Talk:Wolfberry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wolfberry was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: September 14, 2006

	Wolfberry is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wolfberry article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Archive 2 Tibetan Flora 3 GA Fail 4 Discussion of the Tibetan Goji Berry 5 Discussion of the "Himalayan Goji Berry" Issue 5.1 Impending death of the Tibetan goji berry story, February 9, 2007 6 Proposal to Reinstate Critical Discussion of Tibetan Goji Berry 7 Number of seeds 8 Wolfberry contamination 8.1 2004 8.2 2005 8.3 2006 8.4 2007 9 Derivation of Botanical Name, Lycium barbarum 10 Goji juice 11 Info Removed 12 Sales site 13 Use/preparation 14 Controversy of Wolfberry (Goji) Polysaccharides 14.1 Pseudo-science and fabrication for a marketing advantage: misinformation about goji polysaccharides as "master molecules" with unique spectral signatures 14.1.1 Removal of paragraph from Article section discussing marketing claims in Canada and the US 15 Nicotine content? 16 More vernacular names 17 Wolfberry poem 18 Species 19 Lycium root bark 20 Related Chinese species 21 Liu Yuxi's poem 22 Chinese website 23 Another Chinese website 24 Need translation 25 Historical information 26 Wolfberry in the most ancient Chinese records 27 Shi Jing mentions 28 News Site 29 Section in the Article to Address Fraud 30 Tibetan goji berry 31 Removal of JAMA source 32 From Wiki guidelines: "How to use article talk pages" 33 Section removal 34 Marketing claims under scrutiny in Canada and the United States 35 Earl Mindell's fraud and its promotion by FreeLife marketers 36 : While we all wait for the supreme decision to be taken 37 Working draft of revised section 38 Opinion, fact and POV 39 Tibetinfonet: The commercial legend of goji: selling a Chinese crop under the Tibetan flag 40 WorldwideWarning.net -- Exposing Goji Scams 41 telegraph.co.uk article 42 No more links template 43 Sales pitch? 44 Wolfberry Economics

[edit] Archive

To aid review of topics still "live", this page retains active discussion but older topics are now at an archives page accessible via the blue link below:

• /Wolfberry Discussion Archive 1

[edit] Tibetan Flora

I can assure readers that there are plenty of places in Tibet that are capable of growing just about anything. There are numerous areas in the far east of Tibet, now administratively part of China that are below 10,000 feet (3,048m) and are home to an amazing variety of plants. In the region of Kongpo (administratively part of the Tibetan Autonomous Region) the elevation varies from 3,280 feet (1000m) to snowy peaks over 20,000 feet (6,096m). In both Gansu and Qinghai provinces there are plenty of Tibetans living in villages below 10,000 feet. In fact Takster, the birth place of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, is below 10,000 feet and unlike the arid scenes portrayed in the movie “Kundun” (Sorsese 1997) is quite fertile. However I have yet to see the Wolfberry but I will enquire next time I visit. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.214.55 (talk • contribs)

Yes, please do! That's very interesting. While you're at it, can you also find out the Tibetan word for "wolfberry" (both plant and berry)? I don't think it's "goji." Badagnani 12:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good to have more accurate information on Tibet, with thanks. --70.66.195.47 16:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Fail

This is one of the more comprehensive plant-related articles on WP. However, here are a few things that need to be cleaned up before it is re-nominated:

1. The latin names of the species involved should be in bold the first time they are mentioned, unless they link to their own separate pages.
2. The introduction should give an overview of the article. In other words, mention its medicinal and culinary use. (Something like: "The Wolfberry has been shown to have antitussive properties, and has been used medicinally in China since the 10th century. etc.)
3. More Inline citations would be good, especially in the following sections: Nutrient Content, Functional Food and Beverage applications.
4. Some of your citations exist but need to be converted to inline citations.
5. I would make section 10 a subsection of section 9 (and maybe 8 of 7?)

The amount of info in this article is amazing (Nice work! now get it all cited...). I does seem somewhat onesided and a few sections don't seem to "fit", but I don't know if there is much that can be done about it. Keep it up and this will be a GA in no time. Maybe even on its way to a FA... --NoahElhardt 18:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I'm a bit worried about the article's tone - it's comprehensive and inforative, however, it reads like an advertisment in a nutritional supplements catalogue. I'm not sure. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I like the article overall, but the first couple of sections make several claims with no references. I'm removing from the good article candidates. /Blaxthos 07:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The article does have a slew of problems in spite of it having a lot of good information and covering the topic to an appropriate depth (imo, but others may consider it too much). The biggest problem is its non-neutral tone that Adam Cuerden cites. I'm watching it because I would like to work on its tone--or hope someone else does--when I have a little time. I think with additional balance and references it could be a GA. KP Botany 18:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of the Tibetan Goji Berry

Contributor Lumos3 has rewritten the section, apparently accepting information from the obscure Tanaduk Botanical Research Institute in Tibet, founded by Dr. Bradley Dobos. There is no published research I could find from this institute or from Dr. Dobos. Native Chinese regard the Tibetan berry as either a myth or with such rarity that only a few hundred tons in total from the whole Tibetan region could be produced annually. In contrast, 40,000 tons are cultivated and harvested from commercial wolfberry farms annually in the one Chinese province of Ningxia (does not include picking of wild fruit). With the adverse geographical factors and poverty of Tibetan agriculture, it is unlikely that any reasonable quality or production of Lycium barbarum L. or its cultivars exists in Tibet. We need to help dispel this unsubstantiated marketing message from association with the increasingly commercialized Chinese wolfberry. The original text should be restored.

--Paul144 19:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of the "Himalayan Goji Berry" Issue

As our obligation is to be as factual as possible, I want to raise this matter for discussion to get it right for the Article and so help the public who may come to Wikipedia for accurate information.

The current article segment is a new entry (Nov 28) that overwrote a researched, critical article on the unlikely existence of Tibetan goji berries in any significant quantities on the world market. At present, it reads

Tibet and Mongolia The name Tibetan Goji berry is in common use in the health food market for berries from this plant that are have been grown in the Himalaya region. The term was invented by Dr. Bradley Dobos of the The Tanaduk Botanical Research Institute to promote and market the Tibetan and Mongolian variety of the wolfberry in the west. [4]. This source produces only about 280 tons of berries per year.

The four italicized areas are questionable

1. "...Himalaya region". Other than from global marketing sources, what evidence or even deductive reasoning exists to support wolfberries growing in commercial quantities amid the Himalayas whose foothills are above 10,000' altitude? Western Tibet is a region of subsistence agriculture with unfavorable climate, moisture and irrigation, growing season, soil conditions, and cultivation practices.

2. "... term was invented by Dr. Bradley Dobos". So it says on the Tanaduk website, but who actually can believe that when the Mandarin for wolfberry, gouqi, has been pronounced similarly to "goji" over recorded time? See further explanation above under "Badagnani"

3. promote and market the "Tibetan and Mongolian variety". First, a Tibetan varietal of Lycium barbarum may exist but is it reasonable to think its commercial volume is sufficient to be marketed? What resources exist in western Tibet that would enable commercial-size farming, drying, and especially transporting out of Tibet? It was just a few months ago that China established a train route in and out of Tibet. Were berries transported before then via camel or yak? I think there is no objective proof that Tibetan wolfberry products are real -- just marketers' claims and a gullible public accept this.

Second, why mention Mongolia, an autonomous region thousands of km from Tibet? There are numerous regions and provinces in China that produce commercial quantities of wolfberries. Mongolia represents no special qualities as a source from research I have done. Please supply evidence.

4. "... source produces only 280 tons of berries per year." Another unverified quote from the Tanaduk website. As Dr. Dobos and the Tanaduk Institute have no publications in accessible literature, it is difficult to accept this source as valid. Email to Dr. Dobos produces an "undeliverable" message.

I feel we need to critique the Tibetan goji berry story as a myth developed by income-minded marketers of goji juice and dried berry products. It's a charming story that has proved commercially popular by an unquestioning public.

Debate and feedback welcomed! --Paul144 17:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Who overwrote the original section? They did that without discussion? That's no good; we should work together. Badagnani 23:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impending death of the Tibetan goji berry story, February 9, 2007

This news released today[1] will require marketers and retailers of wolfberries (goji berry products including juices) throughout the EU to state nutritional facts and provide no misleading claims on their labels, assuring the death of the Tibetan goji berry marketing story. --Paul144 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If they're going to be so stringent, why are they, in their preliminary press release, already using a mythical name for the berry (putting its actual name in a parenthetical reference)? If no official from this EU agency will actually travel to the purported growing areas in Xizang or wherever to verify that the berries are actually grown there, the resellers can probably continue to label the country of origin however they like, just as they do now. Badagnani 19:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Typical of previous assessments of the UK FSA -- which reports to the European Medicines Agency, so has sweeping effects on EU food safety and standardization (influencing the world the way the FDA does) -- there won't be any way to skirt around the label requirements. No matter what it's called or where it's from, the magnifying lens will be applied. FYI -- in the UK, the berry has been popularized as "goji" just by public discussion, see [2], search on goji, Regions (approx. per capita results) --Paul144 20:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to Reinstate Critical Discussion of Tibetan Goji Berry

No other input on this topic so I'm proposing we go back to the original text that had been resident for many months and addresses misinformation on the internet about the uniqueness and special qualities of the "Tibetan" and "Mongolian" goji berry. I emphasize on the internet because this is the only location where information exists about Tibetan or Mongolian goji berries, i.e., there is no scientific or government information.

As previously evaluated and borne out by absence from credible, objective sources, the Tibetan and/or Mongolian goji berries (in commercial volumes supplying all of the vendors one can see on the web) are myths created by marketers of these products mainly in the USA and UK. Although an encyclopedia like Wikipedia should not normally engage in debate on commercial products, there is a prevalance of attention given the goji berry at present so consumers may come to Wikipedia looking for facts.

Notice this web essay published this past week http://www.foodproductdesign.com/blogs/doug/?m=art&a=6ch5144019.html

We need to address this issue objectively and not be persuaded by sympathies for Tibet or charming stories, undocumented anywhere in objective literature, such as our current article's reference to the Tibetan Tanaduk Institute whose publications and lead scientist can be found nowhere in the world's scientific community.

Concerning the section entitled Tibet and Mongolia was this previous text:

The name Tibetan Goji berry is in common use in the health food market for berries from this plant that are claimed to have been grown in the Himalaya region. Tibet as a significant wolfberry source is almost certainly a myth, however, as it is an unlikely region for commercial supplies of berries of any kind.

The Tibetan Plateau is more than 10,000 ft altitude with poor soil and arid climate conditions unfavorable for fruit crops. Defined by the geography of Tibet, year-round cold temperatures and frost would inhibit bud development and prevent fruit formation. Minimal subsistence agriculture and poor crop transportation facilities exist in Tibet. Although limited fertile regions suitable for crop production do exist in Tibet's river valleys [[3]], there are no objective commercial, scientific, or government reports for commercial production of Lycium species ("goji" berries, wolfberries) from Tibet. ___________

Discussion needs to be added for Mongolia (why these two geographically-disparate regions are linked together presently to discuss wolfberry is another mystery), as the Wikipedia treatise on the Geography of Mongolia assures it is another impoverished desert region unlikely to be growing fresh fruit of any kind, quality or quantity.

Inviting discussion and debate on this topic valuable as a public service, I suggest a 3 day period from now for consideration and input after which I intend to reinstate the critical discussion above. --Paul144 20:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree. Lose the internet hype. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree This argument from theory cannot be said to be proof that Goji beries do not grow in the Himalaya. This source claims they do http://www.tanaduk.com/goji.html . The method of cultivation and locations are described here http://www.tanaduk.com/projects.html Lumos3 10:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Lumos, I suggest you put together your arguments about why you think the Tanaduk website is trustworthy, and we'll debate it out here.

It is acknowledged in the Article under Tibetan goji berry that berries may grow in some parts of Tibet, but evidence does not exist for commercial-volume production and scientific studies published under peer-review or independent contract lab assays. Please state your case. --Paul144 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why the Tanaduk website is trustworthy I have removed the paragraphs that falsely portray Tibet as a desert in which nothing grows. The Tanaduk website is clearly different from the bulk of commercial exploiters of the Goji berry name.

