Talk:Superfruit

Guide to writing a better article
The WP:BETTER guide is a helpful road map for anyone wishing to constructively respond to the request for improving quality of the superfruit article. --Paul144 (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * An introduction has been added, text linked to best available references, checks made on references to assure they are reliable and independent and the reference format has been made uniform. I believe the article is "cleaned up" as much as possible for now, so am removing the cleanup banner. What else is needed to improve the article? --Paul144 (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"In 2004, the term superfoods was popularized by a best-selling book "
"In 2004, the term superfoods was popularized by a best-selling book " What book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.147.153 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 29 May 2007

Pratt S, Matthews K (2004). Superfoods Rx, New York: HarperCollins. --Paul144 22:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * needs a third-part source for this statement. just citing the book is original research. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 08:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Superfruits?
Is Acerola not "super"? --Wetman 04:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Subjectively, I would put acerola in a second tier, as it's often an ingredient but not so often the lead or highlighted fruit in consumer products. I haven't seen any objective industry data for acerola rising in consumer interest. Maybe guarana (currently on the list) would be better described this way also. --Paul144 13:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested (by 24.122.1.166 at 15:53, 16 July 2007) July 16 to include Gâc, Acerola (already suggested), Lemon, Siberian Pineapple, Cili, Papaya, Coconut.

As above, all these fall into the same category as mentioned for acerola -- I would put them in a second tier, as each may often be an ingredient but not so often the lead or highlighted fruit in consumer products. I haven't seen any objective industry data for any of these rising in consumer interest or meeting research criteria for having probably health effects. --Paul144 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sales Pitch or Encyclopedia?
FYI - This entire article sounds like a sales pitch for superfruits. All the parts about growing market share make this article sound more like sales collateral than an encyclopedia entry. More attention needs to be paid to the health benefits and what exactly a superfruit is. --Staypuftman 12:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I said this yesterday in a closed within-text statement for the article when another user complained of the same tone: there is nothing to advertise but rather the page is an observation of commercial activity occurring in the food and beverage industry (References). The fruits listed as "superfruits" have been identified that way by others and have a commercial history of success in the global market. This page tracks an industry event that has been evolving since 2005.

My point is that I started the page as a bookmark on where we are at the beginning of a new category in the general commercial fields of functional foods and nutraceuticals. I'm open to change and welcome your comments about rewording statements differently.

I think we have to place a benchmark about where the superfruits category is today for commercial success (via sales reports, although no products are being mentioned, despite there being many). This helps further define what a superfruit is, as it has to have demonstrated market interest via sales success to qualify as "super". As I point out below the list, there are other candidates but they haven't met yet this criterion, so don't qualify by the criteria offered.

As for health benefits, we and any manufacturers can't go there to any extent unless there have been sufficient clinical trial results to support a claim. See this, announced this week.

Alternately to making health benefit claims would be evidence for each fruit's nutrient- and antioxidant-richness, as this is where they do become definable as superfruits via the health criteria.--Paul144 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The dependence upon primary sources makes the article questionable. I think the advert tag should stay until more of the content is balanced based upon independent sources.--Ronz 17:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

EU use of the term "superfruit" in marketing
On July 16, unregistered user 137.222.12.24 made a revision in the article to include a statement in the Introduction that the EU was banning use of the terms "superfruit" or "superfood" resulting from uncorroborated and unsubstantiated health claims being made for foods so described.

Here is the inserted sentence: On July 1st 2007 the use of the terms 'superfruit' and 'superfood' was banned in marketing in the EU in an attempt to restrict the uncorroborated and unsubstantiated health claims being made for foods so described.

Although that concept has some merit when the term is used that way, it seems a radical step for the European Food Safety Authority to adopt, so I checked for recent press releases and do not see such an announcement, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press_room/press_release.html.

