marketing flyer to be cited in such a context might open the floodgates for all sorts of marketing copy to be used! Hardly advisable for "good article status".

I also wonder whether there might have been legal reasons for its removal from the original site, in which case there might be legal problems using it as a source. TraceyR 13:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I notice that we are relying on the GNLD flyer (reference 4) to back up this sentence: "Four studies have indicated that the label's amounts are not entirely accurate". Since the claims made in the GNLD flyer are not even published in a technical report (much less in a refereed journal) we shouldn't use it as evidence for that. Perhaps we could use it just to point out that a competing supplement maker has questioned some of the label items on Juice Plus. I see that GNLD's scientific advisory board includes a number of people with good credentials. Perhaps if someone had the patience to track down their publications, it would turn out that some of GNLD's analyses are actually published. Citing one of those publications would be better than using the flyer (reference 4). EdJohnston 16:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox structure

Okay, I am now an expert on Wikipedia food templates, heh. There wasn't a category that listed them, so I made one, and have been chasing all of the 'pedia populating it: Category:Food templates. If anyone knows of something I missed, let me know. :) In the meantime, I've taken the one that looked most appropriate for our needs: {{Foodbox}} and have modified it enough so that it seems to work. If we need more headings (like for additional vitamins), I can add them.

What I'm really not sure how to do though, is how to:

Handle the differences between Orchard Blend and Garden Blend
Adequately notate that these quantities are not USDA-confirmed, but are just off the label. And more importantly, how to adequately notate that some of the quantities have been identified to be incorrect.

For example, we could list it as:

Vitamin C: 80% (OB), 70% (GB), (study indicated actual percentages were 75%/40%)

Then again, that could get really wordy... What do other people think? --El on ka 00:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we might be best off to include the Orchard Blend ingredients and %RDIs as well. They ingredient list might not look bad if is is simply integrated into the exisiting infobox . Also, have a look at my last comment about including the combined %RDI for the 4-capsule regimen.[3] It's something else to think about. It could be added to the infobox or in the main text, or it might be unnecessary if we include the ingredients/%RDIs for Orchard Blend.

As to the question of the labeled amounts not being confirmed, Sloan Kettering used the following verbiage:

This product is regulated by the FDA as a dietary supplement. Unlike approved drugs, supplements are not required to be manufactured under specific standardized conditions. This product may not contain the labeled amount or may be contaminated. In addition, it may not have been tested for safety or effectiveness.

We might be able to turn a phrase from that or I can dig around for the FDAs official statement about supplements not being certified to meet label claims. I know I have seen it somewhere. You're doing great Elonka so keep at it and I will help you fill in a few gaps when I get some more time over the next few days. Rhode Island Red 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just noticing that we could save some real estate in the infobox by (a) fixing the break on the ingredient list so that it spans the full width of the column (b) removing the “source” section and instead footnoting to the reference list and/or listing just the batch/lot number (c) removing the picture. It looks good but if it came to a choice between a picture vs. information, I would probably favor the info. Perhaps the picture could instead be cropped a bit tighter to save a little more space. Rhode Island Red 05:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Which of the ingredients have been considered to have been labeled most inaccurately? Is it a +/- 10% thing, or gross misrepresentation? I'm thinking that the best way to present it in the infobox, might be to list things as a range, like: "Vitamin C: 60-80%". --El on ka 18:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Image needed

Right now we're using a pic from the NSA website as "fair use", but it's problematic to declare fair use on it since a free image could probably be created fairly easily. Could someone here with access to the actual product, snap a few photos? Like of the jars, of some individual capsules, etc. Then you can either send them to me and I'll upload them for you, or I'll talk you through how to upload your own images to Wikipedia or to the Commons. The trickiest part is the licensing issue, but as long as you're uploading your own pics, a simple GFDL or CC-by-SA license should do fine. --El on ka 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Adverse effects

Since the material on adverse effects that Rhode Island Red has added is well-sourced, it's hard to argue against it. Just one line caught my attention:

These events resolved spontaneously and were deemed by the researchers to be unrelated to treatment [13].

Why would we be carrying this as an adverse effect if it's unrelated to treatment? Does anyone have access to the full text of the study?

That’s a totally reasonable question. In studies that monitor adverse events in subjects while taking a test agent, all adverse events are reported even if the investigators deem them to be unrelated to the treatment. This is because it’s usually impossible to know with certainty whether an adverse event has been caused by a test agent or some other unrelated factor, particularly for test agents that have unknown safety profiles, so any and all adverse events are reported. This uncertainty is reflected in the standard-use terminology “the investigators deemed…”, meaning that they are taking a best guess that the adverse event is unrelated to treatment but cannot say so definitively. Rhode Island Red 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, when this section says 'Adverse effects... have not been rigorously monitored', it would be good if we included some definition of rigorous monitoring, so that the reader knows what we are talking about. EdJohnston 18:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That’s another reasonable point. The relevant background information is that safety testing and adverse event monitoring/reporting are not required for dietary supplements. Rigorous safety studies, such as the kind required for drugs, track large numbers of subjects over relatively long periods of use and they employ careful study designs and surveillance methods to establish the safety profile and adverse events for the agent under investigation. Feel free to insert the appropriate verbiage if you feel taking a crack at it. Rhode Island Red 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Turning the clock back - the article as re-written by Elonka was objective and met with a general support. It seems to me that Rhode Island Red is now trying to turn the clock back and turn the article into the less than balanced article that we had before (which led Elonka to invest her time and effort into the rewrite). Are we returning to the previous situation in which negative comment was permitted but positive comment dismissed as either not NPOV or because of what was deemed (usually by him) to be due to "conflict of interest". I had hoped that these "bad old days" were over. I'm disappointed by this trend. If "well-sourced" "adverse effects" are allowed, are well-sourced references to the "positive effects" to be permitted too? TraceyR 22:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

See above, Talk:Juice_Plus#Article_rewrite_section_break_.231, where Elonka asked for suggestions of what material to restore in the Adverse Effects section. We already have large sections on antioxidant and cardiovascular effects, in which positive effects are mentioned. Perhaps Elonka will give an opinion of how to proceed. EdJohnston 00:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Adverse effects do not constitute “negative comment”. They are simply relevant facts without an inherent POV, positive or negative. Rhode Island Red 01:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if such 'adverse effects' are well-documented and specific. If, as RIR says, "it’s usually impossible to know with certainty whether an adverse event has been caused by a test agent or some other unrelated factor" then such 'effects' have no place here. We don't want any "danger to fetus" 'effects' creeping back in, do we? Well, I don't. TraceyR 10:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The word 'fetus' does not occur in the article at present, so 'danger to fetus' does not seem to be a very visible claim. Also the adverse effects section is rather short in terms of prose. On my monitor there are only eight lines in the 'Adverse effects' section. Do you have a specific concern with what still remains? EdJohnston 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed, you'd have to scan back through the talk to check the interesting background to that remark. TraceyR 15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What is going on here?

I see that the reference to the "Virtual Franchise Owner's Manual (December 2002)" has re-appeared, in spite of a consensus (or so I thought) a short time ago that this was neither a generally available nor a secondary source. On this basis it was removed. Now it is back. With what justification? TraceyR 19:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Propose we remove the Wake Forest consent form language (previous consensus, I think)

Earlier in this Talk page, there is an entire thread under 'Is a consent form a reliable source?' The most recent comment added to that thread was by User:Deckiller on 14 February:

Consensus appears to be in favor of removing the text. Logic dictates that the term "reliable" is a case by case basis; the most reliable source for an article is therefore a reliable source, unless it is so obviously questionable. Either way, claims with sources that don't seem to meet Wikipedia's general definitions of "reliable" need to have multiple sourcing to be certain. I don't see multiple sourcing here. Moreover, the claims are trivial. Keep the text removed. — Deckill er 01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If we accept Deckiller as correctly stating the Talk page consensus, then we would remove the following section from the article:

Heartburn, abdominal pain, diarrhea, gas with foul odor, and indigestion have been noted as very common risks associated with taking Juice Plus Orchard and Garden Blend, and nausea and vomiting as less common risks;^[1] in some cases these side effects may be serious and long lasting, persisting after use of the supplement has been stopped.

If you believe that User:Deckiller mis-stated the consensus, please continue the discussion here. My own reason for supporting Deckiller's view is that the scientific basis for adding those cautionary words to the consent form is, to us, completely unknown. Perhaps some doctor on the IRB got nervous, on the basis of his general medical intuition. It wouldn't be the first time that someone decided to stay on the safe side when there wasn't enough information.

So my bottom line is, I would remove everything based on the Wake Forest consent form language, unless somehow we can track down whatever studies led to that language being there (assuming such studies exist). Note that the stuff about risk to the fetus is already out, because Elonka didn't include it in her revised version. EdJohnston 22:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Items previously removed after the establishment of a consensus and/or not included in Elonka's rewrite (which was accepted by most editors as a welcome and constructive effort) have been re-appearing in recent days. For example, why re-introduce previously deleted 'adverse effects', which are e.g. "deemed" not to have been caused by the product being tested anyway? What's going on? TraceyR 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue previously raised about the Wake Forest document was specifically in reference to the effects of Juice Plus on the fetus, since it was suggested that the wording used was generic boilerplate. With regard to the other side effects, the wording in the source document was much more specific and was not boilerplate. It clearly identified certain side effects of Juice Plus as being very common and others as being less common. Those side effects were not the subject of our previous debate and no one had disputed that information. Furthermore, these side effects are similar to the same ones described by the manufacturer, so it does not appear that the statement is contentious in any way. Rhode Island Red 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Deemed" is standard terminology when reporting adverse events (AEs). Just try a Google search for "adverse events deemed". It is also typical to report all AEs regardless of whether or not they are deemed by the investigators to have been caused by the test agent, particularly for studies that not double-blinded, such as the one in question by Leeds et al., since the potential for bias exists.

As an aside, in most safety studies, it is not known conclusively whether a test agent causes a given side effect; the studies merely observe incidence and correlations in users and then report them. The cause and effect relationship only becomes apparent over time when a sufficient number of cases of a particular AE have been reported, and when a logical mechanism linking the AE with the test agent has been identified. But safety studies do not require a known cause/effect relationship as a prerequisite for reporting a given AE. Rhode Island Red 03:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Are any of the remaining problems major?

I just printed off two of the articles, trying to minutely answer some of the questions raised in this Talk page, and it suddenly occurred to me: I'm studying the primary sources! So my suggestion is: why not declare a truce on the scientific issues? If anyone else agrees, I'm prepared to declare the remaining issues negligible and leave the article as it is:

Stephen Barrett. Yes, some of the objections may be valid, but the articles of his that are cited are reasonably OK. He reminds us of the type of issues raised by multi-level marketing of something promoted for its claimed health benefits.
Reference 14 is from a publication called 'The Skeptic' which looks like an activist web site. The cited article may not be usable as a source for factual issues (per WP:RS). I'd put up with this, because if you read the cited article carefully, you probably won't be misled.
Reference 4, from GNLD International, provides a chemical analysis of Juice Plus which is not traceable to a journal article or even a technical report. It's basically a marketing flyer. So it should not be a factual reference about Juice Plus.
The 'Adverse effects' include a statement by the authors (Leeds et al, 2000) that they did not deem their subjects' minor illnesses to be due to administration of the supplement. What were they smoking? This is a non-placebo-controlled, non-blinded study that didn't even have a control group! So how could they possibly tell! OK, I'd even live with this because of the smart retort from Reference 14, mentioned above, which does restore balance.
Wake Forest (Reference 21). After the thousands of words of Talk discussion above, related to the Informed Consent Form of this study, I just looked at the full study protocol, available here and the full protocol has six pages of references. To be thorough, we should go through those references and see if any should be added to the article, and see if they justify the warnings about Juice Plus that our article had quoted from the consent form.
Are you beginning to see that this could be a lengthy process?

If you guys think that ALL of the minor issues should be ruthlessly hunted down and removed, I'd be willing to do that. (We'd probably lose up to 10 references). However the minor issues that remain are reasonably balanced, and the overall tone of the article I think is adequately neutral. Also it would probably be a struggle to get agreement on all the minor issues. So as an alternative, can we live with what's here now? I think that both RIR and Tracey would have to give opinions on this. And we'd have to agree that the material removed by Elonka would not be restored (except for what's already been done). What do you think? EdJohnston 03:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I’m basically OK with the version we have now aside from a few minor issues raised previously that Elonka and I were in the process of addressing; none were particulalry controversial and they should be easy to work out by mutual agreement. As for the GNLD reference, the main problem I see is that it is quoted somewhat out of context. It might be appropriate to include it in Disputed Claims section, specifically described as an analysis reported by a competitor. I don’t advise pouring over the Wake Forest reference list; I am pretty darn sure that you find any studies in Juice Plus that are not already mentioned in our JP article. Rhode Island Red 05:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The GNLD reference really has no place in a serious article (especially not in 'disputed claims') which is what we're striving for here - there is no research cited to back the claims and it is, after all, just a marketing flyer from a competitor. The Wake Forest consent form business was sorted out ages ago, I thought; it isn't specific to Juice Plus, but standard words they have to apply to anything being studied; if they did a study on organic apples they would have to include the same words. TraceyR 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate, the previous consensus that was reached concerned the boilerplate disclaimer regarding fetal effects. The other side effects in the WFUSM document were described using more specific wording and, rather than being a generic disclaimer, the side effects are quite specific and similar to those described by NSA. Also, to be accurate, the document in question is not a “consent form”. It is a required submission to the IRB of WFUSM as a precondition for authorization to conduct the research.

As to the GNLD citation, there doesn’t seem to be any reason that should preclude its mention in the disputed claims section if it is appropriately described as originating from an analysis conducted by a competitor. GNLD claims that they conducted the analysis, they cited the methodology, they provided the detection limits for the compounds assayed, and they listed the results (i.e., no lycopene or lutein detected). It seems that it would be very suitable for the disputed claims section because it obviously disputes NSAs marketing claims. It may not meet our working definition of scientific research (i.e. published in a journal), and therefore would not be ideal for the Research section of the article, but it certainly seems to be a reasonable dispute of one of the Juice Plus marekting claims. It is also consistent with what other critics have stated (i.e. the product provides mainly added exogenous nutrients and there is no evidence that it provides any of the phytonutreint constituents of the source plant material). Rhode Island Red 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

New Juice Plus study available

I have just come across the following 'hot off the press' advance report:

Houston, MC (2007). "Juice Powder Concentrate and Systemic Blood Pressure, Progression of Coronary Artery Calcium and Antioxidant Status in Hypertensive Subjects: A Pilot Study". eCAM Advance Access. Oxford Journals. Retrieved 2007-03-01. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I have extracted a few salient points; the whole text is available via the above link. It is just a pilot study (no control group, no placebo, only 51 (very brave?) subjects etc), partly financed by NSA, but it seems to confirm many of the positive findings from other studies, but some of the results are so significant (several with P < 0.001) that a study with a larger population would be extremely unlikely to produce very different results. When we have had time to digest the study, the article will need to be updated.

The abstract reads as follows:

Because micronutrients from plants may have beneficial cardiovascular effects, the hypothesis that an encapsulated juice powder concentrate might affect several measures of vascular health was tested in free living adults at low cardiovascular risk. Blood pressure, vascular compliance, lipid and antioxidant markers, and serial electron beam tomography (to calculate a coronary artery calcium score as a measure of atherosclerosis burden), were monitored in 51 pre-hypertensive and hypertensive subjects over 2 years. By the end of follow-up, systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased significantly (–2.4 ± 1.0 mmHg, P < 0.05 and –2.2 ± 0.6 mmHg, P < 0.001), and large artery compliance improved significantly (1.9 ± 0.6 ml mmHg–1 x 100, P < 0.01). The progression of coronary artery calcium score was smaller than expected compared with a historical database (P < 0.001). Laboratory testing showed a significant decrease in homocysteine (P = 0.05), HDL cholesterol (P = 0.025) and Apo A (P = 0.004), as well as a significant increase in ß-carotene, folate, Co-Q10 and -tocopherol (all P < 0.001). The phytonutrient concentrate we utilized induced several favorable modifications of markers of vascular health in the subjects. This study supports the notion that plant nutrients are important components of a heart healthy diet.(all emphasis added)

Nuttritional intervention (and adverse effects):

Subjects were instructed to take three capsules of the phytonutrient preparation twice daily with meals. ... The phytonutrient preparation (Juice Plus+®, NSA, Inc., Memphis,TN, USA) is an encapsulated juice powder concentrate blend consisting primarily of fruits, vegetables and berries including: acerola cherry, apple, beet, bilberry, blackberry, black currant, blueberry, broccoli, cabbage, carrot, cranberry, Concord grape, elderberry, kale, orange, papaya, parsley, peach, pineapple, raspberry, red currant, spinach and tomato. Six capsules daily provided 7.5 mg ß-carotene, 276 mg vitamin C, 71 mg vitamin E and 780 mcg folate and about 63 kJ. Other than minor gastrointestinal complaints early in the study, there were no reports of adverse effects attributed to the phytonutrient preparation over the 24 months of follow-up.(emphasis added for those looking for the 'adverse effects' :-) )

Caveats cited in the study:

Limitations of this pilot study included the small sample size and lack of a placebo group. The comparison of change in coronary artery calcium score compared to the historical database is not optimal because of temporal differences of when that data were collected, along with other potential differences between this study population and the contributors to the database information. In addition, although some investigators have raised concerns about the reliability of the CR-2000 used to assess arterial compliance (42), others have disputed this opinion and finding the CR-2000 highly reproducible (46).