• It describes a local initiative to preserve the medicinal plants of the region.
• It states names of people and places who have contributed to this work.
• Most of the people named have academic qualifications
• They do not claim the Goji berry is in anyway different to the wolfberry except in the location in which it is grown
• They point out that the term Goji berry is a marketing term invented to enable maketing in the west
• The Tanaduk Botanical Research & Institute is referenced independently here by the Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations, as active in local agricultural development. Lumos3 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you seem knowledgeable about this subject; are you affiliated with the Tanaduk Institute? Is that based in Tibet because the website does not give a mailing address other than one in the United States. Regarding the paragraphs that were blanked (and which I have restored), Tibet was not presented as entirely inhospitable to agriculture: the Himalaya Mountain chain was. The second paragraph that was removed does state that agriculture is possible in some of the valleys of Tibet. A recent South China Morning Post article found that most Tibetans encountered by the journalist, who traveled throughout the country, did not recognize the berries, and all the traditional medicine shops in Lhasa were carrying only Ningxia/Chinese produced wolfberries. Further, the "Lycium tibetica" epithet seems to be fictional, as I do not see this species listed anywhere other than on marketing sites. I also do not see any evidence that the spelling "goji" (which obviously comes from the Chinese "gou qi") was used to refer to the wolfberry earlier than the early 21st century. Badagnani 18:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Why the Tanaduk Institute is Not Trustworthy

Lumos, thanks for bringing this debate to the discussion. Your list contains some activities of the Tanaduk that are credible and look productive. Let's hope good horticultural research is going on there and rigorous, accurate discoveries will eventually be published to share with the world.

As with any scientific organization claiming credibility, however, the Tanaduk must be held to a high standard. When inconsistencies, outright fabrications, misleading pseudo-science and conspicuous political motivations are present on the same website as credible information appears, the good is irreversibly contaminated by the bad.

Then, in my opinion, nothing from that source is trustworthy.

My evidence (not all of it)

• no publications or peer-reviewed research reports listed on the website
• no competitive grants shown
• no published scientific history of the founder, Dr. Bradley Dobos
• illogical insistence that Tibet and Mongolia are linked via the goji berry and somehow geographically related
• under “Lycium research”, the odd statement about natural abundance of the Tibetan Goji berry and its extremely rich nutrient content. There is no evidence at all of goji berries growing abundantly in Tibet (plentiful reasons why it could not) and Tanaduk has not reported assays of the rich nutrient content – how do they know this other than from available research on Chinese wolfberries?
• statements like this: "...wolfberry has undergone many environmental, climatic and toxic changes since it was taken from Tibet thousands of years ago and cultivated in China." Does that not seem strangely unscientific and emotional to you? What Tibetan records exist from thousands of years ago to document the goji berry as originally Tibetan? There are many published Chinese references to the wolfberry from some of the earliest botanical publications.
• "This ancient Lycium is aligned with a compassionate culture that needs help on all fronts. Tibetans have been, and continue to be brutalized by the Chinese to this very day. Tibetans are being imprisoned for saying they believe in Tibet and The Dalai Lama and are being executed by the Chinese government at this very time. Most recently last month, a Lama and his attendant were executed for showing support to Tibet. Chinese are now also claiming the Goji berry." Need we say more? The Tanaduk is a soapbox for elevating sympathies toward Tibetans. I (and likely most people in free countries) sympathize with the Tibetans for their past and current unpleasant political situation. Using the goji berry story as a lever for political emotions, fund raising and historical claims that might create a marketing advantage for the Tibetan Goji Berry Company is not a place for an encyclopedia.
• Monograph No. 3 under “lycium research”: everything stated on that page as a health benefit is a myth. Where reference is made to more preliminary research results, the studies were conducted on Chinese wolfberries and have been published mostly by Chinese scientists. By my extensive search, there is no reference anywhere in the medical literature to a Tibetan goji berry.
• "The people of Inner Mongolia who eat this berry live free of arthritis, cancer and diabetes with life expectancies well over one hundred years." In fact, Mongolia has one the poorest health and longevity records on the planet. The average life expectancy is 63 years [[4]]
• Like me, did you think the Tanaduk Institute is located in Tibet? It doesn't say so specifically anywhere on the website but the following appears at the bottom of the page on Tibetan Medicine -- The Tanaduk center is in the San Juan Islands located off the coast of Washington state.

I could go on for another page or two, but the point is made. The Tanaduk website self-destructs as a credible source. --Paul144 03:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

=I'd like to add here a link to an email from Richters, pretty well-known "herb specialists", exposing "Dr." Dobos and his Tanaduk Botanical Research about their Goji-juice. --Stefano 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of seeds

I just carefully counted the number of seeds in a large specimen of dried Chinese gouqi and again counted 51. The article says 10-30. Can some of you give this a try (it takes about 10 minutes, using the tip of a sharpened pencil to count them out) and see how many seeds your cultivars have? Badagnani 08:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys you are doing a GREAT JOB! Getting rid of all the marketing myths was not easy. Let's keep it this way.

Badagnani, I have tried to count the seeds on my wolfberry and they are never more than 15-20.

Concerning granny Li Qing Yuen, here is a passage from my "Guinness Book of Records", Ed 1972: "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity (...) The height of credulity was reached on 5 May 1933, when a news agency solemny filed a story from China with a Peking dateline that Li Chung Yun, the "oldest man on Earth", born in 1680, had just died aged 256 years" (sic).

Should we mention this at all in the article ? --Stefano 10:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting story. Does it mention wolfberry? The wolfberries I have are certified organic from Mountain Rose Herbs and are labeled "Lycii berries." The older batch I had were marked "Lycium barbarum" and the ones I have now are marked "Lycium chinense, aka Chinese wolfberry." I wonder why so many seeds compared to yours? Badagnani 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I chose 3 dried berries (generic Chinatown, different packaging so likely different geographic crop origins) by size - small, medium and large - and placed them in a bowl of water for 24 hr. Not only did the berries become larger by soaking up the water but the seeds seemed to be a brighter yellow and larger than in dried fruit. Interesting how the inside of a water-logged wolfberry reminds me of a cut-open tomato -- afterall, they are botanically related and a tomato is really a "berry"!

The small berry had 19 seeds, the medium 43 and the large 38.

When I checked on Wikipedia's tomato page, I found this -- how interesting in relation to the topic and etymology we are interested in studying

The word tomato derives from a word in the Nahuatl language, tomatl. The specific name, lycopersicum, means "wolf-peach" (compare the related species S. lycocarpum, whose scientific name means "wolf-fruit", common name "wolf-apple").

--Paul144 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfberry contamination

US FDA seizures of wolfberries:

[edit] 2004

• Wolfberries Dried

Sinotrans Ningxia Co.

64 Nanxun West Street

Ningxia, China

Cypermethrin

3/3/04

20A[]H99/

20B[][]99

FEI# 3004319653

FN5-0106435-9

SEA-DO

• Wolfberries, Dried

Tangshan Haida Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.

Donghuangyu Town, Quanxi County

Tangshan, China

Dicofol

7/28/04

20A[]H99/

20B[][]99

DZ1-3019690-7 FEI# 3004337184

LOS-DO

[edit] 2005

• Wolfberry powder

9/20/05

Ningxia Federal Intertrade Co., Ltd.

Building 34, Chuang Xin Garden

High Tech Zone

Yinchuan, Ningxia, China

Cypermethrin

20B[][]99/

54F[][]99

347452 SEA-DO

FEI# 3004802127

[edit] 2006

• Wolfberries, dried

Ningxia Commercial Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.

14 Qianjin Street, Yinchuan, Ningxia, China

1/11/2006

Triadimenol, fenvalerate, cypermethrin

20A[]H99/

20B[][]99

358991 SEA-DO FEI# 3002875234

• Ningxia Commercial Foreign Trade

Yinchuan Ningxia, China (Mainland)

SEA-DO EE6-1226192-9/1/1

20BGH99 DRIED WOLFBERRIES

25-JAN-2006

PESTICIDES

• Shaan Xi Bio-Herb

Xian , CN

SEA-DO 112-8530792-1/1/1

54FYT99 852570792764 WOLFBERRY POWDER

27-JAN-2006

PESTICIDES

• PRODUCT

Small dried red berries marketed as King of Medlar/Fructus Lychii/Dried Chinese Berry. Chinese text identifies product as Wolfberry Fruit (Fructus lycii). Packaged in 6 ways: a) 12 oz. City Aroma brand King of the Medlar b) 30 lb bulk King of the Medlar, Tiandu brand c) 10 oz Roxy briand Dried Chinese Berry/Medlar/Fructus lycheii d) 8 oz. Asian Taste Brand Dried Chinese Berries e) 13 oz. Sinbo brand Dried Chinese Berries f) 7 oz Asian Taste brand Dried Chinese Berries g) 5 lb Tiandu brand Dried Medlar Large h) 20 lb bulk King of Medlar, Recall # F-582-5.

CODE

No codes are applied to products.

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER

Recalling Firm: West Honest International, City of Industry, CA, by press release on May 4, 2005 and May 20 and May 26, 2005, and by letters on June 7, 2005.

Manufacturer: Fujian Fuzhou Tian Shan Foods Co., LTD, Fujian, China.

Firm initiated recall is ongoing.

REASON

Product contains undeclared sulfites.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE

1,961 cartons

DISTRIBUTION

CA, NY, and NJ

• Wolfberry powder

1/12/2006

Shaan Xi Bio-Herb

Rm. 406 Shenzhou

Xian, Shaanxi, China

Cypermethrin, pyridaben

20A[]H99/

20A[]T99/

20A[]Y99/

FEI# 3005475672

20B[][]99

359013 SEA-DO

Shaanxi Bio-Herb Health Technology CO., Ltd.

37 Lianhu Rd., Room 602

Xian, Shaanxi, China

FEI# 3004261316

[edit] 2007

• Dried Goji Berries (Wolfberries)

Xi An Techteam Engineering And Industry (Group) C0., Ltd

Triadimenol, Acetamiprid and Fenvalerate

20B[]H99

398593 SEA-DO

3/F Borough A, Block A

No.181 South Tai Bai Road

Xi An, China

FEI #: 3004663338

1/24/07

[edit] Derivation of Botanical Name, Lycium barbarum

I have never felt satisfied with how the botanical name was derived for wolfberry, Lycium barbarum. Most explanations (not by me, but others) seem deduced. I had researched this and found references to how Linnaeus assigned names. Lycium barbarum was first used apparently in 1753.

I learned that Linnaeus may have first considered the geographical origin of a plant to propose a new genus name. Because wolfberry was a native Asian plant, my sources speculated that Lycium came from the ancient region of Lydia (Greek, often confused as a Latin name) in western Asia (present day Turkey) and barbarum (Latin) means "foreign" which may have been apt for a region just being discovered by Europeans in the mid-18th century.

When I visited Wikipedia's tomato page, however, I found this reference: The word tomato derives from the Nahuatl language, tomatl. The specific name, lycopersicum, means "wolf-peach" (compare the related species S. lycocarpum, whose scientific name means "wolf-fruit", common name "wolf-apple").

Searching for "lyco" in Greek: lyco-, lyc-, lycos-, (Greek:wolf)[5]. It seems Lycium would safely be connected to the Greek, lyco-, so why would Linnaeus have linked this berry to wolves?

Chinese colleagues have told me the native legend is that wolves of mid-China were seen (hundreds of years ago) using the thick vines of wolfberry for cover, hunting small animals, and as a food source for themselves.

If this derivation is correct, it gives more depth to the common name "wolfberry" which is related via Solanaceae to tomato, the "wolfpeach". Have a look at the closeup picture of wolfberries in the article. Does each not look like a small plum tomato (Roma tomato or San Marzano tomato)? --Paul144 19:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have found a very well-done description of wolfberry here. We might use some of it to modify "our" botanical description of the plant.--Stefano 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Stefano. Please make a suggestion here at Discussion about what you'd like to see added.

I found a site indicating that the USDA has been cultivating wolfberry at their facility in Pullman, WA for over 40 years, now indicating it as a germplasm resource via seeds[6].