I think we should revert that statement in the article until it is confirmed by a EFSA press release. --Paul144 15:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing references
Listing of current references for review purposes: --Ronz 01:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) ^ Pratt S, Matthews K (2004). Superfoods Rx. Harper Collins.
 * 2) ^ http://www.superfoodsrx.com/superfoods/ Superfoods Rx Website
 * 3) ^ *Wild Blueberry Association of North America
 * 4) ^ Wu X, Beecher GR, Holden JM, Haytowitz DB, Gebhardt SE, Prior RL. Lipophilic and hydrophilic antioxidant capacities of common foods in the United States. J Agric Food Chem. 2004 Jun 16;52(12):4026-37. Abstract.
 * 5) ^ Schauss AG, Wu X, Prior RL, Ou B, Huang D, Owens J, Agarwal A, Jensen GS, Hart AN, Shanbrom E (2006-10-01). "Antioxidant capacity and other bioactivities of the freeze-dried Amazonian palm berry, Euterpe oleraceae mart. (acai).". Retrieved on 2007-07-08.
 * 6) ^ Young G, Lawrence R, Schreuder M (2006). "Discovery of the Ultimate Superfood". Essential Science Publishing, Orem, UT. Retrieved on 2007-07-27.
 * 7) ^ Crawford, Karl. "Superfruits, the Future of Health", HortResearch New Zealand, 2006-10-24. Retrieved on 2007-08-22. (English)
 * 8) ^ Bradley, Kyle. "Fruits of the Future?", Natural Products Insider, 2007-12-03. Retrieved on 2007-07-08. (English)
 * 9) ^ Starling, Shane. "Superfruits — superheroes of functionality", Functional Foods & Nutraceuticals, 2006-04. Retrieved on 2007-07-08. (English)
 * 10) ^ Starling, Shane. "Superfruits — superheroes of functionality", Functional Foods & Nutraceuticals, 2006-04. Retrieved on 2007-07-08. (English)
 * 11) ^ Facenda VL. Minute Maid, Tropicana, A-B Juiced About Superfruits, Brandweek, October 2007
 * 12) ^ Facenda VL. Minute Maid, Tropicana, A-B Juiced About Superfruits, Brandweek, October 2007
 * 13) ^ Rodriguez, Allison (2007-08). The Functional Food and Nutraceutical Industry. Innovation Strategy. Retrieved on 2007-07-08.
 * 14) ^ McNally A. Superfoods market set to double by 2011. NutraIngredients.com-Europe, August 2007
 * 15) ^ Douaud, Clarisse. "Pressure Group Denounces Super Fruit Juices", Decision News Media, 2006-10-27. Retrieved on 2007-07-08. (English)
 * 16) ^ Halliday J. Superfruit flavors get ever more exotic, FoodIngredients.com-Europe, October 23, 2007
 * 17) ^ Fletcher A. Superfruits set to dominate flavor market, 2006
 * 18) ^ Demand for exotic fruits set to increase in 2006, report
 * 19) ^ Lidsky D. The superfruits are coming, 2006
 * 20) ^ Antioxidants and impact on key health areas, Superfruits.org
 * 21) ^ McNally A. Superfoods market set to double by 2011. NutraIngredients.com-Europe, August 2007
 * 22) ^ Daniells, Stephen. "Is Down Under the new Amazon for superfruits?", Functional Foods & Nutraceuticals, 2007-06-14. Retrieved on 2007-07-08. (English)
 * 23) ^ "Australian superfruits next for star status?", Functional Ingredients, September 2007. (English)

Feel free to include the actual fix any of the links in the list above if I copied them incorrectly. Otherwise, let's just use the numbers as easy references. --Ronz 02:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll make comments below addressing why the references were chosen and why they are reliable to me as an objective observer of the industry. --Paul144 18:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference #2 is not a reliable source, but is a website run by SuperFoods Partners, LLC. Supposedly, this site is written and run by Steven Pratt, MD, who is the co-author of source 1 which is used to support the same statement. These sources are used to support, "In 2004, the term superfoods was popularized by a best-selling book discussing 14 whole foods with extraordinary nutrition." --Ronz 02:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are other MDs who contribute to this site. It is an educational resource, supported by science. The website is recent information, chosen because it is 3 years closer to the present than the book published in 2004.

Reference #3 is not a reliable source, and does not support the statement, "One – the blueberry – became known as a superfruit." --Ronz 16:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps one would need to know the history, but the blueberry was the first fruit called a superfruit, as best as I know having watched closely since 2004. This site has a front-page subtitle calling the blueberry "Nature's #1 antioxidant superfruit". The site is written and edited by plant and food scientists.

Reference #6 is questionable as a RS. --Ronz 17:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One would have to know the book's contents. There is unscientific hype in this book for sure, including its title, but there also are independent contract assays showing nutrient contents for the goji unavailable elsewhere. --Paul144 18:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference #7 is not a RS. I'm having a hard time identifying what it is. A press release? --Ronz 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a press release from a respected fruit research center, HortResearch, sponsored by the New Zealand government.