An extract from the discussion:

While the importance of antioxidants in the reduction of cardiovascular disease remains controversial, the parallel reduction of oxidative stress and other markers of vascular damage are reassuring. In this light, it is intriguing that a powder concentrate containing numerous phytonutrients, as opposed to tablets of single vitamins, was sufficient to attain the favorable surrogate results demonstrated. (emphasis added).

Summary:

In summary, this pilot study showed a favorable effect of an encapsulated juice powder concentrate, made primarily of multiple fruits, vegetables and berries, on several surrogate markers of cardiovascular disease. Additional placebo-controlled prospective studies will be required to confirm these findings.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by TraceyR (talk • contribs) 1 March, 2007. Oops! Thanks!

There are major problems with this study; in a nutshell they are: (a) the study was very poorly designed and executed (b) the results, for the most part, were unremarkable, and (c) there are disturbing conflict of interest issues. It is somewhat surprising that NSA is still sponsoring poorly designed, uncontrolled studies such as this one given that they have been researching the product for over a decade.

This study isn’t exactly hot off the press either. This data has been presented several times previously. It was published once as a research meeting abstract in May 2005 [4] and again at a meeting of the European Nutraceutical Association in Feb 2006.version 1 (see page 9); version 2; version 3 No coauthors are mentioned in any of the latter 3 versions, just Mark Houston. In all of these reports, Juice Plus did not significantly affect systolic pressure, whereas in the new article a statistically significant 2.5% decrease in systolic pressure was reported. There are other discrepancies in the data presented in the various versions.

Study Design Issues

The study was of the lowest possible design quality: an open label, non-randomized, non controlled, non-blinded study with no placebo group.
The study’s participants were not excluded for taking concurrent antihypertensive medications. No details were given as to how many subjects were on such medications or how long they had been taking them. The blood pressure results reported would be much more likely to be due to antihypertensive meds than to Juice Plus.
No attempt was made to control for or monitor the subjects’ diets, exercise, smoking or drinking. Changes in any of these factors could easily account for most of the results reported. It is in fact highly likely that the subjects had implemented lifestyle modifications to lower their blood pressure, since that would be the typical recommendation for someone with pre-hypertension/hypertension.
Six subjects dropped out after the study had started and yet the data prior to dropping out were inappropriately included in the final analyses. This would not be permissible with a properly stringent study design.
The study’s participants were misidentified as being hypertensive and pre-hypertensive. Hypertension is universally defined as BP greater than 140/90.[5] The subjects designated as hypertensive in this study had average BPs of 139/85 and therefore were not actually hypertensive but pre-hypertensive. Similarly, the baseline blood pressure data for the so-called pre-hypertensive group shows that they were not actually pre-hypertensive; in fact, their average pressures were in the normal range (120/76). The title of the paper makes an even more egregious error in referring only to “hypertensive subjects”.
The use of historical controls for comparisons of CAC, rather than a proper control group, is especially misleading given that the subjects in Houston’s study did not meet the definition of “hypertensive” yet presumably were compared to hypertensive historical controls. It is a faulty comparison because the historical controls in this case likely had more severe CV dysfunction than Houston’s study cohort.
Juice Plus was taken not as the ususal 4-capsule regimen (2 each of Orchard and Garden Blend per day) but as 6 capsules, with a third product, Vineyard Blend, being taken in addition to Orchard and Garden Blend. The results, therefore, cannot be extrapolated to normal-use conditions.
As an aside, such a poorly designed study would never be accepted for publication in a good journal, but it was accepted by this non-ranked journal, Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM), for which the study’s lead author (Mark C. Houston of Nashville TN, home of NSA) has served as a reviewer.[6] No scientist hopes for their research to be published in a journal like eCAM, even if they are in the complementary/alternative arena. It has minimal reach and a non-prestigious reputation and is not very stringent about the quality of articles published.

Results

Nutrient Absorption: The reported elevation of blood levels of folate, beta-carotene, and vit E is not surprising because those vitamins are added artificially as fortifiers to the product. Absorption of these 3 nutrients has been reported previously in better designed studies, so the new data is unremarkable. KEY FINDING -- vitamin C was not absorbed.

LDL/HDL: KEY FINDING -- Juice Plus led to a small but statistically significant reduction in good cholesterol (HDL), and a trend towards increasing levels of bad cholesterol (LDL). This data indicates a potentially adverse effect of the product on heart health. Total cholesterol levels were unchanged.

Coronary Artery Calcium: The CAC score data is totally unreliable and essentially useless because the investigators used a historical database rather than a control group for comparisons. This is a critical flaw (see point 6 above).

Blood Pressure: A slight decrease in systolic and diastolic pressure (2.4 and 2.2 mm Hg) was reported but the effect was so small that it could been due to a variety of uncontrolled factors, or to a gradual waning of the whitecoat effect effect -- a term that describes the phenomena whereby a patient’s blood pressure tends to go up in the presence of their physician due to general anxiety. Furthremore, the BP effect was not substantial enough to impact health outcomes (e.g. the prehypertensive subjects remained prehypertensive after taking Juice Plus for 2 years) and was much smaller than the effects typically obtained from lifestyle modifications or antihypertensive meds.

Side Effects: The study did not describe any details of how side effects were monitored; therefore, it can be concluded that reliable, acceptable methods were not used to make such determinations. The authors did, however, note that the product caused gastrointestinal side effects, which they described as minor but in fact were severe enough to cause 3 subjects out of the initial 54 to dropout of the study prematurely. The reasons for 5 of the other 6 dropouts were not listed (contrary to convention), and therefore side effects could have been a cause.

Other Effects: The data for other parameters showed trivially small or nonexistent effects. For example, Apo A decreased by 3.5% and homocysteine by 2.5%. These extremely small effects could be due to any number of factors that were not controlled for in the study and they are too small to be of therapeutic value. Glycosylated hemoglobin levels were unchanged.

Conflict of Interest

The article identifies NSA as a source of funding; however, Mark Houston seems to much have deeper ties with NSA/Juice Plus and a potential conflict of interest which was not disclosed (cf. ICMJE Guidelines p.75)

Houston serves as the Medical Chair of the American Nutraceutical Association (ANA), an organization that largely represents the interests of the nutraceutical industry. The ANA has received funding from NSA in the past and held a Juice Plus research meeting in conjunction with an NSA distributor training conference in Phoenix in 2006.[7] It is unclear whether the ANA receives other funding from NSA but it seems likely.
Houston has been a speaker at Juice Plus sales training events [8] and appeared in a Juice Plus promotional video in 2002 entitled The Science of Juice Plus.[9] (see p.13)
The ANAs partner organization, the European Nutraceutical Association (ENA),[10] is run by Gerald Tulzer, Peter Prock, and Ingrid Keifer, [11] all of whom have previously conducted or are now conducting Juice Plus research.[12][13] Tulzer and Prock also serve as Juice Plus spokespersons [14][15][16] and appear to have a direct financial interest in the product (and in all likelihood, so does Kiefer). Tulzer maintains a Juice Plus distributor site in Linz, Austria under the company name OEKO-BRAIN.[17][18][19] Prock appears to be an employee of NSA [20]
The ENA is also supported financially by NSA [21].
The ANA and ENA look unmistakably like NSA shell organizations for promoting Juice Plus, much like the Juice Plus Children's Research Foundation.

The question remains as to what if anything in this study should merit inclusion in the Wiki article. That it does not meet minimal criteria for design quality and reliability? That it was company-funded and conducted by someone who has a fairly clear but undisclosed conflict of interest? That vitamin C was not absorbed? That it has adverse effects on HDL/LDL levels? That the effects on BP, homocysteine and Apo A were too small to be therapeutically useful and were more likely attributable to any number of uncontrolled factors rather than to Juice Plus? That it caused GI side effects of sufficient severity to warrant several subjects to drop out of the study? That it yielded useless data on arterial calcium based on comparisons with historical data rather than using a proper control group? That it misidentified the subjects in the study as being hypertensive? Rhode Island Red 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work.

Just one point, though: it was a pilot study. Doesn't that mean that the objective was to assess whether it would be worth pursuing similar lines of investigation in a more rigorous study? So the list of things you mentioned (an open label, non-randomized, non controlled, non-blinded study with no placebo group) is interesting but not really relevant in this case. Obviously as a pilot it doesn't carry as much weight as a clinical study would. But didn't the study (as quoted in the extract above) point this out:

"Limitations of this pilot study included the small sample size and lack of a placebo group. The comparison of change in coronary artery calcium score compared to the historical database is not optimal because of temporal differences of when that data were collected, along with other potential differences between this study population and the contributors to the database information."

"Additional placebo-controlled prospective studies will be required to confirm these findings." TraceyR 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that poorly designed studies like this one tell us almost nothing and carry almost no weight; they don't even provide enough information to determine whether more research is warranted. NSA continues to misrepresent such studies as evidence of the product's effectiveness. Poorly designed pilot studies are a worthwhile investment only from a marketing standpoint but they are junk science. It doesn’t cost significantly more to conduct well-designed studies, so it would appear that NSA and their hired researchers either don’t understand or aren't concerned about research quality. Rhode Island Red 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, another point: there was a second source of funding that you omitted to mention (so it wasn't exclusively "company-funded" as you imply). TraceyR 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It’s arguable whether “company-funded” implies exclusivity but in any case, the implications of NSAs involvement remain the same regardless of whether another source contributed an unknown proportion of the funding. Rhode Island Red 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How can you possibly know that the "effects on BP, homocysteine and Apo A were ... more likely attributable (my emphasis) to any number of uncontrolled factors rather than to Juice Plus"? An interesting assumption, but where's the evidence one way or the other? TraceyR 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is more likely because the influence of concurrent antihypertensive meds and lifestyle/dietary modifications was not controlled for. These are factors that are widely known to have a major influence on BP and other parameters of cardiovascular function. Also consider that (a) the study was so poorly designed that one cannot know that these minute effects were real and not just an artifact and (b) a study by Plotnick et al showed no effect on BP in normotensive subjects who took the same 6-capsule regimen of Orchard/Garden/Vineyard Blends. In fairness, the minute reduction (2.5%) in homocysteine levels could also have been due to the added folate in Juice Plus, since folate supplementation is known to reduce homocysteine levels. But interestingly, even though JP contains a fairly high dose of added folate, homocysteine levels were not substantially changed. Rhode Island Red 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And something else: only two subjects withdrew due to GI problems, not the three you mentioned; a minor point but salient enough to mention, perhaps. (I wonder what caused the GI problem - "more likely attributable" to something they ate?). Two or three other subjects withdrew because they were prescribed medication/treatments explicitly excluded from the study. Presumably the reasons for the other withdrawals were different, otherwise surely they would have been included one of the two categories listed. An assumption, but just as valid as yours. TraceyR 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was 2 not 3 dropouts for GI side effects, a minor point but worth mentioning. The researchers said the GI distress was possibly due to Juice Plus but they didn't mention the possibility that it was due to something the subjects ate, let alone that this was a "more likely" explanation, as you suggest. I didn’t “assume” that the other 6 dropouts were related to side effects. I merely raised it as a possibility (i.e. “could”), since the causes for the mid-study dropouts were not listed (only those that withdrew before the first follow up visit). Normally, the causes for all dropouts would be listed, so the absence of such information is suspicious. The possibility remians that some of the 6 dropouts were caused by side effects. Rhode Island Red 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the ANA and the ENA have to do with the study; is it enough to say that they "look unmistakably like NSA shell organizations" to insinuate that the author is in NSA's pocket? You'll have to produce more evidence for that, too. I imagine that NSA is one of the founding members of both organizations; I was unable to discover such details from the ANA website, but I did discover that Walter Willett, MD, DrPH (Chairman, Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, and Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston Massachusetts) is on the editorial board of its journal. Is he (and the 26 other members of the editorial board) by association also in NSA's pocket? I hardly think so. TraceyR 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The main point is that Houston not only has received research funding from NSA but also has appeared in Juice Plus promotional videos and at Juice Plus distributor training meetings. He appears to be a paid consultant/speaker for NSA. This was not fairly disclosed in the article, as would be required. Even if all he had were a few dinners or travel expenses paid for by NSA, that would qualify as an undisclosed financial interest. The closeness of NSAs involvement with both the ENA and Houston’s ANA is very disturbing to say the least. At least two members of the ENAs executive committee are NSA employees and three of them have been involved in Juice Plus research. These kinds of relationships clearly qualify as a conflict of interest. A significant portion of the activities of the ANA and ENA involve Juice Plus, and they are both funded by NSA, so all in all, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to call them shell organizations for NSA. At the very least we would have to agree that they cannot be counted on as reliable and objective sources for Juice Plus research.
That' a straw man argument regarding Walter Willett and the other members of the board of ANAs journal JANA. I neither said nor implied anything about their potential involvement with NSA or Juice Plus. Willett's involvement with an editorial board of a journal isn't quite the same as Houston accepting research funds from NSA or appearing in Juice Plus promotional videos, magazines, and training seminars. Rhode Island Red 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Small update on our usage of the GNLD reference

From Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ.

An obsolete source is one that is out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher. Editors of articles on fast-moving subjects such as law, science, or current events should ensure they use the latest sources.

This should unfortunately give the coup de grâce to our reference to the GNLD flyer, since it's not on their website any more. Though it's rather interesting that they don't find any lycopene in the product. I'm sure if this is important it may eventually show up in some other study.

The problem with the GNLD reference for me (apart from the facts that it is obsolete/withdrawn and from a non-neutral source) is that it just specifies several test methodologies without providing the evidence that tests were done! It looks impressive to quote such things, but where's the beef? TraceyR 00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, thanks to TraceyR for the new reference, which could be very helpful. Since I don't come back to Juice Plus very often I haven't read the material yet. EdJohnston 22:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I *did* look at the new study. It had 51 subjects, of whom 45 persevered to the end of the two years. Unfortunately there's no control group, no placebo, no blinding, no randomization, their diet was uncontrolled, and the selection of the participants certainly could have had an effect. (The measurement of benefit in calcium scores was by comparison to a historical database, which might contain sicker people than those enrolled in the study). The lowering of blood pressure seems good. Τhe investigators didn't notice any serious adverse effects, so that's good as well. EdJohnston 06:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good insights Ed. I noticed the same things and a few more serious problems with this study. I’m preparing a summary of the issues which I’ll post in the next day or two. The study did not describe an a priori experimental plan for monitoring side effects so any observations made about a lack of side effects must be considered anecdotal at best and, therefore, unreliable. Furthermore the authors noted that the product caused gastrointestinal side effects, which they described as minor but in fact were severe enough to cause 3 subjects out of the initial 54 to dropout of the study prematurely. The reasons for 5 of the other 6 dropouts were not listed. More to come…Rhode Island Red 15:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Has consensus been reached that the GNLD reference should be removed? I have left two messages on their website since the issue arose here, asking for details about their statements, but have received no reply. Since the page has been withdrawn, the reference ought to go. TraceyR 22:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed it from the article. EdJohnston 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We had established that the article need not have an active link in order to merit inclusion and we did in fact have an archived link. Also, I had suggested that it could be used in the criticism section, and that section does require that the sources be published in journals exclusively. So are their any grounds for not including it in the criticism section? Rhode Island Red 03:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's not on line any more suggests that it's been withdrawn. Also calling it an 'article' is a stretch. It's a marketing claim that's no longer being made (like a TV commercial that used to run at one time). EdJohnston 03:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a question, I just went looking for the notorious GNLD link, it wasn't up, so I googled GNLD, and guess what?!?! it a MLM, the thing that many incorrectly assume Juice Plus is, therefore we can assume that they would obviously be considered a "competitor" of Juice Plus since they sell "health" supplements, I think that's what they do, I couldn't even find product information unless I signed up-- but any way--if that link was active and allowed to be on a Wiki listing, wouldn't that open the window for every competitor of any/every company, person and product that is deemed Wiki-page-worthy to come up with their own "study" about that entity and say anything negative that they wanted to and then post it on Wiki, where it should be, is often is assumed to be valid, factual, non-biased and informativeand because it is on Wiki?Julia 06:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The GNLD reference was removed a few days ago (see talk above). TraceyR 09:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tracey, I knew that, but I was just wondering about the bigger issue and precedent setting if in the sake non-biased editing we would want to even consider such a clearly biased competitor's "study" on this, or any Wiki page and want to see what others think! Julia 16:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Nutrition reference

http://www.environmentalnutrition.com/pub/25_3/asken/150372-1.html and this reference, it is a reference? you can not access their "opinion" without creating an account AND providing payment info so that after 30 days of "free" access you then pay for it-- subscribing to their newsletter and pay $24. Do we want to have legitmate references listed if they are only accessible if you utilize a pay for opinion research listing? Just my thoughtsJulia 06:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The publication Environmental Nutrition apparently has ISSN 0893-4452, and is in the collection at a number of libraries, according to Worldcat. So the publication itself has some respectability, and may be citable. The question in my mind is, is that reference any good? No authors' names are included in the reference, and we don't know if it's more like a scientific publication or an editorial. I wonder if the person who added that reference has access to the article, they could tell us something about it? --EdJohnston 20:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify the position on sources from sites which are not free or not open access, this is what the guidelines have to say about them:

Wikipedia, in the spirit of the GFDL, encourages referencing of freely available sources, when information is available from both credible free/open access sources (FOASs) and sources which require registration and/or payment (non-FOASs).