Using that site, I found that the British Natural History Museum has a Linnaean Plant Typification Project [7] where Lycium barbarum is documented as an original species catalogued and named by Linnaeus in 1753.

Interesting that Linnaeus described tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) first in his monograph (on page 185) and that Lycium barbarum came on page 192, so there was already a reference to give the name "wolfberry".

There is insufficient information, however, to educate us further about whether Linnaeus himself called Lycium barbarum "wolfberry" after he had already named tomato Solanum lycopersicum or "wolf-peach". --Paul144 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just been through over 100 old and new sources on Google Books and think it's fairly conclusive that "Lycium" has no relationship with the Greek word for "wolf," the still somewhat inexplicable English name "wolfberry" notwithstanding. It seems to come from the ancient country of Lycia, for which the important ancient extract/juice/medicine lycium (Greek: lykion) is named, though this bitter medicine was likely made from a different plant such as buckthorn or barberry.[8] The etymology of the English vernacular "wolfberry" needs to be examined, but the theory that Linnaeus chose Lycium to refer to wolves is not plausible from the available evidence. Badagnani 10:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goji juice

What is the evidence that commercially available "goji juice" is made from fresh, ripe berries rather than from reconstituted dried ones? If the former, the juice would have to be extracted in China, then shipped in liquid form (very expensive) or concentrated form (less expensive) to North America. Badagnani 20:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of no such evidence. Dried berries would be a poor candidate source for making juice as they contain 10% or less water but you may be right about "reconstituting" water content in dried berries by rehydrating them after shipment, then making juice.

Some manufacturers apparently are freezing crushed berries (as a puree) that would contain less water than juice or concentrate but still enough for making juice later after shipping. A 50% juice concentrate is available from some importers whereas others are spray- or heat-drying the juice concentrate into a powder for shipment. It reconstitutes into a juice again simply by mixing it with water. The result is actually fresh-tasting. --Paul144 02:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I presume that a number of the resellers are selling the same juice formula, purchased from the producing factory. We know that at least some manufacturers state on the label that their juice is made directly from ripe, fresh berries. However, it should be determined, and stated in the article, how exactly this juice is made. My guess is that the 90+% of the product comprises juices other fruits and berries, and the wolfberry component is in fact the wolfberry powder or other extract you mention. Badagnani 04:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info Removed

Removed material posted by 203.23.238.46. It was the only such post from this user...

We would ask that Earl Mindell's proof be backed up.

The following is taken from the Tibet Authentic website [9].

There are many Wolf berries and supposed Goji berries entering the market. Some brands even claim incorrectly to originate from Tibet. Only Tibet Authentic is the exclusive global business partner of the Tibetan Medical College (part owned by the Government of Tibet). Only Tibet Authentic goji berries are certified by the Tibetan Government to have originated in Tibet. Only Tibet Authentic goji berries can be traced conclusively to have originated in Tibet. The Tibetan Government and Tibetan Medical College will only certify Tibet Authentic Goji Berries as originating in Tibet and will not certify any other Goji or wolf berry on the market as Tibetan. Tibet Authentic company directors and management are regularly in Tibet to personally inspect the harvesting and packing of Tibet Authentic authentic Tibetan Goji berries. We challenge any competitor selling wolf berries or goji berries to provide evidence that their supposed Tibetan Goji berries originate from Tibet and that they have personally been to Tibet. Do not accept imitations. Tibet Authentic is committed to prevent the misleading assertions that products originate from Tibet when they do not. Tibet Authentic is now contacting Government enforcement agencies across the world to assist in the prevention of misleading advertising concerning Tibet. Tibet Authentic is working closely with the Tibetan Medical college and the Tibetan Government to prevent this practice from occurring across the world. Tibet Authentic Genuine Tibetan Goji Berries are pollution and chemical free and are unprecedented in benefits and taste. Tibet Authentic Goji Berries are wildly grown and 100% certified grown, harvested, picked and sun dried in the pristine and pure Himalayan mountains of Tibet.

I hope that clears up the fact that there are companies out there that are able to distribute Goji berries worldwide in large amounts. Certainly not the extent of the crops produced in China, but at least are free from industrial farming techniques and do not contain trace elements of toxic chemicals and heavy metals that industrially farmed Goji berries have been shown to contain. Tibet Authentic have been approached to specify the location of their berry crops so we can confirm their origin.

This information may or may not be correct, but it certainly doesn't read as encyclopedic in its current form. Please edit accordingly. SERSeanCrane 14:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is evidence by an independent reporter, Simon Parry of the South China Morning Post, that the story about Himalayan or Tibetan origin of goji berries marketed by Tibet Authentic is a fraud [10]. The berries sold by this company appear to come from Ningxia (north-central China, thousands of km from Tibet) or other undefined wolfberry-growing regions of China, and are packed in and shipped from Chengdu, Sichuan, China. --Paul144 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems you have done the editing for me. Like many others we are very offended that the entry for the Tobetan Goji Berries has not been updated. I for one would like the text edited under the Tibet section to state that there is, at least, contention over the Goji berry industry in Tibet, not that "there's no chance in hell that Goji berries exist in Tibet" attitude. Please change this text accordingly until we have some serious clarification. There obviously isn't enought proof either way yet; although it is stearing towards China as they seem to be best able to provide large crops.

Cheers Ben Miles. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.70.22.34 (talk • contribs)

It is agreed (and, in fact, stated in the article) that Lycium species do grow wild (and are cultivated to a very limited extent) in some regions of Tibet (speaking specifically of the current Xizang province of China, not Qinghai, which is not in the Himalaya Region). What is disputed is that the companies stating that the wolfberries they sell have been grown in the Himalaya Mountains or the Tibetan Plateau, by the dozens of tons, are selling berries that indeed were grown in this region. Mindell, for example, calls his FreeLife berries "Himalayan," yet his website states that the berries are not from the Himalaya Mountain Chain nor Tibet, but instead from Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Ningxia, which are all provinces of China located hundreds of miles from those mountains.[11] If the Australian Jacobson claims that all of his berries are grown in Himalayan regions of the Xizang province, it will be helpful to know the name of the county/town in this province where they are grown. The above comment seems to ignore the recent South China Morning Post article that found regular Tibetans all over the country to be unaware of commercial production of this berry within their region, and in fact many elderly Tibetans had never seen the berry before. This implies that this particular berry is not, and has not been, an important part of traditional Tibetan medicine, contrary to the numerous websites that claim it as an integral part of Tibetan culture. Of the several websites distributing traditional Tibetan herbal medicinal blends, none contains this berry, but instead uses other indigenous herbs. These facts need to be addressed in a serious manner. Further, the name "goji" is incorrect; I do not believe this is the actual term for the berries in the Tibetan language, as I have seen no proof of such. Let's have some actual facts behind these claims. Badagnani 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I stand corrected. It does look like a marketing ploy doesn't it? I actually just phoned Tibet Authentic, as I'm based in Melbourne, Asutralia, and they didn't seem very concerned about Wikipedia (pfft, one of the most searched resource sites on planet, why should we care? pfft!) and didn't really want to discuss the issue with me, even though I actually enjoy their product. The fact that they tout the Tibet Authentic seal, but don't have any formal certifitation by the BFA, or other health and farming governing body says to me that they are from the Ningxia province. I hope there aren't any damn pesticides in them as that's one of the main things I try to avoid by eating certified organic foods! <rolls eyes>

Cheers guys. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.70.22.34 (talk • contribs)

Good work. It is predictable, however, that you'd get few or no specifics from that company. Regarding pesticides and other synthetic chemicals on the berries, it does seem, from the U.S. government's seizures of wolfberries from China, that pesticides are indeed conventionally used in the growing of these berries in order to ensure an attractive (and non-eaten by birds) crop. Photos here appear to show growing of wolfberries, presumably in the summer months, in an area of Tibet and Jacobson apparently has made deals with various Tibetans, but it is still not clear that any percentage of his berries (let alone all of them) are grown in Xizang (Tibet). Birds do also eat wolfberries in Tibet, as the Parry article states, so likely pesticides would be used in growing them there as well, sorry to say. Badagnani 00:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My mother-in-law owns a health food store on Phillip Island in Victoria, AUS, and has several brands of Goji berries in her store; Tibet "Authentic" included. The other brand is from a company called Power Super Foods. Their Goji berries are certified organic so I think I would much rather buy this brand from now on. If you guys have heard anything, good or bad, about this company and their Goji product, please let me know. I think the berries are excellent and have got a real buzz from the tea before now - but I just hope that wasn't from my body reacting to potential pesticides rather than from the beneficial effects.

[edit] Sales site

Isn't this a commercial site? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfberry&curid=1147329&diff=104193203&oldid=104081986 Badagnani 23:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use/preparation

The article now has this text regarding wolfberries' use/preparation: "Wolfberries are usually used directly, and do not need to be rehydrated prior to use." This sentence, however, is poorly worded; in Chinese (and Korean, Japanese) culture, the dried berries are usually steeped in hot water, often with other herbs, to produce herbal teas, or boiled with meat and other herbs to produce a medicinal soup. The Chinese I've spoken to maintain that in Chinese culture they are not ever eaten "as is" from hand to mouth without cooking first, as some Western marketers recommend. I recommend changing the text to reflect this. Badagnani 19:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's both a traditional and now conventional matter about how the berries are consumed, as western cultures are perhaps more fond of moistened dehydrated fruit like raisins and prunes. It's possible that berries and all herbs such as leaves for tea were cooked before consumption in Old Asian practices.

Personally, I prefer the dried berries as they are, even if needing some additional moisture which can be supplied simply by exposing the berries to the open-air kitchen environment for a few hours, placing a small piece of moistened paper towel in the bag, or adding moist fruit like raisins or craisins to the sealed bag. The berries tend to plump up easily and are more enjoyable to chew as a snack this way. --Paul144 21:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the Chinese grocery store, you'll see a wide variety of preserved fruits (most popular are preserved mei and li, both types of plums). Those are usually marinated with salt, sugar, and often also licorice and red chili, and eaten as a snack. The question is, do locals where wolfberries grow snack on them as fresh berries? The Chinese do have some fruits that they eat fresh, without peeling, such as yangmei. Badagnani 21:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you learned why Chinese do not eat dried wolfberries raw? Is it a matter of taste, tradition, precaution, or what? --Paul144 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the question. I'm not sure even most of them know. They just say, "Oh, we never do that." As far as medicinal products, they do say, however, that proper "cooking" brings out the active components of medicines, which they do apparently consider wolfberry primarily to be --(a medicine rather than a snack). The above discussion of fat bringing out the fat-soluble zeaxanthin compounds would seem to go along well with the tradition of cooking the berries in meat-based soups. Some fruits, like longan are cooked for medicinal purposes from dried fruits, although the fresh fruits can be found canned and fresh when in season, in southern regions. I'll keep asking around. Badagnani 23:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy of Wolfberry (Goji) Polysaccharides

I'd like to start a debate on this topic as it often comes into focus about wolfberries in 3 significant ways that should be covered in the article:

1.dried berries are sometimes described as having a significant percentage of polysaccharides, around 30% of dry weight, a relatively large component with potential food value;

2.about 25% of all scientific publications on wolfberries have focused on polysaccharide properties, the largest category of research;

3.marketers of goji juice products claim polysaccharides have specific, receptor-mediated effects on cells, even indicating they have special defensive roles in the plant, characteristic spectral peaks that reveal definition of one berry's geographic origin from another, cellular receptors in mammals, and “master” control properties over other bioactive chemicals like hormones and neurotransmitters. This is visibly the most important marketed message for the uniqueness of wolfberries supposedly used to make Himalyan Goji Juice[12].

During the recently-aired investigative interview by CBC TV News with Earl Mindell -- a fascinating controversy in itself -- Mindell mentioned what he believes are special properties of goji berry polysaccharides[13].

What are polysaccharides? They're long-chain units of sugar molecules called starch or fiber that are used by plants in two ways – either for structural scaffolds (e.g., cellulose – the main structural component of plants -- is a polysaccharide) or for stored energy supplied by splitting off smaller sugar molecules for energy use as the plant grows. Photosynthesis uses sunlight, water and carbon dioxide to synthesize a plant's starch components such as glucose which chains into polysaccharides for fuel storage and structure.