Yes, it is a press release trying to convey what we (HortResearch) feel is an emerging trend in the functional food business, and trying to define what we think a superfruit is. Casey1962 (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole superfruit area is so new that there are few if any peer reviewed articles about it, much of what has been written is comment form journalists or industry observers on the phenomenon. However, there are a lot of peer reviewed articles on the health benefits of some of the fruit that are identified in this article as superfruit,for example cranberry and pomegranate Casey1962 (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference #8 is questionable. As far as I can tell, naturalproductsinsider.com just reprints others articles. I don't think they do any editing or fact-checking that I can tell. There is no identification of the author, Kyle Bradley. --Ronz 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Natural Products Insider is one of the leading publications in the functional foods industry. It has a large editorial staff who research their articles thoroughly. Kyle Bradley is a staff writer.
 * Sounds good. Can you provide a link to verify this? --Ronz 15:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you search the name "kyle bradley" on this site, http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/cms/cmsdbsearch.asp, you'll see numerous articles he has prepared. This is the home page of NP Insider, http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/, showing the diverse subjects they cover, and this is the site for Virgo Publishing, the parent organization for NP Insider and several other publications, http://www.vpico.com/ --Paul144 16:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried a couple of different searches, but wasn't able to verify this. Since we've already asked for help, I've highlighted this one as well. --Ronz 22:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

16 appears to be a RS but it's confusing. Is it a reprint from FoodIngredients.com, or an original article published by Foodnavigator.com? --Ronz 20:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a news report published in both online journals the same day. I see that link goes to FoodNavigator.com. I'll make the correction.
 * OK --Ronz 15:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference #20 is not a RS. --Ronz 20:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This one is a publication of the Scottish Crop Research Institute. The table was devised by the Director of Science for the fruit research team. The table is well-referenced from the scientific literature (click References, top) and is a reasonable guide for readers of an encyclopedia. --Paul144 01:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
The reference formatting needs a lot of cleanup (eg extraneous links to the year and date, linking the entire reference when only the article name should be hyperlinked, multiple instances of the same reference). The external links section should be trimmed down to high-quality articles directly relevant to the topic. --Ronz 20:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Can I count on your help? --Paul144 15:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mellentin reference
The reference in Superfruit appears to be: Mellentin, Julian. "Superfruit: Eight Key Case Studies in Marketing Healthy Fruit" 1 September 2005. New Nutrition Business. --Ronz 20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not quite clear what you're addressing here, Ronz. Derived from several sources, the commercial criteria presented are a synthesis of what has been discussed as factors identifying and driving this market category. --Paul144 15:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "In his report, 'Superfruit: eight key case studies in marketing healthy fruit,' natural products author, Julian Mellentin, described "
 * I'm identifying the reference above, which is not currently listed in the References section. Are you saying there are others as well not listed? --Ronz 15:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the Mellentin articles under External Links, General covered these points. Also, in reference 7 for Crawford from HortResearch. Crawford discusses commercial criteria for pinpointing superfruit qualities. --Paul144 17:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The term 'superfruit' is a neologism
I believe that 'superfruit' should not be used as an article title unless it meets the requirements of WP:NEO. This is a guideline which is intended to keep Wikipedia from becoming a marketing vehicle for new proposed uses of words: "New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term... To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term."Books promoting the use of the terms 'superfoods' or 'superfruit' obviously don't count as reliable, independent sources about the usage of those terms. Currently the reference list of the article does not contain anything that (in my view) shows that 'superfruit' is an accepted term. This suggests to me that the article should be renamed, unless other sources are found. EdJohnston 01:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is jumping ahead of what I've been doing, but I agree. --Ronz 02:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

While the term "superfruits" is prone to interpretation as hype or a neologism by some, it has undeniably become a subcategory of the functional food and nutraceutical industries and should not be summarily dismissed as a passing fad. Where superfruits exists today as a term used in the public, superfoods was there in 2004 with the introduction of Pratt's book, now owned, used as a guide or discussed via the news by millions. A Google search for "superfoods" yields over 1 million hits, whereas the term superfruits, younger by about 2 years, has around 100,000. If we dismiss the article title, we mis-serve public users coming to Wikipedia for definition and leading edge background.

That was the intent of creating the article: to establish a baseline of understanding during this period of rapid growth now estimated to provide up to 10,000 new superfruit products around the world by the end of this year. It forecasts a multi-billion dollar market worthy of attention in an encyclopedia.