If a FOAS is deemed to be less reliable than a non-FOAS, use of a non-FOAS is perfectly acceptable.

Use of reliable FOASs available on the web is encouraged, as it enhances the credibility of Wikipedia if the reader can speedily verify the veracity of a given fact by use of an outside source with a simple click of the mouse.

There appears to be no objection in principle to using sources which are payable if there is no alternative source, but without paying to see the detail there is no way to come to a judgement about the quality of the material. But it does go against the spirit of wikipedia (using freely available sources).TraceyR 19:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

ConsumerLab reference

The ConsumerLab report seems to be similar, in that it is available (online) to subscribers only. The same source has recently (Jan. 2007) published a new multivitamin/multimineral product report, covering 39 products, which does not include Juice Plus. A search on 'multivitamin' didn't produce a hit for Juice Plus in 2006, so maybe the report currently referenced in the article has been replaced by the latest one. I had a look around the site and was unsuccessful in finding any references to NSA, NAI, Juice Plus, Juice, nor anything in their list of products tested. Is there still a valid source behind this reference? TraceyR 00:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven’t checked the Consumer Lab website lately to see what they published in this year’s review or what else they have available, but I am looking at a copy of the 2006 report that I downloaded from the site last year and it bears the Consumer Lab copyright. The Consumer Lab report listed the following: “actual amounts” in a combination of one capsule of Orchard Blend + one capsule of Garden Blend: 6,300 IU beta carotene, 620 mg vitamin C, 19 IU vitamin E, 28 mg calcium, 0.5 mg iron, 6 mg magnesium, 45 mg potassium, 0.2 mg zinc, 0.04 mg copper, 3 mg phosphorus, 0.17 mg manganese, 2.8 mcg chromium. Based on this data, the 4-capsule regimen would provide the following amounts as percentage RDI: beta carotene 252%, vitamin C 2067%, vitamin E 127%, calcium 6%, iron 6%, magnesium 3%, potassium 3%, zinc 3%, copper 4%, phosphorus 1%, manganese 17%, chromium 5%.

The most notable finding was the massive vitamin C overload (1240 mg per 4 caps), which was more than 5 times the labeled amount (390% RDI, corresponding to 234 mg). Iron, calcium, beta carotene, and folate were at or near the amounts claimed on the label. Vitamin E content was 14% below the labeled amount. These 6 nutrients are known to be added to the fruit and vegetable powders in Juice Plus and are listed on the bottle label with the amounts as %RDI. As for the nutrients that are not listed on the Juice Plus label, the Consumer Lab assay showed very low amounts of magnesium, potassium, zinc, copper, phosphorus, manganese, and chromium relative to RDI.

Leeds et al. (2000) reported the amounts (in 4 caps) of magnesium (70 mg), zinc (4 mg), manganese (1.8 mg), and chromium (48 μg) based on information provided by the manufacturer. The amounts of these nutrients reported in the Consumer Lab analysis (per 4 caps) were much lower: 0.4 mg zinc, 12 mg magnesium, 0.34 mg manganese, and 5.6 mcg chromium. Rhode Island Red 06:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you have to pay a download fee to get the report? Using the current 30 day subscription plan, it now costs $10 per download made during that time.

The article reference is to "Consumerlab 2006", which is somewhat vague - is it still available there?

Does the report give any information e.g. about how the assay was performed and by whom?TraceyR 08:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

(a) Yes, I had to pay for it.

(b) I don’t know if it is still available.

(c) Yes, they provided information about how the assay was perormed and by whom. Here is a relevant excerpt: “As described below, products were tested for their amount of selected index elements (see below), their ability to disintegrate in solution (excluding chewable and time-release products) and lead contamination. Each product was tested for at least one index element in each category shown below. The first element within each category was selected unless not claimed in the product, in which case, the next claimed element was selected. Products were analyzed for their vitamin and mineral index elements using the USP (United States Pharmacopeia) methods for Oil- and Water-soluble Vitamins and Mineral Tablets in an independent laboratory. Disintegration of non-chewable and non-time release formulations was analyzed utilizing USP (United States Pharmacopeia) <2040> recommendations entitled "Disintegration and Dissolution of Nutritional Supplements." Analyses for lead were performed using an atomic absorption/graphite furnace method or ICP-MS (Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectroscopy). All testing was conducted in independent laboratories which the identities of the products were not disclosed." Rhode Island Red 15:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just received email confirmation from ConsumerLab that their latest (2007) report on Multivitamin/Multimineral supplements (which does not cover Juice Plus) replaced their previous 2006 report, which is no longer available on their website for download. Presumably this means that it can no longer be cited as a source, because is it (a) out-of-date and (b) withdrawn by its author/publisher. Any objections? TraceyR 14:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ.

"An obsolete source is one that is out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher. Editors of articles on fast-moving subjects such as law, science, or current events should ensure they use the latest sources."

Yes, I object strongly. CL issues their report annually and just because they have issued a new report for 2007 on a new set of vitamins does not mean they have officially withdrawn or deprecated the previous 2006 report or that the 2006 data on Juice Plus can rightly be said to be “out of date”. The 2007 report did not test Juice Plus so there is no new data that supplants the previous report on Juice Plus. The Wiki rule that was cited refers to fast moving changes in subjects like science but that does not apply in this case, since the 2006 data on Juice Plus has not been updated or replaced in the new report. The source in question was not withdrawn; it is simply no longer available online.Rhode Island Red 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Julia Havey, there is no Wiki policy that requires sources to be available online. Please consult the policies and guidelines instead of offering your own misinterpretations of what is and is not allowed on Wiki. Your own biography page Julia Griggs Havey cites mostly sources that are not available online, so you can certainly remove them if you are so concerned about offline references. As a seller and spokesperson for Juice Plus, you are violating WP:COI and should not be arguing for deletion of sources that are critical of the product nor should you even be participating in this discussion. I also find your comment about “Red’s roost” to be needlessly inflammatory. Please stop making such comments and excuse yourself form this discussion. Rhode Island Red 15:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

More straw men?

Rhode Island Red recently drew attention to this rhetorical device (Straw man argument) and set me thinking about some of the sources currently cited in the article which, perhaps unwittingsly, use it.

The one which immediately springs to mind is the Stephen Barrett criticism of the Juice Plus Childrens' Research Foundation survey. He first claims that it is doing scientific research (a "straw man" of course, because the Foundation doesn't claim to be doing scientific research) before claiming that "it isn't science". This is obviously incorrect and should not be cited. Given Barrett's record, it is hard to believe that this is done unwittingly, but let's be charitable and assume that he wan't aware of the mistake he was making.

Other examples, perhaps unwittingly, fall into a different trap: members of the scientific and medical communities are familiar with pharmaceuticals and judge Juice Plus by the same standards. As has been mentioned here often enough, a concentrate made from fruit and vegetable juice is not a pharmaceutical, so Juice Plus should not be judged by the same criteria. Some critics are possibly unaware that they are using "straw man" arguments. Barrett falls into this trap too, as one would expect, but he is not alone there. It would take quite a bit of work to locate the "offenders", of course. Perhaps the Sloane-Kettering remarks fall into this category?

Nor is Juice Plus a conventional multivitamin/multimineral supplement, which confuses the issue even more, especially when it is criticised with respect to RDI percentages. Normal multivitamins contain some of the recognised 13 vitamin and some trace minerals, and their manufacturers know exactly how much of each is present because they choose and add them to the mix. As has been stated here often enough, Juice Plus contains small amounts of (naturally occurring) phytochemicals, but it would be impossible to quantify and list them all (if for no other reasons than that the label wouldn't be big enough, and that not all have been identified and catalogued as yet by the scientific community). As a recent study has shown, very small amounts of natural phytochemicals acting in synergy can have a greater effect than very large doses of isolated and/or synthetic substances. See Nature 405, 903-904 (22 June 2000), where 100g of apple (including the skin) containing 5.7 mg of vit. C were shown to be as effective as 1500mg of isolated vitamin C (260+ times as effective and certainly safer). Comparing Juice Plus with 'normal' isolated vitamins is incorrect, all the more so in the light of recent research showing isolated vitamins to be potentially dangerous. TraceyR 15:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR, are you a Juice Plus distributor? Rhode Island Red 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Julia you have once again incorrectly interpreted Wikipedia policy. Have you ever actually read those policies? You have a clear WP:COI and should not even be commenting on this page. Merely asking a question as to whether someone has a COI is not a violation of Wiki policy, particularly when someone’s edits are consistently in the direction of deleting or arguing for removal of content that is critical of or reflects badly upon Juice Plus. Rhode Island Red 14:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Julia Havey, as a Juice Plus distributor with a COI, has no place in this discussion. Ranting and uncivil behavior does not help to improve the Juice Plus page and does not belong here.Rhode Island Red 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The comments from Julia Havey, the Juice Plus distributor/spokesperson, are painfully inconsistent and not constructive. On the one hand, Julia Havey called for the removal of a citation (an important one that happens to reflect poorly on Juice Plus) which is no longer available online but meets the eligibility criteria for inclusion, while at the same time turning a blind eye to the fact that her biography page is based on several sources that are not and never were available online. That is inconsistent.

By the same token, Julia Havey criticized me and accused me of a personal attack because I had asked another editor if they were a Juice Plus distributor, and then posed exactly the same question back to me. This is also inconsistent. However, the question of whether someone sells Juice Plus is relevant because if they did, they, like Julia, would have a COI and should not be involved with the Juice Plus article or this discussion, particularly if they have a slant towards non-NPOV editing and comments.

I freely admit that I have no financial interest in Juice Plus or any competitive interest with any other product, and thus have no COI. My interest in the subject is purely academic, and while it is true that I have shown an interest in the subject of Juice Plus, there is no basis for saying that I have conflict of interest as outlined in WP:COI.

I reluctantly raise these issues despite the fact that they do not directly pertain to the discussion of improvements to the Juice Plus page. But in the interest of maintaining a high level of quality for the article, those who are selling Juice Plus (or are employed by any of the companies involved with selling or marketing it) should not be contributing to this article or discussion, and they most certainly should not be engaging in sideline heckling of those of us who do not have a COI and do belong here.

On a final note, Julia Havey, the Juice Plus distributor and spokesperson, should be aware that Wikipedia user pages are not to be used for promoting Juice Plus, so in keeping with WP:UP, that information (i.e. “I also am a distributor for Juice Plus and passionately stand behind the product”) should be removed from your user page. Rhode Island Red 00:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to Wise Study Violates Copyright

The link to the study by Wise et al. [22], which was added by TraceyR to the reference section, links to a Juice Plus distributor’s website, and the version of the article in question is not an official reprint from the journal. Linking to this article would unfortunately constitute a violation of the publisher’s copyright.

Wikipedia’s official policy WP:C states the following:

“If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.”

If a link exists to a version that does not violate copyright, that link shld be substututed. Otherwise, the exiting link should be removed. Rhode Island Red 14:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

These types of things are easy to fix; there's no need to provide an online source for every reference, its just convenient. Citing the journal entry properly is enough for its use as a reference. Shell ^babelfish 19:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Link has been removed. Rhode Island Red 00:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Why so negative?

I don't understand why the tone of the Juice Plus page is so negative. It seems like the people who wrote this initial article took a very suspicious stance towards Juice Plus and they have jealously guarded their slanted look on the product ever since. Why is it important to write about someone who complained to the BBB about a slogan Juice Plus had? Even if Juice Plus had to remove the slogan, why is this relevant? I don't think the product is nearly as controversial as the article would have you think. It is recognized, used and recommended by hundreds of doctors throughout the world. I don't sell Juice Plus but I have used it for over five years. I haven't had as much as a cold since I started taking it. I'd like to see a more impartial view of a product with less sensationalistic negativity. Thank you. Citizen Don 04:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this appears to be your very first edit on Wikipedia, you may be unfamiliar with our policies about reliable sources, and finding references to back up controversial claims. This article had a further problem that it was nominated on our Conflict of Interest noticeboard. The nominator pointed out that User:JuliaHavey, a Juice Plus distributor, was very active in editing the article. After much discussion we arrived at a version that many of us believe is neutral. If you have scientific citations to share with us about Juice Plus we would be eager to have them, but personal experiences are not considered valid material for the encyclopedia. EdJohnston 05:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I think that we should at least consider the views of someone coming fresh to the article - there seems to be a tacit assumption that anything positive offends the Neutral Point of View policy, whereas negative 'slant' is somehow considered to be 'neutral' - which of course it isn't. TraceyR 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, to clarify, I did very little editing on the article, and none after it was pointed out to me that I should not do so due to my confict of interest. I have been active in commenting on the discussion page but am not going to take part in discussion of changes to the page, again out of respect for Wiki COI policy. However, if my name is going to continually mentioned, I will defind my position. The article, in my opinion, is not neutral, by any definition. Anyone with no prior knowledge of Juice Plus would leave the Wiki article with a negative opinion of the product. Per wiki policy, that should not be the case, a person should arrive neutral and leave neutral--just with knowledge of the facts. FYI, one study referenced here as 'negative' actually had favorable outcome for Juice Plus in regard to what the study was researching, however the section where the researchers wrote what was NOT effected is ALL that is quoted here, even though the study was not about those issues and despite the fact that other studies conducted using longer studies focused on other health issues did show favorable outcome FOR Juice Plus.Juice Plus is not a supplement but the whole food nutrition of many different fruits and vegetables encapsulated--read the lable; it reads "nutrition facts" not supplement facts, it was it is, a FOOD. It is not a MLM but rather a franchise business. But those facts don't appear anywhere on the neutral article.Julia 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Julia. I didn't intend any slur on your reputation as an editor, since a conflict of interest is merely a technical matter, and you did (properly) recuse yourself.

Does anyone have a citation for a government decision allowing Juice Plus to be a sold as a food? Or at least, a pointer to the requirements? EdJohnston 00:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I didn't take it as a slur, however my name keeps getting cited and therefore when I am entered into a discussion I will comment, but only when I am brought into the conversation and again, not regarding any deletion or content issues. If you would like, I can email or snail mail you information on Juice Plus. Julia 02:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Juice Plus is regarded and regulated as a dietary supplement in accordance with the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act and 21 CFR Part 101 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. Rhode Island Red 03:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, both link you gave don't work. One said page not found at the HHS site, the other went to a 'page not found' internet page. Is there a current link? Thank you.Julia 03:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction.Julia 03:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for the response. I understand there have been efforts to establish a neutral tone to the article but it doesn't read like that. It reads like it came from a multilevel marketing watchdog website. The article basically says that Juice Plus purports to be healthy for you but this can not be proven. With the vitamin content alone I think we establish that Juice Plus is good for you. If I read this article before I started taking Juice Plus I wouldn't have tried the product. There are many people who could benefit from Juice Plus and they are being driven away. I think Juice Plus can save lives so I find this article discouraging. It looks like this negativity towards the product emanates from how the product is sold (multilevel marketing or franchise business, whatever, I don't sell it) and it clouds people's perception of the product. I don't even know where I would begin in rewriting it but I think it needs substantial changes. Thanks again. Citizen Don04:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The article basically says that Juice Plus purports to be healthy for you but this can not be proven. I believe that's a fair summary. It seems reasonable that more studies should be done, since Juice Plus could be more beneficial that what is so far established. Until the studies are done, I'm not sure how much it is reasonable to change the article. As you can see, it's very heavily referenced. If you think the article makes negative statements that can't be justified, please give us examples. EdJohnston 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

JP marketing claims are not merely unproven; they are actually contradicted by the research data. NSA makes promotional claims based on poorly designed studies, the results of which have been disproved in subsequent better-deigned studies. The research data so far shows many of the marketing claims to be untrue, not unproven. NSA claims that the product contains a range of phytonutrients, however this has never been demonstrated, and in fact JP does not lead to elevations in blood levels of phytonutrients like beta-cryptoxanthin and lutein.