When humans consume polysaccharide-rich foods, the nutritional benefit occurs as dietary fiber metabolized when the polysaccharides are fermented by the billions of bacteria in the large intestine – the Wikipedia article on dietary fiber describes these physiological actions and benefits of metabolizing fiber sources via fermentation occurring in the colon.

From other plants that have been well-researched for their polysaccharide content, physiological properties and potential health benefits are Ganoderma lucidum, -- mushrooms also called Reishi or Lingzhi, perhaps one of the most thoroughly-studied and effective herbs in Asian traditional medicine.

What is the science on wolfberry polysaccharides and what more can be said in the article?

1.Contract assays by different laboratories report consistently high polysaccharide content of 20-31% within the berries themselves

2.the scientific properties of wolfberry polysaccharides have been described only in laboratory research – 25 papers since 1998 addressing some of the same properties as for Lingzhi mushrooms which include immune-stimulation and activity against tumors in vitro, although none of these effects has been confirmed in humans by modern western science.

3.The concept that polysaccharides are “master molecules” is obscure to identify in origin – it is not even apparent why anyone would propose such a mechanism of action. The products of polysaccharide metabolism by bacterial fermentation -- short-chain fatty acids -- provide potential health benefits[[14]][15][16]

Among most important of these are short-chain fatty acids such as butyric and acetic acids. Without any scientific evidence that polysaccharides have active physiological roles involving their own receptors as proposed by Earl Mindell and Goji Juice marketers, it may be concluded that this is another area of misrepresentation commonly used by these people to mystify and glorify the goji story without use of published science.

Simply stated, polysaccharides are a source of dietary fiber which, upon fermentation in the colon, yields products with health properties. There is no literature to indicate that polysaccharides are in control of other molecules or cellular functions as claimed by Earl Mindell. Available science indicates polysaccharides are passive, not active, molecules both to plants and to humans who consume them within plant foods, gaining nutritional benefits as from other sources of dietary fiber. --Paul144 21:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good. Back to biochemistry, I always wanted to understand more about the magic "polysaccharides" allegedly present in Lycium Barbarum. Thanks to Paul for inviting us to read more...and I tell you immediately that - with my deepest surprise - Mindell seems to be correct! My point of view - a bit long but I got excited - is the following:

I had a look to the last 4 paper in pubmed related to wolfberry, all of which are actualy dealing with its "polysaccharides". This one goes even further and analyses their structure.

The bottomline of those pubblications is that such "polysaccharides" seem to be bioactive (mainly showing some kind of antioxidant activity) in themselves. Importantly, they have nothing to do with "conventional" polysaccharides (the glucose polymers like cellulose or starch that Paul mentioned above). They have instead a complex structure - to cite again the latest article - "composed of 6 kinds of monosaccharides (Ara, Rha, Xyl, Man, Gal and Glc), galacturonic acid and 18 kinds of amino acids. CONCLUSION: LBP [lycium barbarum polysaccharide] is a kind of complex polysaccharides consisting of acidic heteropolysaccharides and polypeptide or protein, and LBP has Glycan-O-Ser glycopeptide structures".

Here is another article on Lycium barbarum glycopeptides

To me - a modest peptide chemist - this meant BOOM! "They are glycopeptides". It all make sense now. For unknown reasons, glycopeptides present in wolfberry have always been - wrongly - called "polysaccharides" and directly sold this way by Mindell & Co to "the goji customers".

Paul, I can confirm that (glyco)peptides do have: "specific, receptor-mediated effects on cells, even indicating they have special defensive roles in the plant [...] cellular receptors in mammals, and “master” control properties over other bioactive chemicals like hormones and neurotransmitters". Well, I admit I have never heard of any antioxidant glycopeptide, as those reportedly present in wolfberry, but I cannot exclude that they exist (and I'm too lazy to look in pubmed again).

To give you another example, glycopeptides are ultimately responsible for our blood groups (the A,B,AB and O nomenclature simply refers to groups of individuals having different glycopeptide chains at the blood cells surface). Just google for "glycopeptide" to enjoy a sudden dive into complex carbohydrates, peptides, antibiotics and immune sistem). Immune sistem ? Goji ? Does this ring a bell ?

We can now discuss that the way they are sold for their "characteristic spectral peaks" is pretty ridiculous...but that's another story. --Stefano 21:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Stefano, thanks for adding to the analysis and your new section on glycopolysaccharides for the article. This is distant from my expertise, so I defer to you. I did call a senior scientist who works with fiber and was cautioned again about making comparisons about how polysaccharides that show "bioactivity" in vitro are almost certainly different after digestion and fermentation in vivo (which is not scientifically possible to measure at the level of the living colon).

I read the abstract of the new publication on wolfberry polysaccharides you referenced above, and ask the same question: despite isolation of a polysaccharide-protein complex from a fruit sample in the laboratory, what is the fate of that complex during a meal of wolfberries after exposure to acids and enzymes of the stomach and small intestine, i.e, after digestion? My bet is that the protein is cleaved away from the polysaccharide shortly after entry of the fruit (or juice) to the stomach acid environment. Then, the polysaccharide molecule -- being a resistant starch -- proceeds on its way through the digestive tract, unaltered, until it is fermented as a prebiotic dietary fiber by colonic bacteria. --Paul144 17:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree with you Paul. It all depends on how resistant their chemical bonds are to our digestive enzymes both in the stomach and in the intestine. We can happily digest starch to glucose by ourselves, while we lack the enzymes to break cellulose or fructans, which are therefore considered "fibres" as they go unaltered all the way down to feed our intestinal host bacteria. As you correctly pointed out, what we learn from the articles I cited is merely that the components of "polysaccharides or whatever it is that has an antioxidant properties" in wolberry are some aminoacids and a bunch of carbohydrates. Not enough information to say anything conclusive. I tend to agree with you that most probably the O-glycan bond would be broken already in the mouth even before arriving to the stomach...and probably all the rest will fall apart in the stomach or possibly be fermented to SCFA as you suggested.

I propose we mention anyway in the article that wolfberries do contain these "polysaccharides" or "glycopeptides" or whatever they are, as demonstrated by several research groups, and also because they are increasingly mentioned in the commercial sites. What we need to do is to clearly indicate to those who come here to know more about "their goji" that the fact that "polysaccharides with characteristic spectral peaks" are present in wolfberry before they eat them does not mean much, until these are isolated, structurally characterised, and their putative (antioxidant, anticancer...antimindell) activity demonstrated. --Stefano 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not create a WP article about glycopeptide, to explain what these compounds are? Badagnani 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WOW signor Badagnani...I am afraid that this is going to be rather boring and to take a looong time... :o)

WOW signor Badagnani...I am afraid that this is going to be rather boring and to take a looong time... :o)--Stefano 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• WOW signor Badagnani...I am afraid that this is going to be rather boring and to take a looong time... I am not even able to correctly write this single sentence...:o)--Stefano 23:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course the article can start out short, then get longer over time. And as a chemist working in this field, who better than you to elucidate our readers about this subject?  :) Badagnani 23:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ciao signor Badagnani...I am afraid that this is going to be rather boring and to take a looong time... I am not even able to correctly write this single sentence I had to write it 5 times before it became readible. Time to go to sleep for me! :o)--Stefano 23:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo-science and fabrication for a marketing advantage: misinformation about goji polysaccharides as "master molecules" with unique spectral signatures

A disservice to consumers occurs when a credentialed spokesperson makes glorified statements about health values of a natural product when no scientific fact exists to support those claims. Such has occurred in the case of Earl Mindell as the authority figure speaking on behalf of a goji juice manufacturer. In his book called Goji: The Himalayan Health Secret (ed. 1, 2003), Mindell enters two general areas where trained, credible scientists do not go:

1) from ancient myths, legends and research too preliminary to allow any conclusions about health benefits, Mindell exaggerates the effects regular consumption of goji juice may have on its users, claiming more than two dozen health benefits (book chapter 2). Among these are longer life, lowered blood cholesterol, weight loss and cancer prevention – that is, major effects on major diseases. No peer-reviewed, published science exists to support these effects.

2) from Chinese abstracts and no research of his own, Mindell extrapolates preliminary science by others into an illogical theory, but publishes this in promotional literature that marketers of the juice use religiously to impress gullible consumers.

He does so by saying that eating wolfberries or drinking the juice yields four goji polysaccharides – these are long-chain sugar units digested into smaller carbohydrates or fermented as fiber (above discussion) that take on special control properties after ingestion. Interpreting Mindell's book, one would assume the new molecule becomes bioactive by forming protein-carbohydrate complexes called proteoglycans that have specific receptor-mediated actions. There is no published science at all to demonstrate this for goji berry polysaccharides.

Mindell further proposes these goji berry polysaccharide glycoconjugates are “in balance” in the goji juice to control and direct communications between cells, another fabrication without scientific evidence.

Lastly, Mindell makes a simple invalid inference that if a high spectral signal is found in certain goji berries, then this signal must be associated with the four master polysaccharides he proposes[17].

There is no published science to support a relationship between spectral signal and specific polysaccharides. Publications on Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, FTIR, indicate it can be used to “fingerprint” goji or other plant species from different cultivation regions, but this does not rely on polysaccharides specifically, nor is it widely accepted scientifically or in common practice within the berry industry.

There are only three preliminary publications (two by the same Beijing research group; from original Chinese, so only English abstracts are available) describing use of this method on wolfberries and none since 2004, indicating a relatively dormant research topic[18] [19] [20] .

People consulting Wikipedia come here possibly supplanted with misinformation about goji] berries as provided by Mindell's writing and public presentations. It is our obligation to expose fraud where it exists, discuss science here as thoroughly as possible, then insert the best facts into the Article. --Paul144 20:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Following Paul advice I read the goji book chapter 8 (http://www.gojibook.com/pdf/SC08.pdf) and almost suffocated laughing.

Here is the (simply shameless) relevant part of “the book”: ***Now armed with the FT-IR spectral signature technique, goji scientists began to collect samples of Lycium species from every well known growing region throughout Asia: Ningxia, Xinjiang, Gansu, Tianjin Shi, Qinghai, Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Sichuan andTibet. As they fed the berries into the spectrometer, an interesting pattern began to emerge. There seemed to be a great similarity between the spectral signatures of goji berries from each of these regions. That was to be expected, as all goji varieties have a close family resemblance. They are all of the Lyciumgenus. There were several peaks, however, that varied greatly in height for different samples of berries. Spectral signature graphs of berries from Xinjiang and Ningxia tended to exhibit the highest peaks, with the rest of the samples showing peaks that were lower to varying degrees. To the researchers, the discovery of these peaks indicated that there might be some unknown active compounds present in the goji berry, and that they were found in the famous berries of Ningxia and Xinjiang at higher levels than in the less renowned berries. […] It had become obvious that the best goji berries were those with the highest peaks on their spectral signature graphs. Now it was time to find out what phytochemicals were responsible for those peaks. From information gleaned from the spectral signatures, scientists were able to determine the chemical nature of the unnamed active compounds in the goji berry. They did not know their exact structure, but they knew that they would be looking for bioactive polysaccharides, and that made them very excited. Until recent years, scientists had lumped all polysaccharides together with other carbohydrates such as starches and sugars. They had considered them to be of value only as a source of energy. But that had all changed when it was discovered that certain types of polysaccharides could cause profound and beneficial changes in the human body. What are Bioactive Polysaccharides? Bioactive polysaccharides, also called proteoglycans, are a family of complex carbohydrates that are bound to proteins. They are produced by some plants as an extremely effective defense mechanism against attack by viruses, bacteria, fungi, soil-borne parasites, cell mutations, toxic pollutants and environmental free radicals. ***

A couple of comments: - IR is a very rough technique used since ever (the “FT” part is just a mathematical elaboration of the spectra obtained) to get a very first idea on the structure of molecules you are faced with on the basis of the chemical bond they contain. Nowadays it is mainly applied for very specific studies on specific bonds. Of course it may be used to “fingerprint” Goji “polysaccharides” (you get an infrared spectra resulting from hundreds of overlapping absorptions of different bonds of a mixture of different substances at different concentrations and compare this mess with another mess coming from somewhere else and notice that they are different. WOW! “A spectral signature!” I am going to order the chinese articles about FTIR to have a look at these spectra). There are so many more useful analytical techniques (NMR, Mass spectroscopy) which are now used routinely to get adequate information and are carried out after an at least partial purification of the substances you are examining (rather than “feeding the berries to the spectrophotometer”). Part of these procedures were actually used in the article I cited before to characterize wolfberry glycopeptides. So, there is some hope.