In the industry, the term has already passed the neologism stage. WP:NEO states judgment ''should not be set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, ensure that your revision reflects consensus.'' The consensus is the rising global public interest in superfruits, driving manufacture of such a large number of novel products, in turn stimulating intense industry competition and news reporting as cited in the article.

Ronz has questioned whether the references are RS and EdJohnston suggested the term may be exploited by marketers. As author who chose those references, I have responded to each with statements that I hope are clear for the scientific background they represent. I'm also skeptical about use of the term by marketers and have used no reference derived from a manufacturer.

But when industry analysts, scientists and industry publishers use the word, it reflects acceptance of a visible public trend. This is where Wikipedia provides a service: a balanced, science-based discussion of a rapidly emerging market category, keeping Wikipedia ahead of or dead on the curve where the public is served.

A second area of concern is whether the article reads like an advertisement. If it does, then that results from poor writing for which I confess my inability to be more convincing. But this is a matter for joint wiki editing to make the message clearer with objectivity. --Paul144 14:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If this article can be kept at all under its current title, it may have to be treated as a discourse on the usage of a marketing term (like 'faster faster better better'). I'm not anticipating any neutral descriptive usage of the term, like in a medical journal: 'Pineapple was tested and found not to be a superfruit.' This is not likely to happen. EdJohnston 16:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

An analysis of the superfoods category has been prepared by DataMonitor, a business intelligence agency tracking major markets --

The table of contents is interesting to see the topics of research, including several references to superfruits highlighted as trends or in tables or figures. --Paul144 00:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

CSPI reference
The Center for Science in the Public Interest has published its own critique. I also see from Google that there are reactions to CSPI's critique in a number of food industry newsletters: EdJohnston 17:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i put this in the article. if you know of any more reliable sources critical of the health benefits, it would be good to add them too. this article is too heavily weighted toward industry claims of health benefits. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C

What is the actual topic of this article?
"..this category remains undefined with no scientific standards or commercial criteria accepted uniformly in the industry. This article establishes a foundation for assessing superfruit candidates and defining this important emergent category for foods and beverages." I believe this quote from the article shows a dilemma. If it's an undefined category, then Wikipedia's article doesn't have a topic. The remark that 'this article establishes a foundatiion..' is the kind of thing that you would see in an original research article. It is not up to us to establish a foundation; it is our mission to report a consensus that already exists.

More broadly, it appears that this article's topic is a marketing campaign. So we would be documenting what people have *said* superfruit is, rather than what it actually is. It would be documenting the chief proponents of the campaign, and writing about the impact of the campaign on what is being said in the industry and by other market participants. So this would not be a scientific article about fruit. EdJohnston 17:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * it is our mission to report a consensus that already exists -- this is the editing challenge. The topic is worthy of our attention to state it for what it is: a new market category affecting consumer behavior. I think we can overcome your and Ronz's concerns just with better writing. I'm certainly willing to go back and try different expressions, but could use your help to identify specific confusing areas. --Paul144 17:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The part that is easy to document is that there is a promotional campaign. You can't really say 'a new market category suddently came to exist,' because what data would you possibly collect to determine that? A market category is just a useful fiction.  The problem that I see with this article could be mostly cured by renaming it to 'Superfruit marketing.'  Then we could make 'Superfruit' be a redirect to 'Superfruit marketing.' EdJohnston 17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that solution. We should clarify that "promotional campaign" is not necessarily an advertisement, but rather in this case has been created mostly by market observation. --Paul144 18:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since we're considering what this article is about, let's keep in mind that we need independent reliable sources to support whatever is in the article. To avoid NPOV and WP:OR problems, it would be a good time to find some such sources before we go too far or too quickly in renaming the article. --Ronz 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We still need your specific objections to the references used, Ronz. Those references and the external links in the article are a somewhat comprehensive list of perhaps every article or news story published to date. Regarding WP:OR, that page says:
 * 1) Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor a forum for promoting one's own point of view; all material must be verifiable
 * 2) Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts
 * 3) Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses

We have a working draft of 1) verifiable sources; 2) citations from RS containing facts as interpreted or measured in the industry; and 3) a synthesis attributed to all the references used, each having been written by a non-marketer, edited in some cases by scientists or most cases by editors, and published in valid online news sites.

