Talk:Juice Plus

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

message: Some mentions of Juice Plus include the + after the name and others don't.  If they're the same product they should be the same.  Which one is correct? Ocaasi c 01:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just had a brief look at the home page and the "+" is used consistently. It appears to be part of the registered name (see the browser header), so ideally the article should have the "+" too. --TraceyR (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:MOSTM: "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love"). In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used". Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of + 

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

message: Per WP:MEDRS we should not be using primary research articles. As this articles uses them extensively have tagged it until this is resolved.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: would you mind tagging the appropriate section instead of the top of the article. As I see it, this would apply only to the research section. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I couldn't find a relevant section tag. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Doc James: Why is WP:MEDRS relevant for a nutritional supplement? Surely this is a food, not a medicine. --TraceyR (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Health claims need high quality evidence. We are a little more stringent than the FDA here. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, any health claims, food or medicine related, apply to MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

message: I read this article because I take Juice Plus and I have MS and I was looking for what nutrients some of the fruits and vegetables contained, so that I can supplement with things that are not found in whole food, like Vitamin D3, or B12 for example.  I was appalled at the very negative stance of what should be a description or definition of Juice Plus, but instead was a mud slinging attempt to get people off the product?  So, I did my own research.  I read where some of your findings or excerpts came from and they were taken a bit out of context, not representing the entire article.  Seems only the negative or at best questionable findings were mentioned here, even though much positive research was also given and is out there.  In fact even the Memorial Kettering Cancer Center's comments caution that their page is their opinion and not to be taken as medical advice.  They cite the positive outcomes of JP trials, and have no negative only unsubstantiated or that it might impact treatment comments.  That is presumebly because in cancer, you are trying to kill cancer cells and they don't know if good nutrition would make that ineffective.  In reality, cancer comes from mis- qued cells and under functioning killer cells, which could only be helped with a nutritious diet.  We are talking about a food product here, not a laborotory drug.  No one would tell a cancer patient to turn away fruits and veggies and eat a fatty diet? It is almost as if your writer wants us to believe that JP controlled outcomes and research done at  University of Arizona, and Brigham Young University to name a few?  What?  I know Drs who are aware of the proven benefits of JP and its effects on health, dental health etc.
Now for what should have been said, I do not think anyone is saying or believes that this dietary supplement ( per Wikipedia " a Dietary Supplement is intendend to provide nutrients that may otherwise not be consumed in sufficient quantities") is a replacement for the actual food.  It is a dietary supplement, which by your own definition is to provide additional nutrients to what is already consumed or for those who do not get enough of them.  Most people do not eat 5-7 servings of soil rich fresh fruits and veggies each day, so they take vitamins.  While this is perfectly fine, it is better to get the nutrients naturally from the actual food, and then to supplement where they are lacking with more food.  Let me say it again, this is a supplement ( in addition to) not a replacement for real food nutrition.  It is a extra serving or two more than you would get otherwise.  The focus on your article comes from the idea that this product was intended to replace the foods it represents or be equal to.  Not so, it is a dietary supplement and your writer should consult your own definition of what that really means.
This article should be revised immediately as it has made me question and trust your interpretations on other subjects.  It should be neutral, not biased and what does OJ have to do with the definition of JP.  I could care less what he claimed or represented at one time...it is here say, and JP is not trial!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aud88 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit prompted me to search around for any new material, but I didn't find anything significant - except that we weren't using some material from Quackwatch (now added). If you judge some material is missing from the article, what sources are there we're not using? if you feel bad information is contained (because of poor sourcing) then what it that? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article not balanced 

message: DELETE X="critics have argued that there is no scientific proof that Juice Plus offers significant health benefits and that deceptive claims are used in the product's marketing information"
because there are 30 scientific studies about Juice Plus health benefits on humans. Theu are reported on www.pubmed.gov
This articles about Juice Plus on wikipedia, is completely wrong and has conflicts of interest. The Scientific Study about benefit of Juice Plus are used in the text to proof the inutility of the product. See www.pubmed.gov
Vaprea (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But critics have argued these things, and this is sourced in the article body. Since the lede must summarize the body (and include criticism) it is right to have this content here; it should not be deleted. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 31 August 2013 