- Proteoglycans are a very specific group of glycoproteins having a number of characteristic carbohydrate chains, which by the way DO NOT seem to be present in goji according to the only available article where their structure was elucidated (“LBP was composed of 6 kinds of monosaccharides (Ara, Rha, Xyl, Man, Gal and Glc and galacturonic acid”). Here is an article which perhaps makes it clearer the structure of these glycoconjugates.

Until further reliable structural studies are done, probably “glycoconjugate” is a vague enough term to be used in the article to define wolfberry “polysaccharides”.

Guys, I had no idea people could go so far with misinformation. I do feel sorry for those reading this “book” and actually believing it. My question for you as wiki experts is: is it an article in wikipedia the right place to expose Dr Mindell as a charlatan ? --Stefano 22:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of paragraph from Article section discussing marketing claims in Canada and the US

The section below in italics was posted on 20 Feb by unregistered user 68.41.176.63. It was inserted beneath the first paragraph in the section discussing Marketing claims under scrutiny in Canada and the United States, addressing statements made by Earl Mindell in the CBC TV News interview[21].

It must be noted that in the broadcast, the interviewer attempted to assert the Himalayan Goji Berry properties to the Himalayan Goji Juice. The actual Goji Berry properties and the Himalayan Goji Juice are different for a specific reason in isolating the four unique polysaccharides attributed to the Himalayan Goji Berry in juice form. Certain attributes of the berry have been intentionally removed such as proteins. The Himalayan Goji Juice produced by the U.S. Company states on its label that a 1 liter bottle contains reconstituted Himalayan goji juice from whole Lycium barbarum fruit, grape juice concentrate, pear juice concentrate, apple juice concentrate, pear pruee and natural flavor, with sodium benzoate and potassium sorbated added to maintain freshness. The other additive ingredients are used for flavor and preservation.

This is marketing information not appropriate for the Article. As stated above in this part of the Discussion, the science concerning goji polysaccharides is only at the laboratory stage, giving no confirmable evidence or significance to what Mindell states are "unique" properties (a fraud claimed by him and used by marketers of Tibetan goji berries and Himalayan goji juice as unique health properties).

The only confirmed way the polysaccharides are unique is that their molecular weights (therefore, their molecular sizes, diameters and linkage structures) are different[22][23][24]. The diversity of physical structure of polysaccharides is evident in the Wikipedia article on them, defining a structural and energy source of plant foods that would be broken down into smaller units within the acid and enzyme environment of the stomach, dismissing any in vivo physiological "uniqueness" observed in the laboratory petrie dish or test tube.

Furthermore, there are not just 4 but 8 total polysaccharides identified to date by Chinese extraction and physicochemical studies, each having a distinct molecular weight (and therefore different physical characteristics). --Paul144 15:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicotine content?

Does wolfberry contain nicotine? Eggplant and other solanum vegetables, which are related to wolfberry, do; see, for example, http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/drugs.html -- a study on breastfeeding and the use of alcohol, caffeine, nicotine and marijuana -- which says, "avoid vegetables containing considerable amounts of nicotine - eggplant, green and pureed tomatoes and cauliflower. Ten grams of eggplant provides the same amount of nicotine obtained in three hours in a room with minimal tobacco smoke (Laurence 1985)." (For the context of this sentence, realize that 10g is very small -- a typical eggplant portion is more like 100g.) This link is very interesting, and I recommend it. Eggplant apparently contains copious amounts of nicotine; tobacco is by far not the only plant to do so. Badagnani 21:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of nicotine in wolfberries according to medical literature searchable via PubMed (US National Library of Medicine). An interesting study of other Solanaceae species -- including tomato, potato, chili pepper and tobacco (all Solanaceae cousins of wolfberry) -- showed each had nicotine content with decreasing levels progressively during ripening. The amounts, however, were very small on the order of 0.000004 grams per kg of fresh weight[25] Because wolfberries would be eaten only when ripe -- and the dried fruits we eat are from ripened berries -- it could be assumed nicotine content would be immeasurably low when ripened berries are good for eating. --Paul144 02:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--but the study you found doesn't include eggplant? Badagnani 02:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More vernacular names

"Squawberry" and "Desert Thorn" seem to be more vernacular names for Lycium species, in this case Lycium andersonii. Badagnani 08:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In the Introduction, the article states that one of wolfberry's names is "medlar" which I believe is inaccurate. Medlar is described on Wikipedia as genus Mespilus from plant family, Rosaceae, a disparate species from Lycium barbarum. The berries from the two plants bear little resemblance.

From GRIN, the USDA germplasm resource[26], one can search for synonyms of a given plant. Medlar does not retrieve any relationship to Lycium barbarum.

This questioning came up after I discovered use of the term medlar from a China Daily post last week about the 2007 wolfberry harvest in Ningxia[27] -- a report that stimulates the question, "why would Chinese sources be using medlar as a synonym for wolfberry?--Paul144 13:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The references below from GRIN indicate the name "medlar" derived probably as a mistake of translation between Chinese-English. Does anyone know the original source for using Medlar as a common name for Lycium barbarum? Medlar is not listed as a common name for Lycium in the USDA-GRIN database, but is listed as a common name for the species below.

GRIN for Lycium barbarum L.[28]

Use GRIN search[29] to enter the query: common name = medlar

1. Crataegus azarolus L. (Mediterranean-medlar)
2. Eriobotrya japonica (Thunb.) Lindl. (Japanese-medlar)
3. Mespilus germanica L. (medlar)
4. Mimusops elengi L. (medlar)
5. Vangueria infausta Burch. (medlar)

--Paul144 18:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfberry poem

We need to get a source for the purported poem about wolfberries by Liu Yuxi. None of the websites that cite the poem state in which book it may be found. Badagnani 06:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See below for poem and analysis. Badagnani 07:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Species

Lycium halimifolium Miller should be discussed in the article--what is it? Some websites say it's essentially the same as L. barbarum. Also, what are the specific differences between L. chinense and L. barbarum? I'm not sure the article is clear about that either. Badagnani 19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lycium root bark

Lycium root bark (dìgǔpí; 地骨皮) should be given serious treatment, as the article is not just about berries. (Wouldn't it be funny if this part of the plant were to have been the one that caught on in the West?) Badagnani 19:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related Chinese species

Should these species be added? One particularly interesting one is the "black-fruited wolfberry," which is said to grow in Tibet and other dry, cold places with saline soils. Badagnani 22:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liu Yuxi's poem

The text of Liu Yuxi's Tang Dynasty-era poem, in 7-syllable phrases--which apparently references wolfberries--is as follows. It seems that the actual name wolfberry isn't in the poem itself but in the introduction or title. The poem mentions "deep/blood red berries" (殷红子), however.

卷360_8 「楚州开元寺北院枸杞临井繁茂可观群贤赋诗因以继和」刘禹锡

僧房药树依寒井，井有香泉树有灵。翠黛叶生笼石甃

殷红子熟照铜瓶。枝繁本是仙人杖，根老新成瑞犬形。

上品功能甘露味，还知一勺可延龄。

from http://www.lingshidao.com/gushi/liuyuxi.htm (seems to be Liu's complete poems, in simplified characters). Badagnani 04:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Two interesting things in this poem: the character 灵 is the same as the first syllable in Lingzhou, an ancient city in Ningxia, and the line 根老新成瑞犬形 seems to imply that the plant's roots look like a dog. It's the hardest part of the poem to figure out. Badagnani 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The 灵[靈] probably has nothing to do with Lingzhou, it just means that the tree is blessed or "spirit"ed in some way. As for 根老新成瑞犬形, yes it is hard to translate, so my best guess is, "the root is old / matured / ripe, and has newly become the shape of an auspicious dog." -- ran (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese website

This Chinese website contains an etymology explaining why the plant is called 枸杞. Badagnani 04:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Chinese website

This chinese website has information about the specific times of the year of the harvest, and also explains why it's called "wolfberry" (because the root, when dug up, is in the shape of a dog). Is that verifiable? Badagnani 05:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need translation

Need translation of this text about the "Immortals Village" supposedly recognized by an ancient king, in Penglai County, where every household has a wolfberry plant: 相传蓬莱县南丘村 Badagnani 05:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

蓬莱县 = Penglai County. Is this in Shandong? Badagnani 06:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Penglai City -- home to the Eight Immortals? Badagnani 06:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, old Penglai County = current Penglai City. -- ran (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical information

Historical information here, to evaluate for inclusion. Badagnani 08:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfberry in the most ancient Chinese records

The thesis of this Chinese article is that the evidence shows that wolfberries were described in Shang times, and even well before, used primarily to produce fermented alcoholic beverages (i.e. wines). Needs to be evaluated (keeping in mind that it could be considered speculative propaganda from a wolfberry producing region). Badagnani 08:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shi Jing mentions

The use of the character 杞 in the Shi Jing may refer to the wolfberry, or maybe to something else: the willow tree, or the "medlar" fruit (possibly Crataegus, the Chinese Hawthorn). 杞 appears in poems 76, 162, 169, 172, 174, 204, and 205. The modern name 枸杞 is never used in the Shi Jing, so it isn't clear exactly what plant is being referred to in each case. Badagnani 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out the references by cutting and pasting 杞 into a CONTROL-F search through this website, which contains the full text of the Shi Jing. Badagnani 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] News Site

There are some interesting articles relating to Goji at this site: http://www.freelifegojinews.com/ SERSeanCrane 05:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section in the Article to Address Fraud

From above, News Site -- this is information that should be given a separate section in the Article.

People using Google to search for "wolfberry" or "goji" will find Wikipedia near the top of retrieved searches, and will come to the Article for facts.

I suggest we build an explanation of fraud that is in the goji juice and dried berry industries (e.g., Authentic Tibetan Goji Berries), together, arguably, 90%+ of all wolfberry products sold today in the world outside of China.

Here's a possible title and list of topics -- let's flesh this out here first to get it right -- input invited by anyone

Title: Fraud Exposed in Marketing of Himalayan Goji Juice and Tibetan Goji Berries

Topics pertaining to both:

• geographic origin
• misleading nutrient composition and antioxidant strength
• misleading and/or false health claims
• specifically fabricated science, a) anti-cancer effects, b) polysaccharides as "master molecules", c) spectral signature of goji berries
• requirements the FDA would make to qualify use as a "drug" (examples of mangosteen (Xango) and noni juice products -- see [30][31]) --Paul144 18:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems well reasoned but might merit its own separate article (which could be linked under a heading similar to, though not necessarily as strongly worded as the one you propose above). Don't forget also the claim that the berries are grown without the use of any synthetic chemicals whatsoever. Badagnani 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice, however, if we could work together on some of the issues addressed above before starting into new ones. For example, the other Chinese Lycium species should be evaluated, discussion of the root in TCM, interrogation of the early Chinese sources, etc. Badagnani 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tibetan goji berry

This section diverges from the topic and uses unencyclopedic language. I have trimmed it down and added a citation to support the assertions. Lumos3 10:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Claims of marketers that their berries are grown in Tibet (i.e. Xizang) are not supported by facts and recent articles have shown that such berries are not grown in commercial volumes there, and are in fact largely unknown to the population there. Badagnani 10:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That’s what the section now says. Lengthy (and unsourced) descriptions of the barrenness of the Tibetan plateau and backwardness of its agriculture are unnecessary and are pushing a POV argument. They are also probably huge generalisations and a disservice to the Tibetan people. Lumos3 10:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Similarly for the discussion above concerning the Tanaduk Institute, the burden of proof for whether goji berries grow in Tibet in quantities sufficient to supply an export market lies with those making the claim. Lumos, provide your evidence with objective references. --Paul144 15:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The South China Morning post article states that wild berries grow in the region. This is now cited in the article as Note 4 . - "Fruitless Search for the Tibetan Goji Berry" by Simon Parry, from South China Morning Post, December 2, 2006 (PDF file). My point is that trying to argue here that it is impossible to grow Wolfberries anywhere in the vast region of Tibet is not what Wikipedia is for. Stick to citing sources. There is no evidence of an export trade. That statement will do unless evidence does emerge. Also please don't cite wikipedia itself as support for an assertion, this is bad practise. Lumos3 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No reasonable person would argue that no berry plants grow in Tibet. We understand from other sources cited in the Article's News Stories[32] that small plantations are growing near Lhasa and there are rare finds of isolated goji berry vines growing wild in Tibet, as reported in Simon Parry's article. The emphasis is on commercial production of berries from Tibet, i.e., thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of tons annually, as many in the public are led to believe by the countless vendors of Tibetan Goji Berries or Himalayan Goji Juice[33].