It might be helpful if you could review the article content and point out specific passages that seem poorly referenced. Thanks. --Paul144 21:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm done commenting on the sources until we get third-party help. If you're done with the Talk:Superfruit discussion, I'll write up a WP:RSN as I said I would. --Ronz 22:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I put a request on WP:RSN yesterday, no. 50. --Paul144 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Thanks! --Ronz 22:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My comments on items in above
I value your and Ronz's input so I don't want you turned off by my defending the references used. But I feel compelled to make comments below. --Paul144 14:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Pratt S, Matthews K (2004). Superfoods Rx. Harper Collins.
 * OK, this is just a book that tried to popularize the name 'superfoods.' Usually books are reliable sources.

2. http://www.superfoodsrx.com/superfoods/ Superfoods Rx Website
 * No, I don't see that this site qualifies. The publisher of this site has no particular scientific reputation, yet they are trying to persuade people of the truth of statements about nutrition. They are not medical, they are not governmental, they are not the authors of published scientific research; what are they doing here?

The SuperfoodsRx site is an extension of the book whose main author is a practicing physician too busy to have a regular presence on the site. One has to read the content of this website to appreciate it as a RS, which I am convinced it is. The people monitoring and writing for the site are nutrition professionals, http://www.superfoodsrx.com/about-us.html, and their content is written/edited mostly by participating physicians, http://www.superfoodsrx.com/nutrition/nutritional-research/. In my view, the positive consumer message about superfoods, if based in science as I feel it is, is far more important as a RS than the appearance of the site. Also, for a relatively young market category, SuperfoodsRx is synonymous with the 2004 1st edition and 2006 2nd edition of the book as the recognized authority -- an important template for superfruits.

3.*Wild Blueberry Association of North America
 * No. I'd accept them as an activist group hoping to increase sales of blueberries. They might be a data point for an analysis of current marketing efforts, but in this case they are trying to be an authority on the food value of fruits. How did they get their scientific reputation? Where are their peer-reviewed articles?

Some knowledge of this organization's background is needed. WBANA is promotional of blueberry commerce but their messages are based on research that they have sponsored for publication in peer-reviewed journals, shown here -- http://www.wildblueberries.com/research.php. In the berry industry, this group has done nearly as much as the more profitable cranberry industry to advance scientific understanding of blueberries through rigorous medical and food science. As a scientist, I can see that the publications shown on this site are of a high quality and are regarded well among berry scientists. Ok as a RS.

4. Wu X, Beecher GR, Holden JM, Haytowitz DB, Gebhardt SE, Prior RL. Lipophilic and hydrophilic antioxidant capacities of common foods in the United States. J Agric Food Chem. 2004 Jun 16;52(12):4026-37. Abstract.
 * Peer-reviewed scientific article. OK with me.

5. Schauss AG, Wu X, Prior RL, Ou B, Huang D, Owens J, Agarwal A, Jensen GS, Hart AN, Shanbrom E (2006-10-01). "Antioxidant capacity and other bioactivities of the freeze-dried Amazonian palm berry, Euterpe oleraceae mart. (acai).". Retrieved on 2007-07-08.
 * Another peer-reviewed article. OK with me.

6.Young G, Lawrence R, Schreuder M (2006). "Discovery of the Ultimate Superfood". Essential Science Publishing, Orem, UT. Retrieved on 2007-07-27.
 * Since this is a book, it is considered a reliable source, but I wouldn't trust it for any health claims unless the authors are recognized authorities. Would need to see some evidence of that.

Although the second author is a physician, there are many statements in this book that go beyond scientific credibility. The first author is a naturopath well-known for exaggerated statements about the health benefits of natural products. Nevertheless, the book contains independent contract lab assays providing nutrient data not available for the goji elsewhere. By comparing these data with other related plants, the book's nutrient tables can be checked for whether they are in an acceptable range of credibility, so qualifies as a RS.

7. Crawford, Karl. "Superfruits, the Future of Health", HortResearch New Zealand, 2006-10-24. Retrieved on 2007-08-22. (English)
 * HortResearch is a commercial firm owned by the Government of New Zealand. Here is a quote from the article:
 * "here are already three major globally recognised 'superfruits' - blueberries, cranberries and pomegranate - plus a number of up-and-comers such as Acai and Mangosteen."This just seems to be echoing marketing copy from elsewhere. The person who wrote this, Karl Crawford, may not have done research himself on what superfruits are. If he has peer-reviewed publications they are not listed at the web site.

I believe Crawford is the business development spokesperson for the HortResearch scientists who publish routinely in the scientific literature. HortResearch, although having a commercial outlet as it should for its discoveries, is primarily a government-operated research lab commissioned to improve the food quality of New Zealand's crops. Their scientists publish on a range of topics and are respected around the world. Fruit scientists listen when HortResearch speaks. Ok as a RS.