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

message: I did a few searches on medline and google-scholar for any kind of review articles on Juice+ and came up empty.  Can anyone point me towards any such English language literature?  I am not interested in primary studies or popular press articles. Desoto10 (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Scanning the discussions above, I find only two review articles mentioned: Lamprecht et al ("Obst- und Gemüsesaftkonzentrate zur Nahrungsergänzung" i.e. "Fruit and vegetable juice concentrates for nutritional supplementation" in the Schweizer Zeitschrift für Ernährungsmedizin i.e. Swiss Journal for Nutritional Medicine, 2008, 6(5):47-52 and Esfahani et al ("Health effects of mixed fruit and vegetable concentrates: a systematic review of the clinical interventions." J Am Coll Nutr Oct 2011, 30(5):285-94).  If the German article has not been translated, then it does little good.  The second article is behind a paywall and describes the effects of "concentrates".  While a powdered product might be called a concentrate, this is not clear from the available abstract.  My point is since there are, apparently, no secondary scientific reviews, the notability of this product seems suspect.Desoto10 (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

message: I recommend eliminating the current third and fourth paragraphs while retaining the first and second paragraphs, with an additional source to the second to read like this:
One study found that 1 g of Juice Plus Orchard Blend/Garden Blend powder (500 mg of each combined) had the corresponding in vitro antioxidant capacity to approximately 10 g (fresh weight) of fruit or vegetable, amounting to 30 g (roughly one-third of a serving) per four capsules.[52] In vitro tests of antioxidant activity of polyphenols (such as those in Juice Plus capsules) likely show higher results than the negligible antioxidant activity in vivo following oral ingestion. metabolism and digestion.[53]
A succinct lay news release from Oregon State University in 2007 may be useful to add as a reference for this last sentence.
--Zefr (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal for the revised second paragraph on antioxidant activity works for me. But why would the third paragraph (about a study demonstrating lack of antioxidant activity of Gummies) and fourth paragraph (promotional claims about cancer and the response by MSKCC) be deleted? Those paragraphs have been part of the article for years so it's not clear to me why that's now on the chopping block. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel the point of insignificant antioxidant activity is made adequately by the first two paragraphs as proposed; the additional paragraphs belabor the discussion. Also, see my comments from 20 Sept, 17.44 above. --Zefr (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The first two paragraphs refer to the fruit/veg capsules. The third paragraph deals with a different product entirely (children's Gummies, not the fruit/veg capsules), and the last paragraph deals with antioxidant activity as it pertains specifically to product claims about cancer, and contains relevant commentary from an expert source at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center -- highly notable. So it seems to me that it would be rather arbitrary to delete the last two paragraphs. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft suggestion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Juice Plus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070208184410/http://www.cnn.com:80/US/OJ/simpson.civil.trial/transcripts.october/10.24.transcript.html to http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/simpson.civil.trial/transcripts.october/10.24.transcript.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070209051548/http://www.cnn.com:80/US/OJ/simpson.civil.trial/transcripts.january/01.06.transcript.html to http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/simpson.civil.trial/transcripts.january/01.06.transcript.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Noticed that there is a parallel stub of an article on National Safety Associates, the parent company that makes Juice Plus. The company is not notable in its own right and the NSA article should be merged with the JP article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Icerat (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

text: * Agreed, merge. Pianoman320 (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Disagreed. I know NSA but never heard of Juice Plus. MemBrain (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given no consensus for the merge, and uncontested opposition (as per WP:SILENCE). Klbrain (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Re-opening, following request from . Klbrain (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Weak oppose on the grounds that NSA had a notable history before their transition to a nutrition-focused company in the 1990s. I was tempted to suggest a merge in the reverse direction, but the Juice Plus brand name seems to have more of a web presence, and they seem to be using the "Juice Plus+ Company" name, even though it doesn't seem that the company has formally changed its name. The NSA name does still seem to be in use, for example hitting the title of a 2016 peer-reviewed protocol publication indexed on PMC. Klbrain (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As background, Juice Plus is not a company name and never was. It is a trademark name for a product. The company that markets it is and always has been National Safety Associates. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

text: I'm curious as to what was significantly notable about NSA's history prior to Juice Plus. There is a total of one non-JP related reference in the NSA article (#2, with no online link) that refers to the company getting in legal trouble with their water filter sales. The remaining dozen or so references cited in the NSA article all relate to Juice Plus. The company has marketed a single product -- Juice Plus -- for the vast majority of its existence. Strip out JP from NSAs story and we'd be left with a single unlinked reference. Sorry, but I just don't see the rationale for opposition to merging. BTW, thanks for relisting the merger proposal. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you know, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. So, the question is as to whether 20 years of selling water filters, air filters, fire-protection equipment; with a further decade of these businesses tailing off, is sufficiently distinct from the Juice Plus line. I'd argue that it is. There is interesting material for expansion, including the companies structure as alleged ponzi scheme, or illegal pyramid scheme, activities that relate to the sale of water filters. So, the corporate structure is also of intrinsic interest. Klbrain (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