"Previous studies with the same fruit and vegetable extracts did show increases in β-carotene and a range of other carotenoids including lycopene, lutein/zeaxanthin, and α-carotene(5,6), reflecting the bioavailability of the endonegous carotenoids. The lack of increase in the concentrations of some carotenoids in our trial could be partly due to the high concentration of lycopene at baseline as well as complex factors that affect bioavailability (4)." (Samman: reply to Watzl & Bub). I know that Rhode Island Red has read this article, because he (selectively) quoted from it in the article, but it must have slipped his memory. TraceyR 22:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As stated in the article, the studies showed that beta-carotene was absorbed, but most (including the better designed ones) showed that carotenoids like "lycopene,[9][10] lutein,[9][10] zeaxanthin,[9][10][12] and beta-cryptoxanthin [9][13][10][12]" were not absorbed. The only study that showed large increases in lycopene and lutein happened to be the earliest, smallest, and most poorly designed of all the Juice Plus studies (authored by NAI executive/former USAI executive John Wise in 1996). The lycopene and lutein results from Wise's study have been clearly contradicted by subsequent studies. No study has ever reported a significant increase in the phytonutrient beta-cryptoxanthin in users of Juice Plus. The lack of reproducible inrceases in these carotenoids suggest the following, as Watzl and Bub pointed out:

"...although the vegetable blend was made of carrot, broccoli, spinach, tomato juice extract and kale leaf powder, which contain a variety of carotenoids, only beta-carotene increased significantly, whereas plasma lycopene and lutein/zeaxanthin did not change at all. This indicates that the supplemented pure beta-carotene was bioavailable, but the native carotenoids from the vegetable capsules were either not contained in the capsules or were not bioavailable. The reported physiological effects can be explained solely by the added micronutrients. Overall, the conclusions of this article mislead the reader by suggesting that the mixed fruit and vegetable concentrates increase plasma antioxidants…” Rhode Island Red 02:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The only nutrients that do appear to be absorbed reliably are the ones added post-processing (i.e. folate and beta-carotene) and even some of those are not consistently absorbed (i.e. vitamin E and C). NSA also claims, based on early poorly-designed studies by Wise et al, that the product has antioxidant effects, but those claims were also contradicted by better designed trials. In vitro studies show that 4 capsules have the antioxidant capacity of a mere third of a serving of fruits and vegetables. That data also clearly contradicts the notion that JP is the next best thing to fruits and vegetables. Gummies were shown to have no antioxidant effects whatsoever and this data has never been contended. If anything, the article's description of the research data as "confliciting and controversial" is overly generous to JP; the most reliable studies conducted to date show that most if not all of the claims made about the product are unsupportable. Rhode Island Red 14:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is important to make a distinction between Juice Plus (i.e. Garden Blend and Orchard Blend, both in capsule form) and the various other products sold with the Juice Plus prefix (including Gummies), which are not encapsulated. Most of the published research of which I am aware relates to the basic Juice Plus (encapsulated) product. I'm not aware of any study into the antioxidant effects of Gummies; there may have been some, but I can't remember having heard of it/them. The slogan "Juice Plus - the next best thing ..." etc isn't about Gummies and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise (although it make for good copy). TraceyR 21:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between Gummies and Orchard/Garden blend already exists in the article. In what way does it need further distinction? An older version of the article [23] had this sentence at the beginning of the product research section: “The products examined in the majority of the studies were Garden Blend and Orchard Blend; one study was performed on Vineyard Blend taken in combination with Garden and Orchard Blend,[4] and one study was on Juice Plus Gummies.[14]” . This was not carried over in the last major edit. Does anyone wish to see this restored?

It is distrubing that TraceyR would claim to be unaware of the published study that exists on Juice Plus Gummies (Stewart et al, 2002), since it has been quoted and summarized in the WP article for many months. This user should read the article before commenting about making changes to it. The study by Stewart et al. showed:

Juice Plus gummies consist of 85% corn syrup and 10% beef gelatin.[14] Chemical analysis gave the following nutrient amounts based on the recommended daily regimen of 6 gummies (approximate percentage of the adult Reference Daily Intake in parentheses): vitamin C 107.1 mg (179%); vitamin E 82.6 IU (275%); vitamin A 14.8 mg (494%); thiamin 1.39 mg (93%); riboflavin 0.05 mg (3%); niacin 2.51 mg (13%); pyridoxine 0.64 mg (32%); zinc 0.62 mg (4%); magnesium 13.65 mg (3%), calcium 94.5 mg (9%); potassium 58.4 mg (2%); and copper 0.32 mg (16%).[14]
Juice Plus Gummie candies did not significantly improve the antioxidant status of children, as indicated by negative results from 6 different antioxidant tests.[14] The authors said it was possible that the supplement did not contain enough of the proper antioxidants to make a significant difference or that the antioxidants extracted in the fruit/vegetable extract were not bioavailable.

The “next best thing to fruits and vegetables” slogan is featured prominently on the front page of the Juice Plus website. It does not specify the products to which the phrase refers and if it was meant to only refer to some Juice Pus products and not others (like Gummies), then the fault lies with NSA for not making the distinction, particulalrly in light of the controversy and Better Business Bureau complaints over the slogan. Rhode Island Red 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Quality

Somebody off-wiki pointed me to this article, so I took a look at it. While the article is negative for the company, all of the criticism seems to be well sourced. My opinion is that this company has to live with the facts in this article. If they don't like the facts, they need to change their marketing strategy, or obtain proper scientific evidence to support their marketing claims. Lobbying isn't going to change the facts.

Are any of the current editors affiliated with the company? I think it may be helpful for a company representative to post openly on the article talk page and provide facts and references that might support the company's point of view. These should be posted to the talk page for editors to review and consider for the article. The article will be more credible if all points of view are thoroughly represented. Each reader can weigh the evidence in draw their own conclusions.

As a reader, I would appreciate more context. Is the use of nutritional supplements controversial? Do we have other Wikipedia articles about this controversy? Is this product different from other nutritional supplements, or are the criticisms typical?

The article seems to be high quality, and could be nominated for the good article list, even without my suggested improvements. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 16:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree that all of the criticism is well-sourced. Yes, lots of statements are referenced but just look a little closer at some of the referenced sources - e.g. the MLMWatch articles (would that its articles were well-referenced!) and its owner Stephen Barrett. Until such references are expunged the article cannot sensibly be nominated as 'good'.

A Juice Plus distributor has recently been discouraged from posting on the talk page (because of WP:COI). As someone who specialises in this area, your comments on that issue would be interesting. TraceyR 17:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman regarding the good article list and the company’s responsibility for how the facts portray the product. I disagree strongly, once again, with TraceyR's assertion that MLMWatch’s articles on Juice Plus are unreliable, and I thought that this debate had been settled long ago in previous exhaustive discussions;1 it is disappointing to see this being raised again. MLMWatch clearly meets standards per WP policies. Attempts to discount MLMWatch’s Juice Plus articles are inappropriately based on ad hominem attacks on Stephen Barrett. None of the information on Juice Plus has ever been contended. Furthermore, almost all of criticism that I have seen (of Barrett himself not MLMWatch's Juice Plus articles) has emanated from people that have been or are involved in legal battles against Barrett, and none of it seems to be unbiased or particularly compelling. Barrett has reecived accolades from sources far more reptutable than those who have criticized him (i.e. Quackwatch received awards from the Journal of the American Medical Association, Canadian Medical Association, Forbes magazine, Best of the Web, etc.). Any challenges to the references or information in the Wikipedia Juice Plus article need to be based on verifiable facts and sound arguments, not mudslinging, defamation, or unfounded pleas for expungement.

I also agree that it might be interesting to have an official representative of the company offer some comments. However, Julia Havey is merely a distributor/spokesperson with no relevant credentials and is not a company employee per se. We might want to hear official comments from a senior level employee of either NSA or NAI, but not hearsay from a run-of-the-mill distributor. The user is now finally respecting WP:COI and refraining from participation, and so it should remain. Nobody should be encouraging this user to ignore and sidestep WP:COI. Rhode Island Red 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman regarding the good article list and the company’s responsibility for how the facts portray the product. I disagree strongly, once again, with TraceyR's assertion that MLMWatch’s articles on Juice Plus are unreliable, and I thought that this debate had been settled long ago in previous exhaustive discussions;1 it is disappointing to see this being raised again.

Once again the argument is diverted away from the product itself (the subject of the article, after all) to the company's business model or the Children's Research Foundation (thus allowing MLMWatch to have its say). Why not split the article into e.g. one on Juice Plus and another on NSA? That way the product could be freed from all this endless carping and be allowed to stand by itself. And just because you bullied (or bored) everyone else into silence doesn't mean that the so-called debate had been settled. I am considering whether to invoke the wiki powers-that-be to consider the aspect of WP:OWN on this article. A quick check of (a) the relative numbers of edits by all editors on this article (last time I checked your edits outnumbered the nearest other editors' by almost an order of magnitude!) and (b) the percentage of each editor's edits related to this one article (95% of yours were here!) is extremely revealing. TraceyR 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Juice Plus is not merely a product, it is an MLM business franchise, and it is totally logical that the business model and marketing activities related to the product are mentioned in the article. As I have said before, it makes perfect sense to discuss the Juice Plus Children's Research Foundation, since it bears the name "Juice Plus" in its title. If you want to write a page about NSA then go ahead and do so. At the present time, however, such a plan has no bearing on the Juice Plus article.

Threats to report me to the Wiki admins have nothing to do with whether the MLMWatch articles on Juice Plus meet with WP policy for inclusion. If you have a compelling argument to present than do so, but do not muddy the issue by making WP:OWN accusations and threats. This is not the place for it. Accusing me of being a bully and a bore is a personal attack. Please try to restrict your comments to the article. Rhode Island Red 22:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

MLMWatch clearly meets standards per WP policies.

Please do show me the background research to his/their 'research' TraceyR 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means. Are you asking what sources were used in the MLMWatch article? They are cited in the respective reference lists of those articles. Rhode Island Red 22:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to discount MLMWatch’s Juice Plus articles are inappropriately based on ad hominem attacks on Stephen Barrett.

Is it ad hominem to link to a report that Barrett's long-standing claim to be a board-certified psychiatrist was in fact untrue because he failed his certification examinations? That therefore his only claim to any sort of expert status was unjustified? I think that it is important to be aware of the quality of a source, don't you? TraceyR 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is an ad hominem attack to do so. MLMWatch has its own WP page so if you have a link about Barrett that you think is relevant go post it there. It does not belong on the Juice Plus page. Rhode Island Red 22:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

None of the information on Juice Plus has ever been contended. Furthermore, almost all of criticism that I have seen (of Barrett himself not MLMWatch's Juice Plus articles) has emanated from people that have been or are involved in legal battles against Barrett, and none of it seems to be unbiased or particularly compelling. Barrett has reecived accolades from sources far more reptutable than those who have criticized him (i.e. Quackwatch received awards from the Journal of the American Medical Association, Canadian Medical Association, Forbes magazine, Best of the Web, etc.). Any challenges to the references or information in the Wikipedia Juice Plus article need to be based on verifiable facts and sound arguments, not mudslinging, defamation, or unfounded pleas for expungement.

Has it never occurred to you that a company may have a policy not to deign to respond to unqualified criticism? Did you read the article referenced? Barrett has lost all of his more than 40 court cases? Please note: I'm not saying that I automatically agree with everything that Barrett criticises - there are many targets of his in the 'alternative therapy' area which I would consider to be at best worthless and at worst dangerous; at the same time I would dispute his credentials, as a non-board certified psychiatrist, to pontificate with any sort of authority about such things!. I'm referring specifically to his unfounded diatribes against nutritional supplements in general and in this instance Juice Plus. TraceyR 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that a company that chooses to not respond to one of their most widely cited critics must accept the consequences of remaining silent. Barrett's articles on Juice Plus are well referenced and believable, and the opinions sentiments in them are echoed by virtually every other independent source that has commeented on Juice Plus. The choice to handle MLMWatch's criticism through ad hominem attacks on Barrett (from apparently biased sources) rather than a rebuttal of facts is very revealing but not at all comepelling. Merely stating a personal opinion that the MLMWatch articles on Juice Plus are unfounded diatribes does not constitute a reason to delete them. Rhode Island Red 22:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that it might be interesting to have an official representative of the company offer some comments. However, Julia Havey is merely a distributor/spokesperson with no relevant credentials and is not a company employee per se. We might want to hear official comments from a senior level employee of either NSA or NAI, but not hearsay from a run-of-the-mill distributor. The user is now finally respecting WP:COI and refraining from participation, and so it should remain. Nobody should be encouraging this user to ignore and sidestep WP:COI. Rhode Island Red 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, COI refers to article content, not discussion, a view apparently shared by Jehochman. Your approach stifles debate - is that your intention? TraceyR 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Far from attempting to stifle debate, I quite clearly stated that I might be interested in hearing official comments from a senior level employee of NSA or NAI. Rhode Island Red 22:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not clear to me why this conversation suddenly switched over to discussing User:JuliaHavey's contributions as an editor. For COI reasons she has carefully refrained from participating on either the article or the Talk page for some time now, and I'd suggest that it would be diplomatic for Red to remove her above comments about Julia's editing. EdJohnston 22:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I have been a frequent target of personal attacks and uncivil behavior by Havey, for the sake of diplomacy, I have removed my comment about her editing. I also have restored my previous comment in its enitirety because I felt that the way TraceyR chopped it up made my comments too difficult to follow. Rhode Island Red 22:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see there are more people out there who are unhappy with the article too. Jericho, I agree with you that the article is negative towards Juice Plus but the criticism is certainly not well sourced. Thanks for that info TracyR on Stephen Barrett. I was wondering how someone could get Juice Plus so wrong. All you have to do it seems is lie about your qualifications and lose 40 court cases as Mr. Barrett did.

Ed, I would like to see the removal of mentions of controvery. As far as I can tell, the controversy exists in the minds of the few who dislike Juice Plus for reasons that have nothing to do with the product.

Rhode Island Red, nice to write to a fellow New Englander. I understand that you are against advertising on Wikipedia and I respect that but there is also some real science to Juice Plus and the product keeps me healthy. I don't have a study that proves it but the truth is in how I feel, which is pretty darn good. I know my health alone isn't Wikipedia worthy so I asked my local Juice Plus representative what she thought about the discussion and this is what she wrote:

"I would like to make some comments but first I will tell you that I am a Juice Plus+ distributor with a background in science. I worked for over twenty years in the field of Medical Technology, specifically microbiology, chemistry, hematology and blood banking.

Responding to all the negativity towards Juice Plus+ is probably not the best use of my time and will not make a difference to those who are obviously bent on twisting the research to make it appear negative but someone has asked me to respond and I am doing this per their request. There are so many inaccurate and incorrect statements that I would not know where to begin… I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be neutral?

Our company does not want Juice Plus+ to stand on testimonials so it has had the courage to place Juice Plus+ under independent scientific scrutiny and it has invested wisely. The company does not have control of the results or whether or not the results, good or bad, will be published. Juice Plus+ is the most researched nutritional product in the world and it is the top selling encapsulated product in the world.

The company behind Juice Plus+ is 37 years old and it has the same president today as it had at it’s inception. The company is privately held and debt free, it is in 23 countries and it has done over 6 billion dollars in sales. You don’t not get to be that successful with deceptive marketing practices. Poorly designed studies are not accepted for publication in journals such as the Journal of Nutrition and the Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

My daughter is a Registered Dietician and in her senior year of college she had to take a course which taught her how to evaluate a study and determine it if was well designed. One of the studies that they evaluated was the Juice Plus+ study published in the Journal of Nutrition in 2003 and their determination was that it was a well designed study.

The facts stand that Juice Plus+ significantly decreased DNA damage by 66% after only 80 days on Juice Plus+, it also significantly decreases the harmful amino acid, Homocysteine. It decreases lipid peroxidation by 75%. Juice Plus+ improves endothelial function (circulation) and because of this research Juice Plus+ was the only nutritional product presented at the US Congress on Heart Disease and the study was published in the prestigious Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Juice Plus+ increases levels of key antioxidants in the blood and yes some of the antioxidants have been standardized. This has never been a secret and is disclosed in the Juice Plus+ Distributors owner’s manual. All of the ingredients in Juice Plus+® are naturally sourced from whole food sources, with the least amount of processing possible. Juice Plus+ also raises T-cells , Natural Killer cells and cytokines and decreases B-cells.

I suspect the writer of the Juice Plus+ article is more against MLM than Juice Plus+ and may not even realize that the Juice Plus+ Virtual Franchise is NOT Multi-level Marketing. Unfortunately, because of our company’s network marketing roots, some people continue to describe NSA as a network marketing company. This clearly understates and misrepresents what the NSA Virtual Franchise is all about. It also fails to differentiate us from thousands of other home-based businesses out there.