You are correct, I am in business development at HortResearch, and it is also correct that HortResearch (or more fully The Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand) is a New Zealand Government owned research institute - the largest integrated fruit research organisation in the world. We publish extensively in peer reviewed journals on all topics related to fruit, but relevant to this discussion, on the health properties of fruit. I would suggest that we are a reliable source for information on fruit and fruit research.

I have followed the discussion on this article and from my point of view, superfruits are a marketing phenomenon - a short hand way of saying here is a fruit product that has certain characteristics. From my point of view they are:

A superfruit is a fruit product (fresh fruit, beverage, ingredient) where sales have grown by more than 5% in the last year and has the following characteristics:

1. Sensory - it has to taste good, look good and be novel

2. Convenient - it has to be convenient-beverages are great, fresh fruit has a problem unless it is a berry

3. Health - it has to have a specific, relevant and understandable health benefit

4. Control of supply - no point in spending money on developing a superfruit if everyone else can jump on the bandwagon

5. Marketing - it's all for nothing if you don't market your superfruit

As far as I am aware, there is no accepted definition for a superfruit. 125.237.111.238 (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is as far as I got. I feel like I am trying to debug advertising copy, not an encyclopedia article. The article, if it is to be kept, needs rewriting in my opinion. EdJohnston 04:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for rewriting in a wiki collaboration, especially to dispel the perception that the article is an ad. Thanks for the work to you and Ronz. --Paul144 14:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Commercial websites don't have the credibility to serve as references on health claims
For background on my comments, look at Reliable sources/examples.

This is a followup on the above discussion of the Superfoodsrx web site. I argue that a commercial website is not a suitable reference to back up any health claim. Who are the peer reviewers of a commercial website? There are none. A doctor who owns a company may in some cases also have peer-reviewed publications. In that case I believe we should cite the actual publications, and not the website. (Unless in some cases the site may host a convenience copy of an article that was accepted for publication in some journal). The credibility comes from the doctor's reputation, and from the journal, and not at all from the commercial company he is associated with. The doctor's credibility does not 'rub off' on the website, and it does not make the company's website a reliable source.

Frequently at WT:EL an editor will be promoting a certain website as 'containing useful links.' I.e. our readers should click to the web site, and from there they can locate reliable sources. Generally this argument is rejected, with the claim that the actual reliable sources should be brought directly into the Wikipedia article. If there are any useful articles cited at superfoodsrx.com, I believe we should bring citations to those articles directly here, and leave out the intermediary of superfoodsrx.com. That way our readers will obtain the reliable information without having to face slogans such as 'Foods guaranteed to change your life.' EdJohnston 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ed -- my opinion about the SuperfoodsRx website was and is that it's more important as a general content resource for consumers than it is for providing health claims (which it does not do, as health claims require rigorous scientific and clinical demonstration). It's also not necessary, in my opinion, to lead Wikipedia readers to original research references for each of the superfoods. The two editions of SuperfoodsRx book itself are really the only important "products" of this website and even in those books, the original research citations are just listed rather than individually presented.


 * As I think we're getting too much into details and this resource is more background than it is essential for describing superfruits, I suggest we just drop it from the article and move on to your and Ronz's other concerns. --Paul144 11:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article - Industry
I don't think this belongs in the article, though it's a good description of the purpose and focus of the article now given the above discussions. "The following discussion is not intended to be an advertisement for this food category or for any individual fruit or product. Rather, examples are given to reveal the growth rate of a new category in the functional foods industry having significant potential to influence dietary uses of high-nutrient, antioxidant-enriched fruits." --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What would you say are the priorities for getting the article with the right non-advertorial tone and references? After about a month of waiting for input from the WP:RSN Noticeboard, I think we can conclude we're not going to receive anything from there. Perhaps if you could make a brief "to do list", we could begin to edit the article to a version you and Ed feel is satisfactory. --Paul144 (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're on the right track. It would be helpful to find other ways to get more editors involved here.  Maybe one or more projects would be applicable? --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's begin with your wishes, Ronz. Give me a project. --Paul144 (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:PROJECT gives the list of projects. Taking only a quick look through them, I don't see any that look a perfect match, but maybe WP:BUSINESS would be a good place to ask for help. WP:RETAIL might also be worthwhile to try. --Ronz 17:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How about you being an editor? Just start revising whatever it is you feel should be changed. I'll pitch in to be as constructive as possible. --Paul144 17:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro
I haven't been keeping up with all the changes here. While the article has greatly improved, I think first sentence should still conveys too much of what the article used to be, an article about superfruit, instead of an article about the marketing of what are called "superfruit". Specifically, ""refers to a common or rare exotic fruit having exceptional nutrient richness, antioxidant quality and novel taste or application." --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How about one of these versions?