text: The issue is that, based on the sources so far presented, NSAs notability seems to be predicated pretty much solely on JP. What I'm asking for is evidence, in the form of reliable sources, that would support your opposition on the basis that the company is notable for something else. If those sources don't exist, then that would support merging into JP. BTW, the 2 sources you linked to above would not meet WP:RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the legal documents don't reach WP:RS, but non-routine newspaper coverage does, as does a book chapter (for example). Klbrain (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The single news article you linked to above referring to NSA pre-JP would not be considered in judging the company's notability as per WP:ILLCON; i.e., the news article (and the book you linked to) refer to a single litigation event. As for the book, I'd take a pretty firm stance that it's also not WP:RS in this context -- or probably any context. So I still don't see convincing evidence that the company is  notable for anything more than JP; at least not enough to justify a separate page. If NSA were truly notable as a company, it would have received significant coverage in trade/business/financial articles, etc. There's probably a hundred sources that discuss JP/NSA together and maybe 1 or 2 that refer to NSA for anything else. It would be easy to roll that into the JP article. Otherwise it still strikes me as a needless fork. Have a look at WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ILLCON. I would argue that they make a pretty airtight case for the current merger proposal. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that it easier to find sources for recent events rather than those from 30-40 years ago, when the company was founded, but that does create an  article imbalance due to recentism. The 1991 episode doesn't appear to be isolated, as there were similar concerns in 1993, which relates to structures established in '86, as already discussed in the article. So the ponzi/pyramid issues does seem meet the test of multiple independent sources required in WP:CORPDEPTH. The WP:ILLCON argument argument is a good point, but the company's notability doesn't rely on the allegedly illegal activity; rather, it contributes to the case, in addition to the wider range of products and as a case study in multi-level marketing. The company seem to have drifted from there to the use of franchising, but those franchises seems to small that I wonder what the difference is! Overall, I wouldn't object to a merge; it just wouldn't be my recommendation as it seems there is scope for expansion of the NSA article independent of its most important modern product line. Klbrain (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this boils down to there only being one or so articles that discuss the company outside the context of JP, demonstrating that the company’s notability is predicated, essentially, on JP solely. This does not seem to be a case of WP:RECENTISM as almost all of the articles on NSA relating to JP have spanned more than 2 decades and none are recent (it’s also possible to search news archive for older material but nothing has been offered up in that regard). Everything in the NSA article that does not pertain to JP could be rolled into the JP article in a single paragraph under a sub-heading for NSA. BTW, the company does not engage in franchising. They operate as an MLM, which is distinctly different. I appreciate you rolling back your objection to the merge proposal. I think that’s clearly the right way to go. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Please add a link to the article on Rosemary Stanton in the section "Antioxidant activity" where she is named as a critic of Juice Plus.  --211.30.17.74 (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosemary Stanton 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Juice Plus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cognis.com/framescout.html?%2Fnutritionandhealth%2Fhome.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509182300/http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/2000/4.pdf to http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/2000/4.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tgacrp.com.au/index.cfm?pageID=13&special=complaint_single&complaintID=980
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.berkeleywellness.com/html/ds/dsJuicePlus.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Juice Plus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928123613/http://www.berkeleywellness.com/subCorner/pdf/2000/0011.pdf to http://www.berkeleywellness.com/subCorner/pdf/2000/0011.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Juice Plus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to https://nsaag.nsaonline.com/images/petsbrochure.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213220901/http://sec.edgar-online.com/1996/07/30/00/0000950144-96-004677/Section2.asp to http://sec.edgar-online.com/1996/07/30/00/0000950144-96-004677/Section2.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081023181721/http://www.cspinet.org/nah/12_07/special.pdf to http://www.cspinet.org/nah/12_07/special.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.jacn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=15190044
*Added  tag to http://www.thedoctorstv.com/main/show_synopsis/178?section=synopsis
*Added  tag to http://www.griffinhealth.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=dPKs94HrupQ%3D&tabid=442&mid=1553
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313202614/http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/nel108v1 to http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/nel108v1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000409010009/http://www.childrensresearch.org/ to http://www.childrensresearch.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150101214641/http://www2.guidestar.org/ReportNonProfit.aspx?ein=62-1797852&Mode=NonGx&lid=746180&dl=True to http://www2.guidestar.org/ReportNonProfit.aspx?ein=62-1797852&Mode=NonGx&lid=746180&dl=True
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Starting a new section, as this is distinct from our discussion elsewhere. Regarding Juice Plus sales, they seem to be advertising franchises, but perhaps only for their overseas business? It's interesting that in order to start a franchise your application has to go through a ' Juice Plus+ contact' and you also have a 'Sponsor'; I wonder what renumeration they receive, and hence how close it is to corporate structures in the 80s and 90s? Perhaps I'm now too cynical! Anyway, as far as article content is concerned, is the issuing of franchises something that should be covered in the article? Klbrain (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Looks like it is specific to Great Britain, and what they are calling a "franchise" is nothing more than an MLM distributorship. Seems rather misleading. Don't see where there's anything relevant to mine for the article though. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not worth adding unless there was a published opinion that pitching as a "franchise" is more socially acceptable than advertising as an MLM distributorship. Klbrain (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franchising 