I disagree with you about using Wikipedia as a reference. What are we doing this for if not to build the best fact base available? If one uses Wikipedia thoroughly, including cross-checks on other internal links and references provided, the information quality is the highest one can find for many topics. If you have more complete references, please use them. --Paul144 20:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of JAMA source

I don't think opinions expressed at a trade show should trump a JAMA source. We've all seen how the tobacco industry twisted facts and I don't think the natural foods industry, or any other industry for that matter, is above such tactics. Badagnani 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI some more anti-antioxidant publications below (and the frightening conclusion they reached).

• [34] (Treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E may increase mortality. The potential roles of vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study.)

• [35] (Combined vitamin C and E supplementation during pregnancy does not reduce the risk of preeclampsia, fetal or neonatal loss, small for gestational age infant, or preterm birth. Such supplementation should be discouraged unless solid supporting data from randomized trials become available)

• [36] (Our meta-analysis showed no evidence of a protective effect of antioxidant or B vitamin supplements on the progression of atherosclerosis, thus providing a mechanistic explanation for their lack of effect on clinical cardiovascular events.)

• [37] (We found no convincing evidence that antioxidant supplements have significant beneficial effect on primary or secondary prevention of colorectal adenoma.)

• [38] (We could not find evidence that antioxidant supplements prevent gastrointestinal cancers. On the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality.)

• [39] (There is currently no evidence to support recommending vitamins such as alpha-tocopherol, beta-carotene or retinol, alone or in combination, to prevent lung cancer. A harmful effect was found for beta-carotene with retinol at pharmacological doses in people with risk factors for lung cancer)

This is the only "rather encouraging" study about antioxidants I could find: [40] (After 7.5 years, low-dose antioxidant supplementation lowered total cancer incidence and all-cause mortality in men but not in women.)

Paul, I'd be grateful if you could provide us with something valuable to balance the weight of these two groups. Ill stop chewing goji for the time being.

BTW The "antioxidant" Entry in Wikipedia has already been updated: [[41]]

Waiting for the "clinical and industry experts" gathered at ExpoWest, I do believe that at least the JAMA citation shall have its place back in the article. And I'll be soon visiting the "Antioxidant" entry--Stefano 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Stefano, you must see the distinction, however, between vitamin-rich plant foods and the processed vitamin tablets, powders, or serums that were likely used in the studies you reference. There can't be anything wrong with a varied diet including vitamin-rich plant foods. Although as the new sources claim, an overabundance of antioxidants may have the unintended consequences of stopping the body from healing itself after the stresses of exercise. It's something to think about. Badagnani 00:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review articles here -- I'll provide other alternate views of the industry and medical professional response in a few days after my trip

http://www.npicenter.com/Search/Default.aspx?qs=antioxidants

--Paul144 17:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes Badagnani, it's definitely something to think about. I actually find appropriate your comparison with the tobacco industry: although various studies seem to indicate that (some ?) antioxidant supplements have - at best - limited (no ?) effect, the nutraceuticals industy is flourishing.

Paul, an extract from your link above: “Killer”Antioxidants? New Study Contains Serious Flaws". "Despite the widespread attention to this new study, it’s important to put its findings into context and remember that there is well-demonstrated evidence that antioxidants may improve or prevent certain medical conditions and improve overall quality of life".

I'd have appreciated to see some literature references at the end of this Healthnotes Newswire Opinion. Preferably published in this century.

The amount of scientific and credible industry information supporting dietary use of antioxidant-rich foods so vastly outweighs the few negative studies like the flawed JAMA report that it would be like making a synopsis of a dissertation to bring them into a point-by-point discussion.

In addition to the NPI Center summary of reports responding to the JAMA study are other recent industry articles shown below. I believe it is valid to bring industry discussions into this analysis as industry is sensitized to the stringent requirements of bodies like the FDA to be accurate about label information. As no antioxidant chemical has been conclusively linked to disease prevention, watching the industry trends is a way to see how antioxidants will be tested to become eligible as ingredients highlighted on common consumer products. --Paul144 15:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fruits of the future

Antioxidants: A most fruitful category

Media mauls antioxidants after 'inappropriate' review

Other articles on antioxidants from Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals

Articles on antioxidants from the Linus Pauling Institute

Welcome back Doc. It looks like every expert (you included) is strongly against the infamous JAMA article:

[42], [43], [44]. I'd say that the last paragraph of the last citation summarizes it all: "Those who wish to supplement with antioxidants because they are either not able or not inclined to consume enough antioxidant-rich foods would be wise to purchase combinations that do a reasonable job of approximating the mixture found in an antioxidant-rich diet, for which there is a wealth of evidence of benefit, and avoid single-substance formulations, with the possible exceptions of vitamin C and selenium."

In other words, "there can't be anything wrong with a varied diet including vitamin-rich plant foods". Badagnani said it first. (Ahhh, the good-old "synergy").

The bottomline of the above discussion (to the kind attention of Blaxthos) is: no need to mention the JAMA reference on the goji article. --Stefano 16:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Got to say I agree with removing JAMA sources - speaking as a medical doctor, and resident of a part of China (with family ties to Ningxia, but that is another story) - goji berries are a major part of my life. In tea. But the hype against natural medical sources as seen exemplified in JAMA is nothing more than the ongoing attempts of a medical profession dominated by the pharmaceutical business. The trick is not to condemn such articles outright, but to use the information contained (from all sources) to find truth. And truth, in medical "peer-reviewed" articles, is sadly hard to come by. docboat 01:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Wiki guidelines: "How to use article talk pages"

Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.

This is exactly' what we are doing over here. (Jeah. I've removed my Walt-Disney joke)

[edit] Section removal

I have removed a speculative section that contained several sweeping claims unsubstantiated by sources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 11:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Section in the article is restored. Bring your issues here first. Please state them and let's hear your side of the story. --Paul144 15:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

An abuse of admin powers RFC is going to be implemented immediately unless the editor playing games with this page begins to present his/her case here. Badagnani 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that the removal is due to complaints sent to WP:OTRS. I have no other interest in the article and am merely assisting in resolution of the emailed complaint. '

The first paragraph of the section in question contains leading text that presumes that FreeLife International has made "numerous unverified health claims" and that "none of the more than 20 health claims asserted by FreeLife...has scientific, peer-reviewed proof of validity." The first statement is sourced to a TV program, a weak source. The second statement does not cite a source.

The second paragraph cites four sources. Three of them do not even mention wolfberries. The fourth does but the reference does not support the assertion that "wolfberries ... require[s] regulatory review of label and marketing claims..."

The third paragraph summarizes a possibly related case involving a mangosteen juice product and speculates that the FDA action taken with regard to that product may auger similar actions with regard to wolfberry juice products. While perhaps true, it is not our place at Wikipedia to infer such conclusions, and no source is cited.

These paragraphs paint FreeLife International in a poor light and may be libellous if untrue. Since they do not meet our sourcing requirements, it is inappropriate for us to include them until the sourcing problems are addressed. Accordingly, I have again removed the text and protected the page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You should have taken the time to explain yourself in this way before your blanking took place. Badagnani 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We get 100 of these a day, and in most cases no one is following the page. I did prepare a response as soon as I protected the page, but it took about ten minutes to compose. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

100 a day? Who knew???  ;) Thanks for the explanation. It should not be difficult to fix the text beyond reproach. Badagnani 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair to the process, I am posting the original section below and adding content and references for it. I did not do this originally because it gives undue recognition to the conspicuous marketing fabrications of Mindell and FreeLife.

For what it's worth, I object that I and others seeking the truth about wolfberry have to respond to a heavy-handed administration of this article and the misinformation promoted by commercial motivations. It should be those parties having to state their case here first on the Discussion page -- that is the Wikipedia method of collaboration.

User Uninvited states above that "We get 100 of these a day, and in most cases no one is following the page". What does that mean? 100 what? No one is following this page? On the contrary, the wolfberry page has been under active new contributions, editing and review for many months.

If it is the band of Goji Juice marketers following Mindell's exaggerations and lies, let them come here where everything is fair game for debate to establish the truth. That offer has been made often in the past, still stands, and should have been Uninvited's first remedy rather than autocratically removing a carefully composed section. --Paul144 21:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marketing claims under scrutiny in Canada and the United States

In January 2007, marketing statements for a goji juice product were subject of an investigative report by CBC Television's consumer advocacy program Marketplace[45]. During interviews with the product spokesperson, Earl Mindell, critical questions were raised about the validity of numerous unverified health claims made by the product's manufacturer, FreeLife International LLC, as stated in Mindell's booklet on wolfberries (Bibliography below). None of more than 20 health claims asserted by FreeLife and Mindell has scientific, peer-reviewed proof of validity.

By one example in the CBC interview, Mindell claimed that the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center in New York had completed studies showing that consuming goji would prevent 75% of human breast cancer cases, a statement false in three ways: 1) no such project has ever been undertaken at Sloan-Kettering, 2) no natural or pharmaceutical agent has been shown by peer-assessed research to prevent cancer and 3) there is no sufficient scientific evidence that wolfberry has any cancer-preventing properties.

It is not appropriate to infer such benefits from abstracts of Chinese literature retrieved by PubMed, as Mindell asserts. The Chinese literature cited on PubMed is laboratory research, preliminary human research for which clinical trial design is insufficiently described, and unacceptable for making health claims.

Having significant nutrient and phytochemical composition, wolfberries are under assessment[46][47][48][49] as a functional food that requires regulatory review of label and marketing claims being conducted in 2007 by the European Union (above).

By other example in the United States, such a process was applied by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September 2006 to challenge a manufacturer of another novel fruit product, mangosteen juice, to provide scientific and clinical evidence for health claims asserted in marketing materials and the juice product label[50]. Without compliance, the FDA letter warned that enforcement was imminent, including seizure and/or injunction of products. This position by the FDA essentially requires the manufacturer to abandon all unverified health claims from its marketing materials because no such research has been done, as is the case for wolfberries and any goji juice product.

First, I disagree with Uninvited that an investigative reporting resource like the CBC Marketplace team, staffed by experienced reporters who had completed extensive objective research of their own, is an insufficient reference for this article. It is an open forum to reply to such reporting for which there has been no serious counterpoint presented here or in the public media.

Second, it is not my or any objective person's responsibility to provide sources for information that does not exist (as applies to Mindell's numerous health claims about goji juice benefits). In the scientific process, the person making such claims must present the laboratory- or clinical trial derived evidence for such effects under the scrutiny of peer-review and regulatory examination as currently being conducted on the mangosteen juice product, Xango (FDA reference provided in original section). As this is precisely the process that wolfberry or any goji juice manufacturer must pass to make health claims, it is very pertinent to include in the article.

Third, three of the four references used in original paragraph two (now four) refer directly to wolfberry (goji) and the fourth is directly pertinent.