 * 1. A term first used in 2005, superfruit lacks scientific definition but is marketed in the food and beverage industry as having exceptional nutrient richness, antioxidant quality and popular taste or application.


 * 2. Superfruit, a marketing term first used in 2005, infers exceptional nutrient richness, antioxidant quality and popular taste or application. Although exploited increasingly in the food and beverage industry, superfruits have not been defined with scientific rigor, leaving their nutritional value open to differences of interpretation.
 * --Paul144 (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Per WP:LEAD, we should be summarizing the article, so I definitely favor the first over the second because we aren't addressing the differences of opinion.
 * I find "or application" confusing, but maybe it's just me. What's that supposed to mean? --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Application" is addressed in the last sentence of the current introduction: Current industry development includes novel applications for new consumer products, such as functional flavors, fortified water, energy drinks and dietary supplements.

Using the first test sentence would be ok probably on its own as it does capture most of the article's messages. But the second saying "...superfruits have not been defined with scientific rigor, leaving their nutritional value open to differences of interpretation" raises something not covered in the article, although very much part of the superfruits story: some fruits have neither nutrient nor antioxidant qualities -- noni and mangosteen are two -- but are almost always listed among superfruits. Pomegranate is nutrient poor but has antioxidant qualities, so is nearly always mentioned as a superfruit.

I avoided writing about these controversies because the industry seems to accept them all and certainly there are ardent marketers who like their fruit products (noni juice, XanGo) being called superfruits. If described or debated within the article, it would require a longer text which may deflect what is now a concise article. --Paul144 (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Grape?
This is one of the most common fruits in juices and related products (far from a novelty ingredient), and is much more familiar to the public than raspberries or blackberries...--74.46.213.138 (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * True, but the industry would say there are perhaps two main factors establishing grape's position as probably the market-leading superfruit:


 * 1) more horticultural and medical research is done on grape than on any other superfruit (I counted > 400 publications just in 2007, far exceeding the number for the next superfruit), and
 * 2) it remains the most diversely applied among the superfruits, from varied wines to all the grape products seen in grocery stores. If we could tally all sales of grape products worldwide, there would be no doubt grape is the leader by far.


 * Grape juice remains the principal vehicle for introducing new superfruit candidates, such as blends with aronia, acai, acerola, pomegranate or goji, etc. that one can see in the market now as novel juice products manufacturers are probing for consumer acceptance. --Paul144 (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Does blackcurrant meet all criteria to be a superfruit?
User 83.16.132.162 makes an argument that blackcurrant has long been established with superfruit criteria.

In terms of nutrient, phytochemical and specifically antioxidant qualities, I would agree it has. But these are not the only criteria needed to gain superfruit status the way the article presents. Qualifiers missing


 * 1) not established in diverse consumer products or markets outside western Europe and Australia/New Zealand
 * 2) not usually included by industry authors among superfruit category analyses or discussions
 * 3) global or regional revenues on product sales have not been presented; how large is its total world market?
 * 4) its taste is preferred only by a limited number of consumers
 * 5) fresh market remains only local

To summarize as the article tries to capture, a superfruit needs evidence both for compositional and market qualities to meet the criteria for being "super". If not holding to such a dual definition, then -- as is evident from press releases by many manufacturers in recent industry news -- any fruit can be called a superfruit if the manufacturer says so. --Paul144 (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely fruits officially classified as superfruits by reputable scientific sources should not be also in the "emerging superfruits" section?
The emerging superfruits section states "there is insufficient commercial and/or medical research activity to confirm these species as superfruits."

Yet some of them are also in the list of superfruits.

An example of this is elderberries. --212.159.75.57 (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone would include elderberry among superfruits as defined by marketing and sales criteria in the article. It's far from mainstream and has little cultivation anywhere in the world. By comparison to any of the 10 usually mentioned, as in the two tables, it would not qualify, but has potential due to its relatively strong antioxidant and nutrient qualities.


