Talk:Sunrider/Archives/2012

Support for Sunrider petitioning FDA to allow stevia in 1996
This discussion is to resolve that there is ample support for the statement that Sunrider successfully petitioned the FDA to allow the use of stevia as a dietary supplement. This discussion originated on User_talk:76.166.193.141. I stated in a neutral voice that Sunrider petitioned the FDA to allow the sale of stevia in the US as a dietary supplement. For proof I provided links to 2 FDA documents. Although the information was contained in these documents (as detailed on the talk page), it was clear to User_talk:Axlq. Here are 5 links to non-Sunrider materials that unequivocally state that Sunrider petitioned the FDA to allow the sale of stevia in the US as dietary supplement. Under the DSHEA, stevia was not allowed as a dietary supplement (the article stevia is incorrect- DSHEA did not allow sale of stevia), until Sunrider petitioned the FDA successfully to allow the sale in the US as a dietary supplement. http://www.natmedlaw.com/NML%202007/SEPT2007NML.pdf (see page 3) http://www.gcnm.com/newsletter/newsletter_february_2008.html http://www.thenhf.com/articles/articles_790/articles_790.htm http://books.google.com/books?id=7ZtWW8oor6UC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=sunrider+stevia+fda&source=bl&ots=topHE2kuES&sig=YDUj-xSukyIwxQWEmCcFLNLpwjU&hl=en&ei=R2mYSqrzKpSksgOEk6CvAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=sunrider%20stevia%20fda&f=false http://www.intent.com/donnagates/blog/sweetener-diabetics-other-health-conscious-people-most-want-avoid


 * The first source looks interesting. It shows that Sunrider had already gotten in legal trouble with the FDA over stevia in the past, resulting in Sunrider agreeing not to sell stevia unless the FDA approved it as a food additive. Therefore, the petition was an attempt to get out of that agreement in light of the DSHEA passed by Congress. However, it was the mandates of the DSHEA, not the petition, that forced the FDA to modify its stance. The FDA was already forced to allow stevia as a dietary supplement; the result of the petition allowed Sunrider specifically to sell it in conflict with Sunrider's earlier consent decree.
 * The second source (gcnm.com) fails WP:RS criteria. It's essentially a paraphrase of the Wikipedia article on stevia, authored by an "owner of a health food store, and and actor" and contains no references, just claims.
 * The third source (thenhf.com) says that the passage of the DSHEA merely allowed Sunrider to file a letter, but says unequivocollay that it was the DSHEA's mandates that forced the FDA to change its stance. Other sources agree with this.
 * The fourth source (books.google.com) states that the FDA had to follow the mandates of the DSHEA, and Sunrider's notification caused the FDA to acknowledge that fact, but does not state that Sunrider's petition is what changed the FDA's stance.
 * The last source appears to be a blog and fails WP:RS criteria.
 * In light of those sources, I would say it's correct to write that Sunrider successfully petitioned the FDA to sell stevia as a dietary supplement. It is an interpretive stretch, however, to state that Sunrider's petition resulted in the FDA changing its stance. That is a misrepresentation of the sources, violating the WP:SYN policy. =Axlq 05:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

January 11 edits to article
The large addition made to the article by Pelegrim on January 11 appear to have a few problems:


 * a seemingly biased tone
 * the section addresses issues that deal more with people in the company's management, and not with the company itself.
 * there are words that would indicate that this is copied/pasted (plagiarized) from a third party source (unknown). E.g., several verbs in the present tense, suggesting that the material was copied from an article when the legal proceedings were actually taking place in the 1990s.
 * This section gives disproportionate weight to one single incident that is not necessarily representative of the company's history and activities in general.

For these reasons, we should call into question the necessity of including the addition by Pelegrim. Admins, please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.108.174 (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The edits don't seem to be in harmony with Wikipedia standards for formatting, relevance, and writing style. It appears that the added text is likely copied and pasted, and isn't necessarily a relevant addition in all its length. This sort of large addition that drastically changes the course of the article must be discussed with other editors and probably with admins as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.108.174 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference note 18
Reference 18 leads to a website that doesn't mention Sunrider at all. This brings into question the entire validity of the related information in the article. Should we remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Washingtonianbaby (talk • contribs) 03:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)