Distributors do not earn money by supplying products to other distributors. Juice Plus+ representatives retail Juice Plus+ to the customer who is not a distributor. 85% of Juice Plus+ is consumed by customers who are not distributors. MLM companies are focused on recruiting people into their business and those people consume their products. Juice Plus+ distributors are focused on building a customer base primarily and a sales force secondarily. Distributors do not have to stock any products. Multi-level marketing is a plan for the distribution of products whereby participants earn money by supplying products to other participants in the same plan. They, in turn, make their money by supplying the same products to other participants." Citizen Don 03:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That’s not the sort of official commentary I had in mind and it doesn’t rebut or add to anything in the article. Here are a few quick comments in reply:

The anonymous distributor's comments are full of marketing spiel and read like a press release. Several of the assertions are wrong or misleading. The discussion page should not be used for posting Juice Plus press releases and marketing screeds. At the top of this talk page in bold letters is the following statement regarding WP policy "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Juice Plus article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."
A third-hand account that this distributor’s daughter assessd one of the studies as being A-OK is just silly and not something that would ever be considered in writing a WP article. The Journal of Nutrition article in question was not even criticized in the WP article so the comment is totally irrelevant.
The distributor’s claims about lipid and DNA oxidation are already mentioned in the article, as are the studies on homocysteine. The results of these studies are accurately represented in the current version.
The distributor claims “There are so many inaccurate and incorrect statements that I would not know where to begin” and yet they did not even point put a SINGLE inaccuracy or incorrect statement.
The distributor acknowledges that Juice Plus contains added vitamins and states that it "has never been a secret and is disclosed in the Juice Plus Distributors owner’s manual", conveniently ignoring the fact that although this information might be shared with distributors, it is most certainly not revealed to consumers. Where on the Juice Plus website or in consumer promtional materials does NSA ever acknowledge that Juice Plus contains exogenous vitamins?
Their claim that “The company does not have control of the results or whether or not the results, good or bad, will be published” is false. John Wise, VP of NAI (the manufacturer of Juice Plus) authored roughly half the studies published so far and it is therefore obviously untrue that the company did not have at least some degree of control over the results published to date.
The distributor claims that Juice Plus increases the level of antioxidants. However, it does so with only a select few antioxidants. Others are absorbed erratically or not at all. This information is also accurately described in the current version of the article.
The distributor states “I suspect the writer of the Juice Plus article is more against MLM than Juice Plus and may not even realize that the Juice Plus Virtual Franchise is NOT Multi-level Marketing”. They seem to be unaware that there have been many contributors to this article and it is not merely the work of a single writer. Regardless of whether any of the editors are for or against MLMs, it cannot be denied that Juice Plus is an MLM. It may not be a pyramid/ponzi scheme but it certainly meets the definition of an MLM. Rhode Island Red 04:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

To Jehochman: In response to your questions "Is the use of nutritional supplements controversial? Do we have other Wikipedia articles about this controversy? Is this product different from other nutritional supplements, or are the criticisms typical"; Some of the controversy is outlined in the WP article on whole food supplements. Notice that it states "whole food supplements should not contain isolated minerals, amino acids, carotenes or any other substance that is not native to, and still intact within, the original food. Thus, a supplement that contains foods plus a mixture of isolated (also called 'fractionated') vitamins, minerals, amino acids and other substances, does not constitute a whole food supplement". This article from Business Week also sums up some of the controversies surrounding supplement marketing. Rhode Island Red 05:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, I am aware that this this is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article. I'm also aware of Wikipedia's suggestion to "Be polite." You write that my distributor's thoughts on Juice Plus are like a press release but you also criticise her daughter's research as "silly." Unlike you, I find it interesting that a student can use what she is taught in a respected university and arrive at the same outcome as the Journal of Nutrition: The Juice Plus study was a good one. This study followed a double blind, placebo controlled randomized crossover design. It reported increases in vitamin C, b-carotene, a-tocopherol (vitamin E), folate and lycopene. The article which you have heavily edited does not reflect these findings so I don't find her comments "totally irrelevant" as you say. Why does the article say "effects on blood levels of vitamin E and vitamin C were inconsistent."? How did the positive findings regarding lycopene turn into a negative?

The links you use to refute the study's findings don't appear to have working links so I can't check on their veracity. In fact, the only working links in the "Nutrient Absorption" section appear to be the studies themselves. The other study being the Vienna study which found increased vitamin C (again), b-carotene, a-tocopherol (vitamin E) (again), folate and selenium in research subjects. This study also had a double blind, placebo controlled randomized crossover design.

I also understand that another study refernced by my distributor (regarding Juice Plus' ability to reduce DNA damage) is also referenced in the article. But then again, twice as much space is spent on refuting the study using a single refrence from an article in "The Skeptic." This source seems as sketchy as the ones from MLMWatch. I looked at "The Skeptic" reference and it doesn't appear to say anything about the study it is being used to refute. "The Skeptic" article only makes a direct refence to a study taken years prior in 1996. I think it is hardly an "accurate representation" of the more recent study.

I think well designed studies should take precident over naysayers with questionable credentials. Looking at these references used to denigrate Juice Plus, most of them bring nothing to the table. How many of them actually tested Juice Plus? Very few from what I can tell. Most of the solid references to Juice Plus counter the blog-like opinions that have methodically been used to establish a "neutral" article.Citizen Don 21:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

To Citizen Don: Your comments and my replies follow:

“It reported increases in vitamin C, b-carotene, a-tocopherol (vitamin E), folate and lycopene. The article which you have heavily edited does not reflect these findings…Why does the article say ‘effects on blood levels of vitamin E and vitamin C were inconsistent.’?”

The article does reflect those findings. To begin with, it clearly states that blood levels of folate and beta-carotene are consistently increased.

Contrary to what you (or your distributor) stated, the Journal of Nutrition study (Samman et al. 2003) did not show significant increases in the blood levels of lycopene. Samman's article clearly states: “Plasma lycopene and lutein/zeaxanthin concentrations were not affected by supplementation”. The failure of this double-blind placebo controlled study to show positive effects of Juice Plus on blood levels of phytonutrients that are not ADDED to the product (e.g. lycopene and lutein/zeaxanthin) is consistent with Watzl and Bub’s assertion:

"Furthermore, although the vegetable blend was made of carrot, broccoli, spinach, tomato juice extract and kale leaf powder, which contain a variety of carotenoids, only beta-carotene increased significantly, whereas plasma lycopene and lutein/zeaxanthin did not change at all. This indicates that the supplemented pure beta-carotene was bioavailable, but the native carotenoids from the vegetable capsules were either not contained in the capsules or were not bioavailable. The reported physiological effects can be explained solely by the added micronutrients."

In Samman’s study, Vitamin E was increased by a mere 9% in the Juice Plus arm vs. 68% as reported by Wise (1996) in the first (poorly designed) Juice Plus study. Studies by Bloomer and Smith showed non-significant effects on blood levels of vitamin E, and Smith et al. also found that Garden Blend did not significantly increase vitamin E levels. Vitamin C levels at the end of the Samman study were only 17% higher than in the control arm, which is far lower than what was reported in other, mostly poorly-designed studies. The key issue here is that other studies, have shown that Juice Plus does not lead to elevations in blood levels of vitamin E or vitamin C (as cited in the WP article). If Juice Plus raises vitamin C and E levels a lot in some studies (i.e. Wise's poorly designed study), a little in some studies, and not all in others, it seems reasonable to say that Juice Plus has inconsistent effects on blood levels of vitamin C and E. The WP article indicates that absorption of folate and beta-carotene is consistent, while absorption of vitamins E and C is not; all things considered, that seems like a pretty fair representation. In the past, other editors has complained that the disucssion of research was too long and complex, so edits have been made where possible to summarize overall findings without diving into minute detail on every study. This is one of those cases and it seems like it was done with reasonable accuracy.

As an important aside, NSA excusively relies on the data from the outdated poorly designed study by John Wise (1996) in their marketing claims about nutrient absorption, while completely ignoring other subsequent better-designed studies that showed far weaker or non-existent effects. This is a glaring example of how NSAs marketing often ignores the truth.

“The links you use to refute the study's findings don't appear to have working links so I can't check on their veracity. In fact, the only working links in the "Nutrient Absorption" section appear to be the studies themselves.”

Not sure to which links you are referring. All the links seems to be working fine. Is there a particular link that isn’t working for you?

“I also understand that another study refernced by my distributor (regarding Juice Plus' ability to reduce DNA damage) is also referenced in the article. But then again, twice as much space is spent on refuting the study using a single refrence from an article in "The Skeptic." This source seems as sketchy as the ones from MLMWatch. I looked at "The Skeptic" reference and it doesn't appear to say anything about the study it is being used to refute. "The Skeptic" article only makes a direct refence to a study taken years prior in 1996. I think it is hardly an "accurate representation" of the more recent study.”

You are partly right on this one but partly wrong as well. First, their is absolutely nothing wrong with Dr. Rosmeary Stanton's reputation; it is wholly inaccurate to refer to her as a sketchy source of information. The website of the Austrailan Government's Institute of Health and Welfare refers to her in glowing terms:

"Dr Rosemary Stanton is Australia's best-known nutritionist with a Science Degree in Biochemistry and Pharmaceutical chemistry, post-graduate qualifications in Nutrition and Dietetics, and a Graduate Diploma in administration. In 1998, she was awarded an Order of Australia Medal for her services to community health through education in nutrition and dietetics."[1]

What refutes the 2 small, poorly designed DNA oxidation studies that showed positive effects are the subsequent better designed studies that showed that Juice Plus does not affect DNA oxidation? However, I agree with you that the Stanton article was cited out of context in this case, although I didn’t put it there; one of the other editors was responsible for that one. I have since removed the reference from the section in question but retained the basic description of the study designs (i.e. non-randomized, non-controlled, etc.) since that is a simple statement of fact and does not require additional referencing.

On a final note, I will leave you all with this to ponder.

(a) Chemical assays of the product have shown WIDE discrepancies in the amounts of nutrients contained in the capsules.

(b) The manufacturer has acknowledged that the product’s composition has changed in the past and that it may again in the future.

(c) The weight of the capsules has steadily decreased from 1 g, to 850 mg, to the current 750 mg – a reduction in weight of 25% which is very significant.

Given that the product’s formulation has changed and can change again without notice, the research conducted on the product is essentially meaningless. The various research studies have, in effect, tested different products. There is no gurantee that the current or future versions of the product will have the same effects. This is the crux of the problem with NSAs entire research program – it is invalid because the product’s composition is not fixed. This is why most supplement companies do not bother with this type of pointless research. The main value of this research is for marketing purposes (which is amply demonstrated by NSAs selective quoting of only the most favorable research results). Even if (big if) a study showed that Juice Plus had a positive effect on a disease (and none ever has), NSA still would not be allowed to promote the product for such a use because, as a supplement, Juice Plus is not held to a sufficiently high degree of quality control or regulatory oversight to be approved for the treatment or prevention of a disease. If a company wants to make a disease claims for their product, regardless of whether the product is natural or synthetic, they must file a new drug application (NDA) with the FDA. They also must standardize the composition and quality of the product and they must conduct stringent research, which far exceeds the quality of any Juice Plus study, to demonstrate that the product is safe and effective. Rhode Island Red 01:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Stanton Article's Criticism of John Wise Juice Plus Study

Citizen Don -- I went back and reviewed the Stanton article and compared it with your previous comment. You had said “I looked at 'The Skeptic' reference and it doesn't appear to say anything about the study it is being used to refute.” This is incorrect. Stanton’s article does actually criticizes the study by Wise et al (1996), which is the reference to which her comments were mentioned in the WP article. Stanton stated:

“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 with no control group, no blinding of researchers or participants and proved nothing except that the researchers did not seem to realise they would need to examine the participants’ diets. Had any of them eaten a meal containing tomato paste or carrots, the results claimed would have been invalid. Those who publish material in the journal in question-Current Therapeutics Research - also pay a publication fee per page printed."

Stanton was cited in the original WP article immediately after the results of two studies were mentioned --i.e. Wise et al (1996) and Leeds et al. (2003) -- as follows:

"Critics of these studies say that they were poorly designed, not blinded or placebo-controlled, included only a few participants (in one case no more than 15), and did not include monitoring or control of the participants' food intake.[16]"

But since Stantons’ comment applied only to the Wise study and not specifically to the equally poorly designed study by Leeds et al (2003), I have revised it to:

"These studies, one of which[5] was criticized as “a particularly poor study”,[16] were not blinded or placebo-controlled, included few participants (in one case no more than 15), and did not include monitoring or control of the participants' food intake." Rhode Island Red 05:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, I spent some time looking for the truth that seems to be buried under the many references and I find errors in this article at every turn. I think it would help if there were actual links that you could click on. References 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 32, 33, 34 and 35 do not appear to have working links. Citizen Don 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How many turns have you made and how many errors have you detected? Please be specific. I do not wish to see any innacuracies in the article and if there are mistakes other than the ones you claimed in your last post, do point them out. Yes, links to the refernces in question would be great. If you can find links to ful-text versions of these articles that do not violate copyright, feel free to suggest them. Rhode Island Red 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the statement, “the effects on blood levels of vitamin E and vitamin C were inconsistent.” There are three references that are used to back up this statement. I was only able to find two (Kiefer, Samman) and both of those found an increase in Vitamin E and C. I wasn’t able to find the Bloomer refernce but when I clicked on what I thought to be the Boomer link (Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: 1098-1105) I found yet another study that appears to find increased levels of Vitamin C in Juice Plus. Citizen Don 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kiefer’s reference should not have been included with the statement that effects of C and E were inconsistent. The 3 studies that showed minimal or no increases in C and E are Samman, Bloomer and Smith. Leeds also found no effect of Garden Blend capsules on vitamin E levels. Wise found large increases in C and E, and Kiefer also reported increases in C and E. Although you claimed that Bloomer’s study found increases in C and E, this is plainly untrue. It states:

"Vitamin C. A treatment by exercise session effect was noted for vitamin C (P G 0.0001), with values greater after 2 wk of supplementation compared with baseline for the V group only (Fig. 4). Vitamin C returned to baseline in the V group after the 1-wk washout (P > 0.05). No significant differences were observed across exercise sessions for either the FV or P groups.

"Vitamin E. A treatment by exercise session effect was obtained for vitamin E (P = 0.0006), with higher vitamin E in the V group after supplementation and washout compared with baseline. No significant changes were evident from baseline for the FV or P groups (P > 0.05). No significant differences existed between the treatments at any of the exercise sessions.”

“V” is the vitamin supplemented group, FV is the Juice Plus group, and P is the placebo group. Clearly, the article states that E and C levels were not significantly increased in the Juice Plus group but they were increased in a vitamin supplemented group (let’s ignore for now that does not make Juice Plus look to be as effective as ordinary vitamin supplementation).

So to reiterate my earlier remarks, we have two studies that reported increases in C and E (with by far the greatest effects being reported in Wise’s uncontrolled study that was criticized by Stanton for its poor design), there is the Samman study which reported a very small (9%) increase in vitamin E (vs. 68% in the Wise study), and then we have 2 studies that reported no increases in C and E (Bloomer, Smith). Leeds poorly designed study reported increased levels of vitamin C, but for vitamin E, the study showed that Orchard Blend had a small effect (12%) while Garden Blend had no effect.

While it is accurate to say that the effects on C and E overall were inconsistent, since the magnitude of effects reported varied from large, to small, to non-existent, we can modify the sentence so that there is less ambiguity as to which studies reported which effects. I will modify as follows:

...but the effects on blood levels of vitamin E and vitamin C were inconsistent. Some studies have shown significant increases in vitamin E(Wise, Kiefer) and C levels (Wise, Kiefer, Leeds), while other studies have shown much weaker effects on vitamin E (Leeds and Samman) and C levels (Samman), and that the levels of the two vitamins are not significantly increased (Smith, Bloomer).

As you can see, it is accurate to say that E and C effects were inconsistent, although the section in question may not have referenced the studies in the clearest way possible. Rhode Island Red 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Both the Kiefer and Samman studies were well designed and they both found elevated levels of these vitamins. The Leeds study also found and increase in Vitamin C and E. Why the negative spin that the levels were “inconsistent”? You keep mentioning the Wise study while ignoring the new ones. If 4 out 5 studys find an increase and Juice Plus claims it adds those vitamins, I don’t see much of a debate. From what I see, it’s pretty obvious that Juice Plus increases vitamin C and E. Citizen Don 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See comments above. Samman’s study showed very small increases in C and E relative to what other studies have shown (effect on vitamin E was 1/5 of the magnitude of effect reported by Wise; i.e. 9% vs 68%. I am afraid that you have misread the Leeds study results. This poorly designed study showed increases in vitamin C but did not find consistent effects on vitamin E. Leeds reported that Orchard Blend increased vitamin E levels by a small amount (12%) while Garden Blend did not increase vitamin E levels at all. This is a very difficult finding to explain since Garden Blend actually contains more vitamin E (80% RDI) than does Orchard Blend (70% RDI). Rhode Island Red 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Stanton refutation of the early Juice Plus studies. I can’t say I’m very happy with your edit because it again skews very negative. I’m wasn’t questioning Rosemary Stanton’s credentials but rather the style of “The Skeptic” reference and how it is used to attack Juice Plus. The article isn’t about Juice Plus as much as it is a collection of anecdotal instances to back up her idea that “the more you read about human nutrition, the easier it is to join the ranks of the skeptics.” I doubt that she knew very much about the “Antioxident Activity” of Juice Plus or about Juice Plus in general. Her comments on Juice Plus are a few paragraphs long and her only specific reference is to the Wise study. She says nothing about the Smith study or the Leeds study. She makes no reference or refutation to any of the Antioxident findings. Citizen Don 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in addition to questioning the veracity of the source, you had said that Stanton did not comment on the studies in question. She commented on Wise’s study saying that it was particularly poorly designed and the results unreliable. This is important commentary, since, as I had pointed out before (and distributors are well aware), the shoddy Wise study is used as the cornerstone of current NSA marketing claims about antioxidant effects and nutrient absorption. It is misleading to suggest that Stanton’s comments did not pertain to antioxidant findings. She rightly denigrated the Wise study, so the antioxidant findings of that study were in effect discounted by Stanton. Interestingly, Stanton also pointed out that marketing claims have also been based on a bogus study published in a fictitious “journal” called the American Medical Review, which was little more than an NSA-published promotional brochure. Stanton accurately reports a disturbing trend with NSAs research; namely they begin with a claim and then try to find data to support the claim. The process should work in the reverse direction; i.e. conduct good research first, and then make your claims based on reliable data. Although the Stanton article, which was published in 2000 may not have commented on the more recent Juice Plus studies, those more recent studies have done nothing to establish that Juice Plus has consistent antioxidant effects; they have continued to show negative or at best mixed results. Rhode Island Red 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit cherry picks a quote about one study that gives an overall negative tone to three different studies. The Leeds study followed a parallel group design and it had not even been published yet when the Stanton article was written in 2000. To me, if Stanton’s reference says nothing about Juice Plus’ “Antioxident Activity” than her quote would be better off in the criticism section. Citizen Don 06:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving Stanton’s comments on Wise’s study to the criticism section is an option, although I don’t think it would be appropriate. Where reliable secondary sources have commented on particular studies, I think it is relevant to include them where the studies in question are mentioned, particularly when the commentary points out very obvious weaknesses in study design, as was the case for Stanton’s comments on Wise’s study.