Fourth, having to address these issues, Uninvited, changes the encyclopedic nature of the article, converting it into debate. I've addressed the matters as you requested, but this was not necessary. The original article is factual. If the goji juice marketers wish to contest it, they should bring their evidence and proposed new text to this Discussion where we can expose it to the test of truth. --Paul144 21:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So. here we are, with a mountain of "sources" below and above, waiting for Mindell, Freelife International and/or their disciples to come and substantiate their point of view, instead of compianing with Mr Uninvited. I am looking forward to see this article unblocked at his earliest convenience. --Stefano 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earl Mindell's fraud and its promotion by FreeLife marketers

In Chapter 2 of Earl Mindell's booklet, Goji, The Himalayan Health Secret, Ed. 1, 2003, are listed the "Top 24 Health Benefits of Goji" including

• extends life
• maintains health blood pressure
• reduces cholesterol
• enhances sexual function
• improves disease resistance
• prevents morning sickness
• alleviates anxiety
• promotes cheerfulness

and 16 other claims, not one of which is scientifically validated or approved for use on consumer products by a regulatory agency such as the FDA.

Not one of the 24 claims listed in his book nor the claim made by Mindell in the CBC Marketplace interview that consuming goji berries or juice prevents cancer[51] has even been demonstrated adequately in preliminary laboratory research. Mindell's history of fraud is discussed on Wikipedia[52] and Quackwatch[53].

Mindell and FreeLife make the preposterous claim that goji polysaccharides are "master" molecules in the human body, serving as "directors and carriers of the instructions that cells use to communicate with each other"

• balancing immune function
• lowering cholesterol
• normalizing blood sugar
• acting as an anti-inflammatory agent
• and preventing cancer

All of this is fabrication, as none has been proved in science, postulated by other scientists, nor is it even a recent research topic of scientific interest, as there are no North American or European studies published to support the scant and mostly in vitro Chinese research done to date on goji polysaccharides.

Neither is the concept even a good hypothesis to test, as polysaccharides consumed in whole fruit or juice are subjected immediately upon ingestion to the acid and digestive enzyme environment of the stomach which would alter their structure -- and therefore their function -- in ways impossible to measure in vivo. Polysaccharides are simply sources of dietary fiber, as discussed on Wikipedia[54].

In advertisements for Himalayan Goji Juice, Mindell, FreeLife and distributors or marketers of this product use the same invalid claims, as any Google search shows. The Tanaduk Institute and Tibetan Goji Berry Company make similar unsupportable statements on their website[55], leading one to believe that the Mindell and Tanaduk fabrications may derive from the same source of misinformation and outright lies.

In the view of basic researchers and eventually that of the FDA, the fraud is all linked. Any fraudulent statement made in relation to a consumer product is the responsibility of the manufacturer providing the product to the general public -- in this case, FreeLife, to either prove scientifically or stop using the claim.

The FDA takes this position: such claims "cause the product to be a drug" (see example letters about goji and Xango below) requiring all the stringent peer-evaluated research that drugs must achieve before approved as safe agents for sale to the public.

"Safety" in this sense does not only imply "free from harm" but also means that such a product must be proven specifically for the effect it is claimed to have -- in Mindell's and FreeLife's case, for each of at least 25 diseases or conditions of health. As this process has not taken even its first adequate scientific step for any one claim, FreeLife has a seemingly steep road ahead of it to present its case satisfactorily to the FDA.

To my knowledge, there has never been a peer-reviewed goji research publication by Earl Mindell and neither has FreeLife ever financed independent, peer-reviewed research with resulting publications on any aspect of the goji berry, as has been done for other fruits such as cranberry[56] or pomegranate[57]. Yet the FreeLife website states "Working together, FreeLife and Earl Mindell have been pioneers in the research of goji polysaccharides."[58]

A PubMed search shows that Earl Mindell has never published a research study listed by the US Library of Medicine which catalogues all medical research published in the world. This is where credible scientists with peer-reviewed publications have their work listed.

The FDA currently has two goji distributors on notice with letters issued in the middle of 2006

• Dynamic Health Laboratories Inc. of Brooklyn, NY, May 8, 2006[59]

and

• Healthsuperstore.com of Elk Grove, CA, August 7, 2006[60]

In both cases, there is little doubt that the marketing statements under question extend from those fabricated by Mindell (only the words are changed), as is evident from the content of the above two FDA letters.

The FDA's position for these fabrications is that asserting such health benefits of Goji Juice whether by Dynamic Health ("Lycium Barbarum Goji Juice") or Healthsuperstore.com (Goji Juice by FreeLife) implicates FreeLife as the juice manufacturer making the claim, as that is the position the FDA takes.

The result of such FDA review is that the manufacturer must cause change in the marketing literature for all distributors, marketers and retailers of the product, withdraw the product, or risk having the product seized. The situation is identical to that underway against Xango for their scientifically unfounded health claims about a mangosteen juice product[61].

This is the underlying story for the article section entitled "Marketing claims under scrutiny in Canada and the United States". These issues were introduced before on this Discussion board (above) but have yet to see any reponse to address any claim supported with even minimum science by Mindell, FreeLife, the Tanaduk Institute or Tibetan Goji Berry Company. --Paul144 16:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this is an article about Wolfberry, the plant. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for activism, but to the extent such material is appropriate for inclusion it would be more topical in an article about the marketers in question. Second, if we do include the paragraph (either here or elsewhere), each assertion must be sourced. If we're going to say that FreeLife is implicated, we must have a source that says "FreeLife is implicated in <whatever>," rather than trying to connect the dots ourselves. Even if the reasoning is straightforward and sound, we can't include it unless there is a reliable source that connects the dots for us. If one of you want to rework the paragraph, or find more sources, great. But it can't go back in the way it is. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles about plants often include an extensive "Medicinal use" section. As the FreeLife company is one of the largest marketers of the berry in the English-speaking world, presenting it as a "cure-all" it is certainly relevant to discuss this aspect of the plant's use. Badagnani 03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. We still have to have proper sources for the material. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The section written under "Earl Mindell's fraud.." was not intended for the Article and, reviewing it, I don't see anything I'd want in the Article from what I've written. It is background to 1) raise a debate with proponents of Mindell and so further expose his/their fraud used pervasively in marketing of Himalayan Goji Juice and likewise Tibetan Goji Berries, and 2) educate parties like Uninvited who seem persuaded that Mindell's fraud holds kernels of truth. This misunderstanding was apparently combined with the mentioned complaints so was worthy of attention and respect sufficient to have stimulated withdrawing the section "Marketing claims under scrutiny in Canada...".

From Uninvited's remarks above: Second, if we do include the paragraph (either here or elsewhere), each assertion must be sourced. If we're going to say that FreeLife is implicated, we must have a source that says "FreeLife is implicated in <whatever>," rather than trying to connect the dots ourselves. Even if the reasoning is straightforward and sound, we can't include it unless there is a reliable source that connects the dots for us.

That section was fine as it was, intentionally avoiding direct implication of FreeLife, but rather associating FreeLife with the source of the fraud -- Mindell. What sources are needed? I feel the CBC Marketplace interview is a respectable source. Published sources countering Mindell's writing don't exist because scientists would not waste their time arguing with such nonsense.... as I am doing now. Science does not create sources for untested hypotheses.

Two new paragraphs were offered in the Discussion section above:

By one example in the CBC interview, Mindell claimed that the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York had completed studies showing that consuming goji would prevent 75% of human breast cancer cases, a statement false in three ways: 1) no such project has ever been undertaken at Sloan-Kettering, 2) no natural or pharmaceutical agent has been shown by peer-assessed research to prevent cancer and 3) there is no sufficient scientific evidence that wolfberry has any cancer-preventing properties.

It is not appropriate to infer such benefits from abstracts of Chinese literature retrieved by PubMed, as Mindell asserts. The Chinese literature cited on PubMed is laboratory research, preliminary human research for which clinical trial design is insufficiently described, and unacceptable for making health claims.

Let's focus on revising the offered revisions so the section can be restored. And, Uninvited, when the complaints still come to you, as they will, bring them here as you should have done in the first place. --Paul144 05:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OTRS policy is that incoming mail is confidential. I can summarize the nature of the complaints, as I have done. I cannot provide them verbatim and cannot put you in touch with the people who have contacted us. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in verbatim content of the complaints or who made them. As you can see from the history of the discussion page and the article, no advocate of Mindell's positions has opposed what has been stated with supportable content or sources. When I suggest you "bring them here", I mean send them here for debate and discussion, i.e., the healthy discourse that bares the facts.

We don't seem to be making progress toward resolving the language you would deem acceptable for the relevant section on "Marketing claims under scrutiny...". Can you provide some specific feedback please?

I believe this is your summary of the complaints, quoting you in italics followed by my responses

1. The first paragraph of the section in question contains leading text that presumes that FreeLife International has made "numerous unverified health claims" and that "none of the more than 20 health claims asserted by FreeLife...has scientific, peer-reviewed proof of validity." The first statement is sourced to a TV program, a weak source. The second statement does not cite a source.

CBC Marketplace to Canada is like 60 Minutes or The Washington Post are to a US scandal like Watergate. I see nothing wrong with investigative reporting as a source when there is no scientific argument available. The burden of proof against Mindell's fraud lies not with me to disprove him, but with him or his supporters to provide scientific evidence for his statements (which of course do not exist, explaining why they do not contribute to the Article).

2. The second paragraph cites four sources. Three of them do not even mention wolfberries. The fourth does but the reference does not support the assertion that "wolfberries ... require[s] regulatory review of label and marketing claims..."

As stated above, three of the four sources mention goji (same as wolfberry) and the fourth is relevant to this debate.

3. The third paragraph summarizes a possibly related case involving a mangosteen juice product and speculates that the FDA action taken with regard to that product may auger similar actions with regard to wolfberry juice products. While perhaps true, it is not our place at Wikipedia to infer such conclusions, and no source is cited.

I have provided above two references to current FDA actions against goji juice distributors/marketers who are making unfounded health claims similar to (or derived from) those of Mindell. By its history, the FDA will not identify similar violations one by one, but will use decisions that apply generally across violations. FreeLife's fate will be similar to those under investigation now.

4. These paragraphs paint FreeLife International in a poor light and may be libellous if untrue. Since they do not meet our sourcing requirements, it is inappropriate for us to include them until the sourcing problems are addressed.

If FreeLife has credible information to add to the Article, why is it not offered as a contribution? The answer is that they know Mindell's information is fraud but, in this case, the fraud is moving product sales at a lucrative rate. This is all revealed adequately in the CBC Marketplace report. --Paul144 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Let's try to be constructive. If all is needed are "proper sources for the material", we can provide them. Here is what I found:

• http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2189422&page=1 (is abc a credible source ?).

Not enough ? Here are some more:

• http://kimklaverblogs.blogspot.com/2007/01/should-freelife-reps-worry.html
• http://www.freelifegojinews.com/
• http://www.henriettesherbal.com/blog/?p=466
• http://www.onlyreviews.com/freelife.html
• And to conclude, this is the page for lycium at the Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The part in bold looks new, like they were reacting to something...

--Stefano 20:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

FreeLife has no responsibility to come here and make their case. Basically, where I am at with this is that the material I removed is unacceptable as written. I am on the whole unconvinced by your rebuttal. If people interested in the page are willing to fix the section so that each assertion is properly sourced (a process which may require removing or modifying some claims), then we can put it back in the article. I myself am uninterested in doing this and leave it up to you. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] : While we all wait for the supreme decision to be taken

I'd like to draw your attention to the following entertaining clip from youtube. I would really love to have your opinion on that. It looks like Dr Marcial-Vega decided to stop sharing his cutting edge research with the rest of the Medical world on 1994, the year of his last publication avaiIable in Pubmed. Try however "Marcial-Vega" in google and discover that his name as a "renowned cancer specialist, Oncologist" and "recognized as being in the top one percent of medical doctors in the U.S" is only one click away from the one of "Dr Mindell" and his Himalaian Goji. His motto appears to be: "Acid Is For Batteries! Not For Healthy People". I am speechless. --Stefano 21:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I've begun an article at Victor A. Marcial-Vega. Is this one of the people promulgating the blood alkalinity/acidity theory? For about a year, people have been popping into our natural foods store asking if certain foods are "acid" or "alkaline." One guy was asking about a grain, quinoa. It seemed strange to ask this about a grain, but for people like this, people can jump behind a theory with such vigor that it dictates everything they eat. What is your own opinion of the video? Badagnani 23:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As a PhD physiologist, I can say the video has all the scientific sophistication of a high school science fair project where the student was given the parameters of a microscope, blood cells and a magical fruit, then asked to make up a story. Addressing any part of it may dignify it as having a gram of plausibility, which it doesn't, so I'm leaving it alone.