message: Please remove "Juice Plus+ is a branded line of dietary supplements containing concentrated fruit and vegetable juice extracts fortified with added vitamins and nutrients. It is produced by Natural Alternatives International of San Marcos, California, for National Safety Associates (NSA; Collierville, Tennessee). Introduced in 1993,[2] the supplements are distributed by NSA via multi-level marketing."
Replace with "Juice Plus+ is a branded line of whole foods containing 30 different fruits and vegetables grown in North America with no added sugars or preservatives with NSF certification. It is produced by The Juice Plus Company Global Office in Colliervielle, Tennessee (formerly NSA). Introduced in 1993 the products are sold through local distributors in over 20 different countries around the world. While defined as a multi-level marketing company Juice Plus does not ask any employee to hold product, take payment or be on the product themselves in order to sell it to others."
Please remove "Studies of Juice Plus' effects have generated conflicting and controversial results. Although Juice Plus claims its products' efficacy is backed by research, critics have argued that there is no scientific proof that Juice Plus offers significant health benefits and that deceptive claims are used in the product's marketing information. Many marketing claims made about Juice Plus products are false or misleading"
Replace with "Juice Plus is the most thoroughly researched brand name product in the world. Studies have proven Juice Plus does contain certain benefits, it is only on actually reading the studies located on their website from start to finish do you get the whole story behind the research done. Juice Plus is clinically proven to improve skin circulation (please link https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/330521), combat oxidative stress (please link https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/supplementation-with-a-juice-powder-concentrate-and-exercise-decrease-oxidation-and-inflammation-and-improve-the-microcirculation-in-obese-women-randomised-controlled-trial-data/451DF71104D867B79B1AB87E6326943A) and a host of other positive changes. All of these studies are available for public viewing on their website in entirety for skeptics and believers alike to peruse." TDoll (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Th edits you have suggested are blatant WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not a forum for product promotion and the likelihood of whitewashing the article as suggested is nil. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2018 

message: A lot of this information seems pretty outdated, considering the current website/company offerings. Is there updated advertising/research/etc? 2603:6080:3CF0:7B0:65D6:F7C4:D79:8442 (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated Information 

message: 1. Request to add the following content due to research mention of combined total studies from recent and previous years:
"About 41 leading hospitals and universities across the globe have conducted Juice Plus clinical studies.[<https://groove-rabbit.com/blogs/juice-plus/juice-plus-clinical-research>]"  
before the following paragraph in the research section:  
National Safety Associates, the owner of Juice Plus, claim that it is "the next best thing to eating fruits and vegetables", containing the "nutritional essence of 17 different fruits, vegetables, and grains" with key phytonutrients and that the product is absorbed by the body, reduces oxidative stress, promotes cardiovascular wellness, supports a healthy immune system, and helps protect DNA.[29] 
2. Request to add the following content due to clinical study that suggests an increase in omega-3 index for Juice Plus consumers: 
"Furthermore, studies have found that individuals taking Juice Plus along with a healthy diet can show an increase in red blood cells’ omega-3 index. [ <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6576275/>]"
after the following paragraph in the research section:
National Safety Associates, the owner of Juice Plus, claim that it is "the next best thing to eating fruits and vegetables", containing the "nutritional essence of 17 different fruits, vegetables, and grains" with key phytonutrients and that the product is absorbed by the body, reduces oxidative stress, promotes cardiovascular wellness, supports a healthy immune system, and helps protect DNA.[29] Jennyb23 (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Both of these sources are directly linked to the company that makes Juice Plus, and thus not reliable per WP:REPUTABLE GiovanniSidwell (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2023