We could blow out Stanton’s comments into much greater detail in the criticism section, but that won’t help shine a more positive light on Juice Plus. I am not sure what you find so compelling about the Leeds study; its design was horrid and no better than that of Wise’s study. It was not double-blind, placebo controlled or randomized and the subjects only took Juice Plus for 7 days; the shortest duration of any Juice Plus study to date. It's results are contradicted by better designed studies of longer duration. It is highly unlikely, on that basis, that the Leeds study would do anything to sway Stanton from her previous position; if anything it would tend to reinforce it. Rhode Island Red 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

JP connection to USAI and NAI.

The paragraph regarding Juice Plus' connection to USAI and NAI has many startling inaccuracies. The article states "Juice Plus has drawn criticism as a result of connections with the now-bankrupt supplement company United Sciences of America, Inc. (USAI)." Juice Plus has never had any connection to USAI. Didn't USAI go bankrupt in the 80s? Juice Plus wasn't introduced until 1993.

But this is just emblematic of the faulty reasoning of the whole USAI/NAI paragraph in the criticism section. I understand that John Wise worked for USAI and then NAI and NAI encapsulates Juice Plus. So what? Juice Plus is distributed by National Safety Associates (NSA) and John Wise does not work for NSA. Bringing up stuff that happened years before Juice Plus is just plain wrong. Please don't make me defend the obvious.Citizen Don 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Don: You did not specify what you consider to be “startling inaccuracies” in the section about Wise. I will attempt to address some of your other concerns by elaborating on the Wise/USAI/JP connection.

Wise is arguably the single most noteworthy and pivotal individual connected with Juice Plus. He has authored roughly a half dozen articles on Juice Plus (no other author has more than one published paper) and his research is extensively quoted by NSA in support of their core claims in Juice Plus marketing materials. He has been the most senior person responsible for overseing the manufacturing (not merely "encapsulating") of the product since its inception. His background with USAI is noteworthy, if not downright scandalous, and his involvement with Juice Plus/USAI has been criticized by other secondary sources,[24] as has the Juice Plus research he has been involved with (e.g. Stanton, Memorial Sloan Kettering Clinic, etc.).

“Curiously, in 1986, two authors of NSA's phytonutrient study were associated with United Sciences of America (USA), a multilevel company that sold supplements with illegal claims that they could prevent many diseases. Lead author John A. Wise, Ph.D., was USA's vice president of science and data information; and second author Robert J. Morin, M.D., was a scientific advisor who helped design the products. State and federal enforcement actions drove the company out of business in 1987 [17]. USA's main product was its Master Formula, which included large amounts of beta-carotene and vitamin E [18]. Today, Wise is vice president, science and technology and is a stockholder of Natural Alternatives International (NAI), of San Marcos, California, which manufacturers the Juice Plus+ products.”

Wise is the Chief Science Officer of NAI, the manufacturer of Juice Plus, and he is an insider stockholder. Whether or not he has any connection with NSA is beside the point, since he is clearly connected to Juice Plus, the subject of the WP article. Wise’s background with USAI is very relevant to the Juice Plus story. Wise was the Executive vice-President of Research & Development for USAI, and the demise of USAI was probably the most infamous and widely publicized nutraceutical scandal of all time. Wise resurfaced with NAI the same year that USAI imploded, and it is highly remarkable that a few years later, he was putting his name on a new "miracle" supplement product (Juice Plus) in which he again had a large financial interest. The USAI Master Formula even seems somewhat similar to Juice Plus (e.g. delivering mainly beta-carotene), and the marketing of Juice Plus bears many surface similarities to that of USAI’s products: e.g., “expert” testimonials, misleading claims, heavy emphasis on questionable research, pyramid/MLM sales, etc. Juice Plus even had a scandal over fraudulent paid endorsements by OJ Simpson,[25][26] which is strikingly similar to the scandal faced by celebrity endorsers of USAI.[27] Wise is inarguably a pivotal figure in the Juice Plus story, and his background with USAI is highly noteworthy. All of the information is verifiable and referenced in the article. Rhode Island Red 05:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a few remarks on the 'contribution' by Rhode Island Red above:

"Lead author ... Wise" - if, as is usual, the "lead author" is named first, Wise was only lead author of one study, I think, the initial pilot study published in Current Therapeutic research. How many other were there?
"Master formula" - so you have access to the Juice Plus 'Master Formula'! I thought that this was a commercial secret. How did you get this information?
"delivering mainly beta-carotene" - contradicts the information in the article, surely?
"heavy emphasis on questionable research" - afaik the bulk of the research was published in reputable peer reviewed journals (e.g. Journal of Nutrition, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, ...). In what way(s) are they 'questionable'?
"pyramid/MLM sales" - the discredited Stephen Barrett himself couldn't have put it more incorrectly. It is deliberately misleading to equate illegal pyramid selling with MLM. MLM (and NSA's franchise scheme) are not illegal simply because you (and the discredited Stephen Barrett) don't like them. If it were illegal, why hasn't MLM Watch taking NSA to court, I wonder? Is the local DA asleep on the job too? Perhaps he and the discredited Stephen Barrett have a better knowledge of the relevant law. Is that possible?
In what way is Juice Plus a "miracle" supplement? Please elaborate.
"Juice Plus even had a scandal over fraudulent paid endorsements by OJ Simpson" - I just followed the two links you gave (one of them to Fox News!! That's about as credible a source as the discredited Stephen Barrett!) and neither confirms the allegations "scandal", "fraudulent" and "paid". Surely references should back up the point being made. If the 'contribution' is to be taken seriously, that is. TraceyR 20:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR: May I suggest that you focus your attention on the content of the WP article and frame your grievances in that context, rather than merely engaging in debate about my comments on the talk page. I will, nonetheless, offer a few replies to your comments this time.

"Lead author ... Wise" - if, as is usual, the "lead author" is named first, Wise was only lead author of one study, I think, the initial pilot study published in Current Therapeutic research. How many other were there?

Wise was an author on more than half a dozen studies on Juice Plus (one as lead author). Five of the papers on which Wise was an author are referenced in the WP article.

"Master formula" - so you have access to the Juice Plus 'Master Formula'! I thought that this was a commercial secret. How did you get this information?

Please read the details carefully and consult the references before offering your criticism. Master Formula was the name of one of USAIs products; it does not refer to Juice Plus as you mistakenly suggested

"delivering mainly beta-carotene" - contradicts the information in the article, surely?

This point is OT. The USAI/John Wise portion of the WP article does not mention beta-carotene, so let’s try to stay focused on the issue at hand; namely, the conent of the WP article. But for your edification, Juice Plus OB/GB delivers 250% RDI for beta-carotene, a greater percentage than any other nutrient in the product with the exception of vit C. Gummies provide 500% RDI for beta-carotene; a greater percentage than any other nutrient in the product. I see no overt contradiction and the point is moot in any case.

"heavy emphasis on questionable research" - afaik the bulk of the research was published in reputable peer reviewed journals (e.g. Journal of Nutrition, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, ...). In what way(s) are they 'questionable'?

No, that is incorrect; the “bulk” was not “published in top journals”; you cherry-picked the 2 best examples from over a dozen studies. The majority was published in low quality journals like JANA, etc and were not double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized studies. But this too is somewhat OT. The portion of the WP article dealing with USAI and John Wise does not even raise these issues. Ample criticism of the Juice Plus research has been provided by secondary sources. Clearly not everyone believes NSAs marketing claims about the quality of the research. Furthermore, the studies presented in the WP article clearly demonstrate findings that are inconsistent with NSAs marketing claims.
Heavy emphasis in Juice Plus marketing materials is placed on the 1996 Wise study: (a) which was not double-blinded, randomized or placebo-controlled (b) was published in a low-tier journal (Current Therapeutic Research) (c) this study and other Juice Plus studies have been criticized by reputable sources (e.g. Stanton and Memorial Sloan Kettering Clinic) (d) Wise’s study is used as the basis to support marketing claims about the bioavailability of Juice Plus as well as the product’s antioxidant effects. These facts alone are sufficient to justify my use of the term “questionable research” in my previous comment on this talk page. But in addition, even the studies in J Am Coll Cardiol and Nutr Res, to which you referred, were criticized by scientific peers in comments published by Freedman[28] and Watzl & Bub,[29] respectively. The method used by Plotnick in the J Am Coll Cardiol study had also been criticized earlier in a published comment by Kauffman.[30]

"pyramid/MLM sales" - the discredited Stephen Barrett himself couldn't have put it more incorrectly. It is deliberately misleading to equate illegal pyramid selling with MLM. MLM (and NSA's franchise scheme) are not illegal simply because you (and the discredited Stephen Barrett) don't like them. If it were illegal, why hasn't MLM Watch taking NSA to court, I wonder? Is the local DA asleep on the job too? Perhaps he and the discredited Stephen Barrett have a better knowledge of the relevant law. Is that possible?

First of all, Barrett is not “discredited”. That is merely your opinion and that of a few other biased individuals who fought against him in court battles. Citing him violates no WP policies. IMO, his research on Juice Plus was excellent, well-sourced, highly original, and extremely valuable. Secondly, Barrett did not equate pyramid selling with MLM. I drew a comparison in the broader context of looking at general similarities between USAIs products and marketing tactics and those used with Juice Plus. MLM and pyramid selling are both non-conventional methods for retail sales, and similar comparisons have been drawn by many sources. Just check the WP entries on MLM and pyramid scheme and you will notice the following:

“Multi-level marketing has an image problem due to the fact that it is often difficult to distinguish legitimate MLMs from illegal pyramid or Ponzi schemes.”

“Comparison with Multi-Level Marketing: Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) businesses function by recruiting salespeople to sell a product and offer additional bonus or sales commission if they recruit more salespersons as their "downline". New joiners may be required to pay for their own training / marketing materials, or to buy a significant amount of inventory. Thus it is possible that an MLM may be considered a pyramid scheme if salespersons are more concerned with recruiting a downline or if they must buy more product than they are ever likely to sell. A commonly adopted test of legality is that MLMs must derive 70% of their income from retail sales to non-members [3]. The Federal Trade Commission offers advice for potential MLM members to help them identify those which are likely to be pyramid schemes [4].”

In what way is Juice Plus a "miracle" supplement? Please elaborate.

Again, this is irrelevant. The WP article does not mention this so there is no point debating it. However, it is worth pointing out the abundance of marketing claims that Juice Plus can treat or prevent various conditions, boost energy, enhance immune function, etc.; hence my use of the term “miracle” supplement.

"Juice Plus even had a scandal over fraudulent paid endorsements by OJ Simpson" - I just followed the two links you gave (one of them to Fox News!! That's about as credible a source as the discredited Stephen Barrett!) and neither confirms the allegations "scandal", "fraudulent" and "paid". Surely references should back up the point being made. If the 'contribution' is to be taken seriously, that is. TraceyR 20:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

These off-base comments seem counterproductive. Please familiarize yourself with WP policy regarding reliable sources. Fox News would generally be considered a reliable source by WP standards, but in addition, a second reference from Court TV,[31] based on court transcripts, was also included and confirms OJs statements about Juice Plus and his recanting of his earlier product testimonial during the murder trial. Do you want to argue that the sources were wrong or did you merely wish to vent your personal feelings about FOX News? I never stated that any of these sources used the words “scandal” or “fraudulent”, and the WP article makes no claims to that effect. However, both terms seem apropos given the facts presented. OJ admitted that he had lied about the effectiveness of Juice Plus in his testimonial – hence my use of “fraudulent”. Similarly, several celebrity spokespersons for USAI were called to testify in court to explain their involvement with USAIs fraudulent products. I fail to see why this is so difficult to grasp. Although the articles did not specifically mention that he was "paid" for his endorsement, they did state that his testimonial was delivered on an "infomercial made March 31, 1994".[32] Would anyone argue that OJ appeared on this infomercial pro bono? Rhode Island Red 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear enough, Red. My reference to the "startling inacuracies" in the paragraph has to do with the attempt to connect Juice Plus with a company that went barkrupt years before Juice Plus even existed. And you can't put them side to side with some flimsy comparisions and claim that it tells the "Juice Plus Story." If you can do that, why not have a paragraph about OJ's connection to Juice Plus too? Why not have paragraphs about every person who has ever had a connection to Juice Plus and it will be relevant to the "Juice Plus Story" dependant on these people's histories and how we feel their lives are comparable to Juice Plus. Wouldn't that be fun? The possibilities are endless.

Perhaps then you shouldn’t have used the phrase "startling inaccuracies", since you are yet to point out a single one, and it is difficult to discern whether your argument centers around factual inaccuracy or lack of relevancy. Actually, I think the OJ Simpson/Juice Plus connection is notable and relevant, and it would not be out of line to include mention that he was a former spokesperson for the product and admitted that he had lied in an infomercial. It is a verifiable fact.

It appears that Stephen Barrett is the sole source for this paragraph. I believe Mr. Barrett has been discredited time and time again in a court of law. If John Wise life is relevant to the "Juice Plus Story" and his life story is right for the Juice Plus article, wouldn't it be fair to look at the life of the sole source of this USAI/Juice Plus connection, Stephen Barrett. He has made a faulty connection between two totally different companies. This is on par with the many poor assertions he has made that have found him on the wrong side of numerous court decisions.

Barrett is not the sole source for the paragraph; 11 other sources are cited. While Barrett may have been the first to reveal this connection, his background facts are well supported by other secondary references. As much as you may dislike Barrett, the facts are on his side in this case. Your repeated insistence that Barrett has been discredited is inappropriate. He has not been discredited, although his reputation has been viciously attacked by those who were on the opposing side in court cases against him. If you are going to rail about the reliability of sources, perhaps you should consider that fact and recognize that the criticism leveled against him has come mainly from highly questionable sources, such as Tim Bolen and Carlos Negerete.

I think the mention of the FOX News source touches on a bigger problem with this article. With the advent of the internet, we live in a world where anyone can say anything and their words can be taken as a source. This presents a problem to people who want to receive accurate information because many sources these days bring their own spins to a subject. Remember, our goal is to acheive an objective article and most subjective sources do not help acheive this goal. That's why "The Skeptic" is not a good source. That is why Stephen Barrett is not a good source. I'll go the other way with it too. I wouldn't trust John Wise if he wrote an article about Juice Plus either but I don't think he did. He conducted studies. What studies did "The Skeptic" and Stephan Barrett conduct? I'll go a step further: What studies did Bub & Watzl, UC Berkley or Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center conduct? Anyone can sit on a pedistal and tell us about what they think. For example, Bill O'Reilly does this every day on FOX News and you could use him as a source but I want sources that come from a point of understanding. This brings me to my final point: This isn't the "Juice Plus Story." It's a factual article and I think we should treat it as such.Citizen Don 05:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate, John Wise was a key player in a widely publicized nutraceutical scandal (USAI); he left the company in the face of an FDA investigation and litigation and reemerged immediately at NAI, where he went on to become the most significant contributor to Juice Plus research, the most widely cited source in Juice Plus marketing materials, and the key person in charge of manufacturing the product. His research has been criticized as shoddy by other reliable secondary sources. The facts that establish this connection are solid and reliable references are included to support it. The relevancy of this connection to the WP Juice Plus article is IMO blatantly obvious. It also seems that you are drawing your own highly subjective and arbitrary criteria for what constitutes a reliable reference in a WP article. Fortunately, WP already has policies in this regard and I highly suggest that you familiarize yourself with them. In addition, FOX News, Bill O'Reily, Watzl & Bub, Stanton, and Memorial Sloan Kettering were not cited in the section in question, so let’s not throw up any more red herrings. Rhode Island Red 15:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A red herring is something intended to divert attention from a real problem which is the exact opposite of what I am doing. Instead, I'm breaking down a very real and serious problem with this article. I did look at some of the Wikipedia guidelines and found this as one of it's Five Pillars, "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view." This means you can't lift Stephen Barrett's articles and come up with some "story" about Juice Plus. The paragraph in question reads like John Wise in "The Chronics of Jack the Ripper II." I read about "fraudulent scientific claims," "deceptive advertising," "investigations," "pyramid-scheming," "false and misleading promotional material," "making prohibited disease treatment claims." Does this read as neutral to you? And the funny part, these words are not even about Juice Plus or the company that makes it. Why am I "drawing (my) own highly subjective and arbitrary criteria for what constitutes a reliable reference in a WP article."? Because I want objective sources? I want to know the positive or perhaps negative effects of Juice Plus. Not a lurid tale with many references to subjective sources. Maybe I should start another topic about the lack of good citical sources but what's the point? I'm starting to lose my patience, Red, because you are clearly not a neutral person in this equation. If I may, what is your interest in the Juice Plus article? I have already stated that I have taken Juice Plus for five year, have seen improvements in my health and I do not sell it. I know it's off topic but, with your dominance over this article, I think it is relevant. I would really like the opinion of other people besides Red because I'm new to this Wiki thing but I'm pretty certain that Juice Plus is unjustly being draged through the dirt.Citizen Don 05:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Citizen Don, according to the FDA and the state of Texas, USAI used false and misleading promotional materials, made prohibited disease treatment claims, and was a pyramid scheme. These are simple statements of fact based on the references cited. I fail to see how mentioning these facts violates NPOV. You have continued to make the accusation that the article is inaccurate, and yet you have not shown a single example and you have repeatedly misstated the facts in support of your accusations.