As with all fabrications, myths and outlandish theories characteristic of Mindell, there exists a channel to gain credibility: publish a series of studies in good journals involving the rigors of peer-review, then build on it the way all scientific hypotheses are tested, tried under peer scrutiny and redefined before being acceptable to the FDA. There isn't a single hypothesis about specific health values or lowered disease risk from consuming goji berries or juice that is ready for good animal experiments, let alone statements on food labels for general consumers.

I'm working on a re-draft of the disputed section and hope to post it in the near future. --Paul144 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is what happened with Velikovsky, isn't it? Even though he had some interesting ideas, he was shut out entirely, with no scientist even willing to debunk him. And the non-science-minded folks were left to make up their minds on their own. How could a M.D. just make things up like this? Did you see the part where the juice magically turned the hemoglobin dark at the end? Is it all a fabrication? Badagnani 18:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We know nothing about the conditions of the experiment. In vitro, in vivo or in dreamo? All the experimental conditions necessary to establish good science need to be available for the most skeptical fellow-scientists to review and even try to reproduce the results in their own labs. This is the purpose of rigorous peer analysis in scientific research and publishing. If there is anything to be believed from Mindell or Marcial-Vega, then they should publish in one of the sections of American Journal of Physiology[62] or a similar research journal. Let's not waste time on this. --Paul144 19:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

He also stated that he was using "goji juice," which contains only a small amount of wolfberry in any case. Badagnani 19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I fully agree with Paul that the clip loos very much a commercial lacking a scientific base (disclosing the conditions used and the means to reproduce his "experiments" is science's first rule - Paul, I loved "in dreamo"!). However, Badagnani is very right in that scientists should warn against such a nonsense. This is the biggest issue with Internet: everything is immediately available to everybody. Contrary to Velikovsky, who was shut out entirely, Dr. Mindell's sites are spreading everywhere in the web and I could not find one single site disputing Dr Marcial-Vega findings, which are often even used to support the effects of Mindell's juice (see for example the comment of Ms [Yvonne Weatherbee] to the cbc investigation).

Wikipedia may help people make up their mind by providing a correct information. Since The Uninvited Co. is "uninterested in doing this", it is up to us to describe Mindell's marketing operation in a more objective way. (How?) Good luck to Paul with the reformulation of this difficult section.

Concerning the [theory of acidity and alcaniliny of blood], the existence of which I discovered 30 minutes ago, here is an interesting [discussion] and [its destruction].--Stefano 21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Stefano, I think we should have an article on this blood acidity-alkalinity thing. I think many thousands of people are believing in this, and it is dictating their food choices. But I couldn't find any sources about it. Badagnani 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani, I'm copying this discussion on the one of Marcial Vega. If you agree we'll discuss over there about that. Please Paul do contribute as well: I am not a medical doctor. --Stefano 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Working draft of revised section

Marketing claims under scrutiny in Canada and the United States

In January 2007, marketing statements for a goji juice product were subject of an investigative report by CBC Television's consumer advocacy program Marketplace (TV series)[63]. During interviews with the product spokesperson, Earl Mindell, critical questions were raised about the validity of numerous unverified health claims made in marketing materials for Himalayan Goji Juice, a product manufactured by FreeLife International LLC and promoted by Mindell.

None of 23 health claims asserted in this marketing information has been scientifically proved [64] or accepted by a regulatory authority such as the Natural Health Products Directorate of Health Canada or the FDA.

In a review of medical literature pertaining to each proposed claim, Gross et al. (2006, book chapter 6; see Article Bibliography) summarized that 22 of 23 claims had no evidence for providing a health benefit beyond that inferred from preliminary in vitro or laboratory animal research. For cancer specifically, four studies were reviewed in Chapter 4 of their book, but Gross et al. (2006) concluded the research was too preliminary to allow any conclusion about an anti-cancer effect of consuming goji berries or juice.

By one specific example in the CBC interview, Mindell claimed the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York had completed studies showing that use of goji juice would prevent 75% of human breast cancer cases, a statement false in three ways:

1. no such project has been undertaken at Memorial Sloan-Kettering[65]
2. according to the National Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes of Health, no natural or pharmaceutical agent has been shown in prevention studies to fully prevent breast cancer, only to reduce its risk [66]; specifically, there are no completed or ongoing clinical trials in the United States testing the effects of goji berries or juice on breast cancer outcomes [67] or any other disease[68] and
3. beyond preliminary laboratory studies[69] [70][71] and one Chinese clinical trial described only in an abstract[72], there is no scientific evidence for goji berry phytochemicals or juice having cancer-preventive properties (Gross et al., 2006, chapters 4,6).

Significant in nutrient and phytochemical composition, goji berries are being developed[73][74][75][76][77] as new products in the functional food industry, currently under FDA regulatory review for label and marketing claims[78] as being conducted in 2007 by the European Union (above). As described by the Institute of Food Technologists[79], rigorous standards of scientific evidence will be required for FDA approval of health claims made for natural food products such as those from goji berries.

At present, the FDA has two goji juice distributors on notice with warning letters about marketing claims with language similar to that used by or derived from Mindell:

• Dynamic Health Laboratories Inc. of Brooklyn, NY, May 8, 2006[80]
• Healthsuperstore.com of Elk Grove, CA, August 7, 2006[81]

The result of such FDA review may be that the manufacturer must change the marketing literature for all distributors, marketers and retailers of the product, withdraw the product, or risk having the product seized. The situation is similar to the 2006 FDA enforcement action against a manufacturer of a fruit juice product containing mangosteen juice, XanGo LLC, for making scientifically unfounded health claims in their marketing materials[82]. --Paul144 12:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to Uninvited: your process here is inequitable. Those of us refuting Mindell's claims are providing objective information based on science in support of our argument, whereas supporters of Mindell's claims have provided no evidence or written defense. In a discussion such as this, siding with science is the safer position for Wikipedia.

--Paul144 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have again removed unsourced claims and speculation from the main article. Please do not re-add them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be a pipeline for FreeLife people protecting their fraud, and are not useful to the factual improvement of this article. You should "uninvite" and recuse yourself from further involvement here. --Paul144 01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a pipeline for FreeLife only in the sense that I am seeing to it that their complaints about unsourced derogatory claims are handled in a fashion consistent with our policies. I, of course, remain Uninvited throughout the project; my involvement continues nonetheless. :-) The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty happy with the current version of the disputed section as it is now. Especially thanks to the book of Dr. Gross, each statement made is now clear and substantiated. If people still believe Mindell after reading this paragraph, that's their problem. We've done what we had to do. --Stefano 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion, fact and POV

Can you provide a cite for the opposing views? If they're notable, they need included, but it does need to be shown they're notable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I added some references but even w/o them, the text needs rewording because it is opinion not fact. ie "No published large randomized double blind tests for Wolfberry can be found in PubMed" is fact but "this regulation provides important safeguards for consumers" is opinion and must be presented as such. Cayte 01:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Cayte

[edit] Tibetinfonet: The commercial legend of goji: selling a Chinese crop under the Tibetan flag

Useful perspective published June 29, 2007[83].

Quotes and highlights:

• "This Special Report shows that the purported Tibetan origin of goji berries is bogus... there are no indications that the berries that have swamped worldwide markets have actually been grown commercially in any Tibetan region"
• "Many companies distributing goji products appear to cynically take advantage of the naivety or serious health problems of western consumers, as well as of inaccurate Tibet images in order to market a Chinese crop as a Tibetan product without providing any apparent returns to Tibetans."
• "The example of the goji berry demonstrates that, unless transparent structures are established within and outside the PRC to verify the authenticity of Tibetan products, the name of Tibet is destined to be misappropriated as a convenient label that profits non-Tibetans."
• "...there is no mention of any name close to goji in Traditional Tibetan Medicine texts."
• "TibetInfoNet contacted the Prefectural Agriculture Department in Nyingchi and officials reiterated that there is no commercial cultivation of Lycium/wolfberries/goji in the prefecture to the best of their knowledge, although there is no doubt that Lycium chinense does grow naturally in Nyingchi, as in many other areas on the Tibetan Plateau."
• "All circumstantial evidence indicates that Tibet Authentic, and with them most other goji companies, buy their berries from producers who cultivate Lycium barbarum at the northern and eastern foot of the Tibetan plateau (ed: in China), but not in Tibet. With that, the claim that “Tibet Authentic’s goji berries are certified grown in the wild on the pristine Tibetan Plateau” appears to be completely bogus."

--Paul144 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WorldwideWarning.net -- Exposing Goji Scams

Captivating reading[84][85]. Mentions Earl Mindell and the CBC Marketplace interview, FreeLife Himalayan Goji Juice, the Tanaduk Research Institute and Tibetan Goji Berry Company owned and managed by Bradley and Julia Dobos from their Orcas Island location in Washington state, USA and goji MLM activity.

The site purports to expose scams and just tell the truth, so is worthy for each person to read and make one's own judgment. --Paul144 15:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] telegraph.co.uk article

This article might be useful as a reference: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/main.jhtml?xml=/gardening/2007/10/12/garden-superfruit-superfood-goji112.xml --Ronz 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's evident the author(s) of this newspaper article did not absorb information provided in the Wikipedia article. For example, the italicized excerpts below are baseless.

1. Goji berries scored a spectacular 25,300 per 100g, while prunes, which came second, had a mere 5,770 per 100g. According to Gillian McKeith, the presenter of Channel 4's You Are What You Eat, they have 2,000 more antioxidants and 500 times the amount of vitamin C per weight as oranges. They also contain beta-carotene (their ability to improve vision has been documented for more than 1,500 years in China).

An ORAC of 25,300 has not been published under peer-review; there is no objective source of this information.

Is Gillian McKeith a reliable scientific reference? I think not, as the 2,000 more antioxidants and 500 times the amount of vitamin C per weight as oranges are pure Mindellian fabrications. Such numbers are not even remotely credible.

How well could improved vision be convincingly documented in 500 AD?

2. ...claimed that they enhance longevity (a Chinaman, Li Quing Yuen, who ate them every day, is said to have lived to the age of 250).

Li Quing Yuen, a JK Rowling character created by the wave of a wand? What reasonable person would believe this? More misleading fable perpetuated by Mindell.

3. Most of the goji berries that are sold in this country are cultivated in China, but they also grow in Mongolia and on vines in the sheltered Himalayan valleys of Tibet and Nepal, where they have been eaten for centuries and are nicknamed "happy berries" because of the sense of wellbeing they are said to induce.

Researched, refuted and discussed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfberry#Tibetan_goji_berry

--Paul144 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No more links template

This article appears to be attracting more than its fair share of spam, therefore I have added the somewhat contentious No more links template (only visible when editing). Experienced editors, will I am sure, just be able to ignore it; as will -I think- most of the spammers but there we go. --Aspro 15:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sales pitch?

What's up with the sales pitch under "Significance?" This otherwise interesting article and discussion suffers from it, I think. At least the title of the paragraph should be changed to Economical Significance if the main information provided will be marketing numbers. Remmelt (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A good point. The purpose of the section is to create a perspective for people unfamiliar with a plant food mostly new to the western world. The current information covers historial significance in the first paragraph with economic significance in the second, whereas nutritional significance -- probably the main reason users would consult this page -- may need better emphasis in a separate middle sentence. Or perhaps economic significance should be provided only in the marketing section later. Thoughts? --Paul144 (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The lead paragraph (WP:LEAD), Significance section and data for commercial growth were edited today. Following Remmelt's comments, the commercial information was removed to the section on Commercial Products where it certainly has a better fit. --Paul144 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfberry Economics

Is there any information we could add about the cost of wolfberries? The price runs ~$15/pound US for individual pounds. Considering food imported from China tends to be quite cheap, is there a reason the price is so high other than the relatively low volume? --Karuna8 (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Label anything "natural/organic/ancient/magic/Tibetan...", you are out there to make big bucks. Although the berry itself is healthy and has many disease-fighting properties, blow it out of proportion to target stupid white hippies is the way to go. --cecikierk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.75.181 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)