Since you are a newcomer to WP, allow me to make a few constructive suggestions. First, when you start a new thread, it is important to keep your comments focused on the topic of the thread. When you stray away from the issue under discussion it is a diversion/distraction…in other words a “red herring”. This was clearly the case when you argued about the validity of references by Watzl & Bub, Memorial Sloan-Kettering etc. in the context of the John Wise/USAI/Juice Plus connection. Those references are irrelevant to the topic of this thread and mentioning them is a diversion form the topic at hand.

Secondly, the WP Juice article does not advocate a particular POV; it merely presents facts. If those facts happen to portray the subject in a negative light, that does not constitute a violation of NPOV. As an extreme example, the WP article on the Holocaust presents facts that would most likely leave the reader with the correct impression that the Holocaust was a horrible and tragic event and that Hitler and the Nazi’s committed atrocious crimes against humanity. That would not be a violation of NPOV since the facts speak for themselves.

Third, you agreed that you are drawing your own highly arbitrary and subjective conclusions as to what constitutes a valid reference. Again, I will point out that WP already has policies in place and these policies, rather than your opinion, dictate how references are to be used.

Lastly, it is seldom advisable to accuse another editor of failing to have a NPOV, particularly after you have repeatedly failed to substantiate your accusation with facts. Need I review the numerous instances in the past couple of weeks in which you presented incorrect information and misstated facts?

The WP article does not say that Juice Plus is bad nor does it say that people should not take it; rather it merely presents facts. However, if those facts lead a reader to conclude that Juice Plus is not a good product or that the company has misrepresented the product in its marketing, then so be it.

Whether or not you take Juice Plus and like it is irrelevant to this article. We cannot quote you as a source, and even if we could, testimonials are non-factual and would not be included in an NPOV article. Rhode Island Red 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it comes as no surprise that a Juice Plus distributor/spokesperson who has an admitted COI (Julia Havey) would suggest that John Wise’s history with USAI is a “non-issue”. However, this clearly would be an important issue to any impartial reader, and I fail to see how anyone, in good conscience, could reasonably argue against the relevancy of this information. As I have said before, Wise has had more involvement in the manufacturing and research of Juice Plus than any other individual; as such, his background with respect to USAI is an integral part of the Juice Plus story. To recap:

John Wise is the Chief Science Officer and a shareholder of NAI, the company that manufactures Juice Plus and which also paid for the majority of research on the product.
John Wise was Executive vice-President of Research & Development for USAI, a disreputable vitamin supplement company/pyramid scheme, and was an insider shareholder of USAI stock.
In 1987, USAI declared bankruptcy in response to violations cited by the FDA and attorney’s general of Texas, California, and New York, and the company’s demise was a high-profile scandal that received considerable media attention from numerous reliable secondary sources, which are cited in the WP article.
Wise immediately joined NAI upon the demise of USAI. As Chief Science Officer of NAI, John Wise has played a major role in the manufacture and quality control of Juice Plus products, as well as scientific claims made about the product in marketing materials.
John Wise has authored more studies on Juice Plus, by far, than any other individual; 5 of his publications are cited in the WP article.
John Wise’s research has been criticized by reliable secondary sources, and in most cases this research was extremely poorly-designed.
John Wise’s research has been and continues to be used as the bedrock for many of the promotional claims about Juice Plus.

Barrett should be applauded for bringing this critical information about Wise’s history with USAI and involvement in Juice Plus research to the public’s attention. His investigative reporting on this matter raised issues of great importance. All of the details reported by Barrett are confirmed by numerous reliable secondary sources, and not a single inaccuracy in the facts presented by Barrett has been demonstrated.

Although Juice Plus distributor/spokesperson Julia Havey refers to Barrett as an “authority” and “world renown (sic) expert” (an apparent reversal of Julia's previous position), her suggestion that Barrett has been given undue weight is plainly untrue. This issue was raised by Julia Havey in previous discussions, in which it was clearly pointed out that only two articles by Barrett were included in the WP article (out of several dozen references), each article was cited only once, and in the two instances where Barrett was cited, he was included along with other sources that expressed corroborating POVs. Now, one of the two articles has been cited a second time in reference to the USAI/Wise/Juice Plus history; compare this with the research articles, some of which were quoted 5 or more times in the WP article (and several of these heavily cited articles were authored by Wise!). It is clearly unjustified to claim that Barrett has been given undue weight. Those that insist otherwise, despite these rather obvious facts, are doing a great disservice to this discussion. Rhode Island Red 01:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Red, thanks for your response. I'm not even going to dignity a response to your accusations about my "numerous instances in the past couple of weeks in which (I) presented incorrect information and misstated facts." You have a knack for cleverly framing things in a negative light. Your comparison (you are correct, it was extreme) of the Juice Plus article to the Holocaust article mirrors the same brazen jump that connects Juice Plus to USAI. Could you please tell me your interest in this article? You are very easy to dismiss me because I use Juice Plus and Julia because she sells it so you can understand why I would like to know the source of your negative view towards Juice Plus.Citizen Don 04:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Citizen Don, I have never dismissed you because you use Juice Plus, although many of your complaints have been easy to dismiss because they were contradicted by facts presented by verifiable sources. Juice Plus distributor/spokesperson JuliaHavey is rightly dismissed because her COI violates WP policy. Need I remind you yet again that the purpose of this thread is to discuss the content of the USAI/John Wise/Juice Plus portion of the WP article; it is not to psychoanalyze the motives of other editors. Please stay OT. I have already stated that I have no COI and that my interest in the subject is purely academic, and you could have learned this for yourself had you read past entries on this talk page. If you are truly interested in engaging in meaningful discussion on this or any other WP topic, please take the time to familiarize yourself with relevant WP policy and to review past entries on the talk page so as not to resurrect issues that have already been addressed. Rhode Island Red 05:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second Red's advice to stay on topic. This article is supposed to present substantive, verifiable information. Anything that comes to us from reliable sources should be considered for addition to the article. The motives of the editors here don't matter, except that our policies require actual conflicts of interest to be disclosed. Everyone who has been participating recently has, I think, stayed on the right side of the COI rules, and we appreciate that. EdJohnston 03:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion of a COI is hard to defend, based on our policy documents. Red seems to have assumed a lonely mission here, being the sole regular editor (i.e. defender of policy) who is willing to take a sustained interest in this article. If she weren't here, within a matter of a few minutes this would presumably switch back to being an advertisement for Juice Plus, and from there, it would become a concern at the COI noticeboard again, with possible administrative consequences. If you want there to be an article at all, then please try to find science-based evidence with which to improve it, rather than complaining about its negativity. EdJohnston 21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Ed that the article needs constant attention to prevent it becoming an advertisement for Juice Plus, I haven't formed the impression that this is Rhode Island Red's real mission. Over the past few months I have observed a sustained attempt from this "sole regular editor" largely to cast Juice Plus in a negative light. I doubt that this is evidence of WP:COI (although I do wonder just what his motivation is; I don't buy the 'purely academic interest' line, so does that make me a cynic?) but trawling through the internet for negative stuff to cite (some of it so dubious that it had to be withdrawn), stoutly defending the citation of obviously withdrawn (negative) sources etc etc does strike me as laying him open to the question of WP:NPOV. But then, every negative statement is so well referenced that it just can't be dismissed as non-NPOV, can it! Just to prove that this neutrality is genuine, would he, as the "sole regular editor", care to mention some positive, equally well-referenced statements in the cited research papers for a change - just to prove his neutrality. He obviously has the time and the ability, so what is holding him back? TraceyR 22:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than endlessly speculate about the motives of the other editors, it would be more fruitful to propose some new text for the article. Or offer some new reliable sources that have something to say about Juice Plus. If you think the article is unbalanced, find something new to balance it with, that is scientifically credible. EdJohnston 23:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI states that editors who have a COI should not participate in deletion discussions. Juice Plus distributor/spokesperson Julia Havey is ignoring said guidelines by discussing deletion of references by MLMWatch/Stephen Barrett.

Julia Havey also seems to be unaware that WP:TPG states that editors should avoid gratuitous use of all caps for emphasis. One’s argument does not become more persuasive merely because it is SHOUTED at other editors.

Havey falsely stated “I NEVER said or implied it was a non-issue”; however, she most certainly did make the explicit claim that the Wise/USAI/Juice Plus link was a “non-issue”: She stated “is this paragraph of a 10 year old non-issue relevant in the Wiki article on Juice Plus?” [33] Editors should take responsibility for their comments, or failing that, at least be cognizant of the comments they have made. Better still, Havey should respect WP:COI and abstain from further participation in this discussion, and particularly any deletion discussions.

Julia Havey should be aware that sarcasm is inappropriate for the talk page; it is sufficiently difficult to have focused discussions without ambiguity, sarcasm or humor. This page is for practical, academic purposes related to editing of the Juice Plus page; it is not a chat room and it is not intended to serve as a source of entertainment or a place to vent.

Julia Havey is reminded yet again to not direct personal remarks towards me or any other WP editors in keeping with WP:CIV and WP:APR . This behavior is totally unacceptable. If Havey wishes to pursue her unfounded accusation that I have a COI, then she should be aware that this is not the appropriate forum in which to do so. This disruptive behavior must stop.

Part of the reason why I have accumulated so many edits is that I have had to respond to a litany of off-base, non-factual criticism and disruptive editing (WP:DE) by editors such as Julia Havey. Havey cannot on the one hand, engage me in a discussion, and then on the other, criticize me for racking up more edits. That seems extremely unreasonable. Regardless, I will once again remind her that (1) this is not the forum for addressing such concerns and (2) this thread is intended for discussion of the John Wise/USAI/Juice Plus section of the WP Juice Plus article exclusively. Discussion of any other topic simply does not belong here. Please show respect for WP policies and guidelines. Rhode Island Red 00:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR, I would like to call your attention to my comments to Julia Havey above regarding WP policy. I remind you that off-topic comments, character attacks, and harrassment constitute inappropriate conduct. If you have grievances or accusations you wish to discuss with WP admins, go ahead and do so, but resist the temptation to air them here. And pay some mind as to whether your own editing shows a history of neutrality before you question the motives of other editors. Rhode Island Red 01:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I for one appreciate a little humor here but the sorry state of this article is no joke. Red appears to be very well versed in the laws and dictates of Wikipedia so I'm sure he has read that "conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit." I may be new to Wikipedia but I'm seeing the same things that Julia and Tracy are seeing: Red's consistent effort to put Juice Plus in a negative light. For example, Red can not concede to me that Juice Plus raises Vitamin C (his edit says findings were "inconsitent") but then he tells another editor "Juice Plus OB/GB delivers 250% RDI for beta-carotene, a greater percentage than any other nutrient in the product with the exception of vit C." Through the sheer bulk and tone of his edits, a lack of neutrality is pretty clearly "inferred" to me.

Ed, you want "reliable sources that have something to say about Juice Plus" and we do too. That is why we object to the extensive use of Stephen Barrett in the John Wise/USAI paragraph and others. He is the mouthpiece of uninformed cynacism. He is the kind of guy who would tell you to get your head examined if you wanted to try acupuncture. Deepac Chopra called Barrett a "self-appointed vigilante for the suppression of curiosity." He is not a reliable source so why do we have a paragraph about a negative speculatiive connection between Juice Plus and USAI because Stephen Barrett can see the connection? This paragraph does not exist without Barrett, Barrett is not a reliable source, therefore, the paragraph should not exist.Citizen Don 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red: ... but you had already established the principle that editing doesn't have to be neutral, just well-referenced! And somebody has to ensure that the article doesn't descend into an anti-Juice Plus diatribe! It isn't my life's work, however. I just have a look from time to time to see that nothing too nonsensical has appeared. Have a nice day!TraceyR 06:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Citizen Don, you have already been warned about questioning the neutrality and motives of other editors. Your comments are a clear violation of WP:CIV, WP:HAR, and WP:DE. If this harassment continues you will be reported to WP administration, which may result in a community ban or blocking for disruption. Rhode Island Red 15:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And what have I disrupted, Red? Your happy reign over this article? Sorry to be flip but I have given you no cause to threaten me. Not only do you have the most negative edits on this page, you also have the most negative responses on the talk page. This is why I was forced to remind you of Wikipedia's suggestion to "Be Polite" very early in my dealings with you. According to Wikipedia mandate, you have a choice to declare your interest or not. I for one find it suspicious that you dominate the edits on this page under a cloak of anonymity but that is your right. However, Wikipedia states that "conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit." In your case, that would be edit many times plural.

Do we have any other references that can back up the connection between Juice Plus and USAI besides the extremely prejudiced opinion of Stephen Barrett? I'm pretty certain that we don't. My schedule is pretty busy but someone else is going to have to start editing this page because the neutrality of the article has been lost under numerous poor edits. Maybe I'll give it a shot next week. Citizen Don 03:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Citizen Don: You have already been warned to not harass WP editors, to not make personal attacks, to not comment on the motives of other editors, and to keep your comments focused on the topic of this thread. Your behavior violates WP policy and it is totally unacceptable. If you persist you may be blocked from editing. Rhode Island Red 06:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Citizen Don: Please don't attack other editors. From an outside observer's perspective, I don't understand why the attack on Rhode Island Red. Citizen Don, if you have positive comments to make, please make them. If you have constructive edits to the article, please contribute as well. In any case, please spend your efforts constructively contributing to Wikipedia instead of trying to sell a product and attack others. There can not be a COI, when someone is not economically benefiting from the product -- if someone has a negative opinion of a subject and they can justify their assumptions, that is perfectly in accordance with wikipedia policy. Tbbooher 12:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I have attacked anyone, Tbbooher. Red makes almost all of the edits here on an article that has a negatively slanted tone and uses some extremely subjective sources. My interest is simply to improve this article. Unlike Red, I have clearly stated my intentions. I don't sell JP and I don't economically benefit from it. I just use the product and I have greatly benefited from it. It saddens me to think that people will see this article and think negatively of the product because it has helped me so much. But I can't improve this article if we have one editor stonewalling the effort for neutrality.

Red, I'm sorry if you have taken my comments as a personal vendetta against you. I just want more opinions because I feel that we are at an impasse. I noticed Ed Johnsons comments to you on your talk page and he has suggested a peer review. I'm new here and I'm not sure how we would go about that but if it brings some more opinions to the table I'm all for it. Could you help to initiate this? It could vastly improve the problems with this article. Thanks Citizen Don 02:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Citizen Don: it seems to me that we are at an impasse because you are still focusing your comments on my motives rather than the content of the article, and you are continuing to disrespect WP policy. As several editors have told you, if you have relevant information to include that meets with WP policies then suggest it, but no do not merely complain that you don’t like the tone of the article and stop making personal comments about other editors. I will report you if this harrassment continues.

There are several editors that have contributed to the article and the talk page who do not share your opinion about the content or my POV. Please respect the fact that yours is not the only opinion that matters here.

Once again, you are reminded that the purpose of this thread is to discuss the John Wise/USAI/Juice Plus section of the article. Although you have repeatedly expressed your general dissatisfaction with this content, you have yet to present any reasonable arguments as to why it should not be included.

And in the future could you please indent your posts using colons. This is a SOP on WP as it helps to keep long threads organized and more readable. Rhode Island Red 06:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Red, let's try to get this train back on track. Please tell me your thoughts regarding a peer review of this article. Your veteran opinion would be valued.Citizen Don 07:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not post comments unrelated to John Wise/USAI/Juice Plus under this thread. Rhode Island Red 15:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Off Topic Warning

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Juice Plus/Archive 3. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Juice Plus/Archive 3 at the Reference desk.

A gentle reminder to all participants on this talk page as per WP:TPG.

Rhode Island Red 05:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning Red. For a newbee like me, it's good to be able to find out what passes for proper behavior here. I found this an interesting suggestion from the WP:TPG page: "Don't threaten people: For example, threatening people with having them banned for disagreeing with you."Citizen Don 05:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not threatened to have you banned because you disagree with me, I have merely stated that you are violating policy by misusing the talk page in violation of WP:TPG, and that you are harassing (WP:HAR) me rather than focusing your comments on specific areas of content in the article. You cannot continue to flagrantly disregard policy. Rhode Island Red 06:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Cardiovascular effects

Can anyone give a reason for the presence of the last sentence of the section on "Cardiovascular effects", i.e.

"One study found that Juice Plus had no effect on blood pressure in healthy subjects"?

The relevant section in the report cited (Plotnick et al, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2003) is as follows (+/- ranges omitted for clarity):

"... blood pressure was 113/71 mm Hg, 116/73 mm Hg, and 116/73 mm Hg in subjects randomized to placebo, JP, or combined JP-V, respectively. These values did not change significantly over the four weeks of the study."

The study recruited healthy volunteers (which is borne out by these figures). According to the Wiki article on Blood pressure "normal" blood pressure is 120/80 or lower. One would surely not expect a reduction of these parameters as a result of taking a supplement such as Juice Plus, so why does the non-occurrence of an effect one would not expect in the first place warrant a mention in the article? No such medical claims are made for the product either. I suggest that this irrelevant remark be removed. Any objections? TraceyR 19:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR seems to be assuming that commenting on the lack of effect of Juice Plus on blood pressure is a criticism of the product; it is not. It is simply a NPOV fact as reported by the investigators and it worth including in the section pertianing to research on cardiovascular effects. Many would consider the lack of effect of Juice Plus on BP in normotensive subjects to be a reassuring finding rather than a criticism. I consider this information to be relevant and I don’t see how the article would be improved by removing it. Rhode Island Red 04:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR finds it odd to report a non-effect under the heading "Cardiovascular effects", whereas the major finding of the same study, that

JP and JP-V at three and four weeks significantly decreased the detrimental effect of the high-fat meal on endothelial function.

was not considered by Rhode Island Red "worth including in the section pertianing to research on cardiovascular effects":

This is a glaring example of the unpleasant bias to be found elsewhere in this article. TraceyR 09:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Might it be possible for you to comment on content without the suggestion of bias or unpleasantness, and without speculating on what I might have considered or not considered? Plotnick’s model is rather arcane and the results are difficult to interpret/report; it has also been heavily criticized in published commentaries, so I have been reluctant to tackle it, but it looks like now is the time to do so. The physiological relevance of Plotnick’s BART model is questionable and it is not accurate to say that JP reversed the detrimental effects of a high-fat meal; there are many detrimental effects of high fat diets and Plotnick’s study looked at only one aspect minor aspect (BART).

Dr. Freedman’s commentary on this study [J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:1750-2] offered several criticisms that need to be considered:

“Because the active components of this supplement were not identified, and the compounds were not monitored either directly or utilizing surrogate biomarkers, it cannot be assumed that subsequent preparations of this or similar supplements will retain their vasoactive properties. Also, because the herbal extract was not tested alone, it is impossible to know if it has any beneficial effects when used in isolation. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this extract did not lead to any significant additive effects when given with the juice concentrate powder. “Whereas the fruit and vegetable concentrate appeared to be of benefit, the addition of the vitamin supplement appeared to have no additional effect on brachial function and led to an increase in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol as compared with the juice concentrate alone.”

“Although these findings are notable, they are not broadly clinically relevant until tested prospectively with longer term clinical end points. Thus, the current findings should not lead to the general recommendation of phytonutrients for the modification of cardiovascular disease; nor should these findings suggest that the clearly established diseases associated with high-fat or high-calorie diets can be offset by the use of nutritional supplements.”

“If validated in subjects with cardiovascular disease, would such studies lead to the use of nutritional supplementation with the occasional high-fat meal or should we just be recommending a salad with the steak dinner? Thus, this study does not suggest that a phytonutrient or vitamin supplement is the solution for high-fat, low-fiber, low-nutrient diets but instead reinforces the positive effects of nutrient-rich fruits and vegetables.”

Dr. Jeffery Kauffman [JAMA. 1998;279:1069-70] also pointed out that the model used by Plotnick is methodologically unsound, an assertion with which I strongly agree after looking closely at Plotnick’s data:

“Dr Plotnick and colleagues describe the use of duplex ultrasonography to determine changes in the brachial artery diameter associated with a high-fat meal. The authors claimed a significant alteration in arterial diameter, but although the differences may be statistically significant, they should not be construed as clinically significant. Based on the physics of ultrasound probes, the measurements reported by Plotnick et al are within 0.3 mm at best, presuming their machine is properly calibrated by the manufacturer. Their ultrasound machine will give caliper-derived data to within 0.1 mm. The authors report tabular data taken to the nearest 0.01 mm, based on a sample size of 20. The supposedly significant results they report are based on vasoreactivity measurements on the order of 0.2 mm. Can one really believe these data when the measured effect is less than the hidden “noise” of the machine? This article is an excellent example of a modern quandary: How does one interpret data when the measured effect exceeds the accuracy of the instrument used to make the measurement?”

I have looked closely at Plotnick’s data and found that extremely small differences in millimeters (0.01 to 0.02) are converted to percentages to exaggerate the apparent magnitude of effects. In other words, extremely small changes in diameter – changes which at the signal to noise threshold of the model – have been converted to show large percentage changes. The actual changes in diameter in millimeters were not reported, making it virtually impossible for the reader to determine the true magnitude of effect. There were are also several problems with the data analysis, such as a confounding effect of high baseline values in the control group, downward drift of the pre-meal FMV, and inapppriate statistical analysis using t-tests instead of analysis of variance.

One should also bear in mind that Plotnick had previously used this same model to demonstrate similar effects of vitamin E and C supplementation. As with many of the Juice Plus studies, this one seems to be merely showing that the vitamins added to the product produce effects that would be expected and have been previously demonstrated.

Because Plotnick’s article is a primary source, we must be very careful in interpreting and reporting it in the WP article, and we should make use of reliable secondary sources, such as Freedman and Kauffman, to help guide our interpretation. I will offer up some new text to describe the Plotnick study and the caveats associated with it. In the meantime, I am open to discussing this study in more detail. Rhode Island Red 16:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not the responsibility of WP to review the scientific literature for accuracy. This function is assumed by the scientific community in general, and they do it with signed articles for which individuals or specific organizations take responsibility. They are the ones who provide opinions bout the validity of scientific studies. Our function is that of a reporter: we make a fair and NPOV report on what the experts in the field think, including both the scientists and the public policy experts who consider the decision of the scientists. Some of us may well be qualified to consider on their own responsibility the accuracy of individual papers--but if we do, this is not the place to publish our findings.

DGG 21:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Rhode Island Red: Why are quotations 'unadvisable'? Is this a copyright issue? You replaced the study's quoted major finding with a direct, but in this case unattributed, quotation, which is perhaps more obscure for the layman reader ("Vasodilation" ... "brachial artery" are surely less accessible than "endothelium"). This isn't a medical article, after all. Surely clarity is also important? TraceyR 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that a lay reader would have any greater understanding of “endothelium” than they would “vasodilation”. I also think it’s very important to not over generalize and to be clear that the results apply to a specific test which measures the degree of rebound vasodilation shortly after occlusion of the brachial artery. The relationship of this model to endothelial dysfunction and dietary fat intake in cardiovascular disease has not been established, hence the concerns about over generalizing. It is an overgeneralization to merely state, for example, that “Juice Plus reduced endothelial dysfunction”. What Juice Plus was actually reported to do was minimize the impairment of brachial artery vasodilation following consumption of a high-fat meal (and note that these results apply to the brachial artery only).

When we are presenting scientific findings from a journal article we have to be careful to summarize and represent the findings as accurately as possible. It is not the norm when describing research findings to use direct quotations, and we don’t want to risk being arbitrary in selecting which material to quote. Nor have we used quotes for any of the other articles discussed, so there is also an issue of consistency. Furthermore, highly technical articles are difficult if not impossible to distill accurately in a one- or two-line quote. A concise but accurate summary is preferable and is the norm. There can also be concerns when using quotes as to whether specific text in an article accurately reflects the data shown or whether the authors are using marketing language or exaggerated claims. This is a lingering concern in the case of the Plotnick Juice Plus article since (a) John Wise was an author (an NAI executive whose reputation is highly questionable based on past connections with United Sciences of America, Inc. and run-ins with the FDA) and (b) because it was funded by the manufacturer. We should also promptly make use of the references by Freedman and Kauffman which pointed out some serious problems with Plotnick’s study. Rhode Island Red 22:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following statement added by TraceyR "...this effect was further enhanced when Vineyard Blend was taken in addition to Juice Plus". This is not what the Plotnick study reported. Plotnick's article described that BART impairment was reduced by either Orchard/Garden Blend or Orchard/Garden/Vineyard Blend but they did not report that addition of Vineyard enhanced the effect. This is what the article stated: "...similar results were seen with a more complex supplementation regimen incorporating various nutrients and herbal extracts (i.e. Vineyard Blend) in addition to the fruit/vegetable juice concentrate." Note that the article states that the effects of the two regimens were similar, not that Vineyard Blend had an additive effect.

The review of this study by Freeman, as I had pointed out previously, directly contradicts the statement added by TraceyR: "The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this extract (Vineyard Blend) did not lead to any significant additive effects when given with the juice concentrate powder. Whereas the fruit and vegetable concentrate appeared to be of benefit, the addition of the vitamin supplement appeared to have no additional effect on brachial function and led to an increase in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol as compared with the juice concentrate alone.”. TraceyR, please be more careful about ensuring the accuracy of text that you are contemplating adding to the aricle, and consider posting such material on the talk page first so that it can be discussed and reviewed for accuracy. Rhode Island Red 16:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

TraceyR please do not add contentious content to sections that are under discussion without providing comments on the talk page. Such behavior is discouraged by WP policy since it defeats the purpose of having a discussion in the first place. Your last edits negated the opinion of a source published in a peer-reviewed journal with your own unsubstantiated opinion. You cannot add content stating that Freedman's "claims were based on incorrect interpretations of the data" merely because you think that this is true. Your revisions have been reverted. Please refer to WP:V if you are unclear as to what is considered a reliable source. Rhode Island Red 04:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red: You refer to my "unsubstantiated opinion" without first checking the data given in Plotnick et al; in fact Freedman, and by extension you, are the ones making unsubstantiated and incorrect statements. My statement, far from being contentious as you claim, is backed up by the Plotnick data. Yours isn't (see below). Have a look.

The "over-generalisation" you mention above ("Juice Plus reduced endothelial dysfunction") was nowhere stated in the article. Please don't put words into other people's mouths. What I added to the article (since removed by you) was a direct quotation from Plotnick et al: "JP and JP-V at three and four weeks significantly decreased the detrimental effect of the high-fat meal on endothelial function". Plotnick's statement is valid as it stands; it isn't a generalisation. As DGG notes above, "Some of us may well be qualified to consider on their own responsibility the accuracy of individual papers--but if we do, this is not the place to publish our findings." You may well be qualified to "to describe the Plotnick study and the caveats associated with it" but this is not the place for such OR.

The extensive quotations given by you from Freedman's criticism of the Plotnick study demonstrate that Freedman was either not at all clear about what Plotnick was reporting or hadn't studied the results carefully before writing his criticism (or both). It is not supposition on my part, as you would have seen if you had looked carefully at the Plotnick study. I will give two specific examples:

Freedman's claim ("The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this extract (he is referring to Vineyard Blend) did not lead to any significant additive effects when given with the juice concentrate powder (Juice Plus)") is contradicted by Plotnick's published data. These clearly show even better results for the group taking both JP and V than for JP alone: "The percent of decrease in the JP group after the high-fat meal was -22.3 +/- 12.6% at three weeks and -16.6 +/- 10.3% at four weeks (p < 0.05 compared with the baseline values). The percent of decrease in the JP-V group after the high-fat meal was -13.7 +/- 10.2% at three weeks (p < 0.05) and only -1.7 +/- 9.7% at four weeks (p < 0.02 compared with baseline values)." Freedman's claim is incorrect. The results are only 'similar' in that both are significantly better than the control group results. Check the data.
Freedman's claim in the same sentence, that Vineyard Blend "... led to an increase in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol as compared with the juice concentrate alone" is not in line with the data and shows again that he hadn't studied the results very well: Vineyard Blend did not lead "to an increase in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol". If Freedman had studied Table 3 he would have seen that the baseline figures for the JP&V group were unchanged for LDL (113 mg/dl) and slightly reduced for total cholesterol (baseline 185 mg/dl, at 4 weeks 182 mg/dl). There was "no increase in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol" as claimed by Freedman. Check the data. Please reinstate the paragraph you over-hastily removed. (We should all be more careful about ensuring the accuracy of text that we are contemplating adding to the article - you too).

Are these Freedman inaccuracies typical of the way the study was "heavily criticized in the published commentaries" as you put it? How much credence can be given to Freedman's other comments? Are they also based on such careless analysis of the data?

What of Freedman's conclusion that "the current findings should not lead to the general recommendation of phytonutrients for the modification of cardiovascular disease; nor should these findings suggest that the clearly established diseases associated with high-fat or high-calorie diets can be offset by the use of nutritional supplements."? The study clearly states that its objective was "to determine if long-term daily administration of phytonutrient supplements can prevent the immediate adverse impact of a high-fat meal and increase the production of nitric oxide." Freedman is free to wonder what the effect of long-term phytonutrient supplementation would be on established cardiovascular disease, but Plotnick's study did not set out to investigate this and should not be criticised for that reason. TraceyR 12:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, our aim is to summarize precisely what the study found without making broad, over-generalized statements. The specific finding of this study was that Juice Plus OG/GB reduced impairment of brachial artery vasoactivity caused by a high-fat meal. This is in fact the title of the study; i.e. "Effect of supplemental phytonutrients on impairment of the flow-mediated brachial artery vasoactivity after a single high-fat meal”. It is an imprecise over generalization to merely say that Juice Plus reduced endothelial dysfunction. Note that the words “endothelial dysfunction” do not even appear in the article title.

As I pointed out before, we have not used direct quotations from any of the numerous studies reviewed in the article, so there is an issue of style consistency. And again, I stress that our goal is to accurately summarize study findings, not to selectively quote the authors. I checked the data closely and I agree with Freedman’s interpretation and comments on the study. Freedman’s article comes from a reliable published source. It is the only secondary source that has commented on Plotnick’s study. WP policy dictates that secondary sources should be used when available and are in fact prefereable to primary sources. Although you may personally disagree with Freedman’s comments, we cannot supplant the views of a reliable secondary source with an unsourced opinion from one editor. If you know of another published source that agrees with your assertion that Freedman misinterpreted Plotnick’s study, then we can include that.

Based on the above, it is pointless to split hairs regarding our personal opinions about the data in Plotnick’s study. I will however quickly point out a couple of problems with your interpretation. The study did not show a statistical difference between the effects of Orchard/Garden Blend versus Orchard/Garden/Vineyard Blend. If the difference is not statistically significant, then in effect, there is no difference. Hence, Freedman’s conclusion that Vineyard Blend did not have an additive effect. I will repeat what I said before, because apparently it did not register the first time. Plotnick stated "...similar results were seen with a more complex supplementation regimen incorporating various nutrients and herbal extracts (i.e. Vineyard Blend) in addition to the fruit/vegetable juice concentrate." Note that the article states that the effects of the two regimens were "similar", not that Vineyard Blend had an additive effect. Plotnick’s conclusion was consistent with that of Freedman; namely, addition of Vineyard Blend did not significantly enhance the effect of the OB/GB regimen. Furthermore, while OB/GB produced a small effect on LDL and cholesterol, this effect was eliminated when Vineyard Blend was added to the regimen. This finding is consistent with the statements made by Freedman; namely: “the addition of Vineyard Blend to this regimen had no additional effect on brachial artery vasoactivity and led to an increase in total and low-density lipoprotein”. Can we put this issue to rest now? Rhode Island Red 14:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Regrettably the issue cannot be 'put to rest' there.

Just to clarify a few points:

the overgeneralisation you object to was never made: no-one claimed that Juice Plus "reduced endothelial function" (nor indeed improved it). The amendment which was removed stated '... leading the researchers to conclude that the combined intake of Juice Plus and Vineyard Blend "significantly decreased the detrimental effect of a high-fat meal on endothelial function"'. I see no reason for objecting to this statement and propose that it be reinstated.
The Plotnick data on percentage decrease in vasoactivity following a high-fat meal, as depicted in Fig. 1, is clear (baseline percentage decrease in vasoactivity, 4-week percentage decrease): Placebo group: 40,9%, 37,6%; JP group:45,1%, 16,6%; JP&V group: 47,5%, 1,7%. In other words, the improvement in the placebo group (all figures rounded) was 8%, slightly up from the 3-week figure; in the JP group 63% (significantly better than at 3 weeks) and in the JP&V group it was 96% (a dramatic improvement on the 3-week result). It is certainly not splitting hairs nor a matter of opinion: the additive effect of Vineyard Blend is very significant and Freedman's statement totally inconsistent with the data. If you like, I'll prepare a small table for the article which will show the figures for the 3 groups and demonstrate that Freedman's position is untenable.
The addition of Vineyard Blend did not lead to an increase in total cholesterol and LDL because, as the figures show, the JP&V group did not experience an increase in either parameter. If Freedman meant to say that there was a smaller decrease for JP&V than for JP alone, he should have said that, but he didn't. As it stands, his statement is incorrect. This is not a matter of supposition or opinion but fact. My amendment to the article, since deleted, included these figures. I propose that it/they be reinstated.
A statement earlier that JP/JP&V only affected vasodilation of the brachial artery is 'interesting', in that it might be taken to imply that the effect was specific to just this one artery. Is that what was meant? That would be a medical breakthrough! The study concluded that it affected endothelial function in general (in the context of the study). We are to report what was concluded (see DGG's clarification on Wp policy above), not apply our own interpretation to it.

If you now concur that Freedman was incorrect on both points, we can move on and remove these errors from the article. For the sake of balance I suggest that the Freedman opinions be included, as before, with a subsequent explanantion of why they are inconsistent with the results of the study. TraceyR 17:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

^ "CCCWFU #60A02 Protocol Amendment #12" (PDF). Institutional Review Board, Comprehensive Cancer Center of Wake Forest University. 2006-19-17. Retrieved 2007-02-11. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[IRB-1] "CCCWFU #60A02 Protocol Amendment #12" (PDF). Institutional Review Board, Comprehensive Cancer Center of Wake Forest University. 2006-19-17. Retrieved 2007-02-11. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[1]