 * The one reference to elderberry in the article was to its ORAC. It was not identified as a superfruit in that section. --Paul144 (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to hide this fact?
I think the article should mention that its dual definition of superfruits excludes fruits with sometimes higher nutritional properties that haven’t been widely advertised under “superfruit” label.

For example blackcurrants have higher levels of antioxidants than blueberries, cranberries or grapes   but are not classified as superfruits here. They also contain record amounts of vitamin C, GLA, potassium and so on. Similarly, bilberries have higher levels of anthocyanins than their American cousins blueberries but are not superfruits themselves. I can provide more examples if needed.

In conclusion, I think this unnecessarily LONG article should include noticeable paragraph explaining this matter. It’s important because many people unfamiliar with dietetics may assume that products with word "super" are always better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's keep in mind the article is a work in progress to provide a clear, concise definition of a consumer product category, fruits that are present in the category, and how they are marketed. I emphasize "marketing" because the term superfruit wouldn't exist if it were not being used to market fruit products. So if a fruit is not widely marketed -- like bilberries and blackberries -- in products that become mainstream or achieve very high sales revenues of > $200 million annually -- then it's unlikely they would be called superfruits.


 * Blackcurrant has many qualities that should make it a superfruit but its most popular product, a juice called Ribena, would not achieve the global sales mark and the blackcurrant remains a novelty fruit outside parts of Europe and Australia/NZ where it is popular. In other parts of the world, like North America, blackcurrant seems not to be a popular taste so sales of Ribena and dried fruit are quite low.


 * Your focus is on nutrient and phytochemical content for these berries you wish to include, two factors of four proposed in the article to establish superfruit criteria. Many new entries to the category of commercial superfruit products use only one criterion -- most often presence of antioxidant phytochemicals -- as enough to make a call on superfruit eligibility. But that also does not fit the model of qualification the article proposes to obtain objectivity in defining a superfruit.


 * A more rigorous third criterion is the critical mass of medical research literature showing progress toward clinical trials on consuming the fruit itself, its juice or an extract. By this criterion, blackcurrants, blackberries and bilberries do not have enough literature leading toward eventual health claims to qualify.


 * Fourthly, the market success is not achieved for these fruits and there are no featured products for them individually, Ribena excepted. There should be, as they are equal to or exceed in taste and nutrient qualities some fruits called superfruits.


 * We should work together to improve the article, make it a clearer and simpler definition to understand, and perhaps most importantly to accurately represent the superfruit industry, which continues to grow impressively and is entrenched now in the public image. There has been very little contribution to the article to date. I would love to see more debate and editing activity on the article.--Paul144 (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR -- Tables of (a) nutrient, antioxidant and research features (b) qualitative indices for monitoring superfruit development
Lots of problems with these tables. The choice of which information to include seems subjective; the tables does not seem to accurately reflect the key antioxidants nor the weight of evidence for each of the fruits mentioned (e.g., there has been far more recent research conducted on blueberries than on noni or wolfberry).

Secondly, I am uncomfortable with the fact that the tables were prepared using an arbitrary collection of primary sources (and in the case of table 2, without any citations) rather than from information compiled and reviewed by one or two good secondary sources. The decision as to which fruits to include, which research to cite, and which diseases to mention are all highly arbitrary when based on primary sources. There is also a problem with the column in the first table titled “recent anti-disease research”; i.e., how can we be sure that such a table will be accurately updated to reflect the current status of research, or for that matter, that this is accurately reflected in the current version.

Who defines what constitutes “recent”? The references date back as far as 1999 – that’s not recent. And why does recency matter? The important issue is the strength of the evidence, not how recently the work was conducted.

The second, third, and fourth columns of Table 2, in which the antioxidant quality and nutrient content have been assessed and the intensity of research has been graded (high, medium, or low) clearly violates WP:OR since no reliable sources have made such assessments.

Lastly, the footnote on the first table states that the studies are in vitro studies. In vitro studies are not indicative of activity in human diseases and it is misleading to make such a suggestion. Only data from human clinical trials should be included in such an assessment. Such clinical data exists for fruits like blueberries, cranberries, etc.

There are too many issues related to WP:OR and WP:RS here for these tables to be included. Perhaps similar tables published by a reliable secondary source(s) can be found. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm new to following this article and agree that it contains a lot of subjectivity -- but this is how the category began, right? Science has not defined superfruits but rather this topic was created by marketing and apparent public acceptance of what fruits are called super. Using scientific criteria, no one would call noni or mangosteen superfruits but these two are probably the category leaders by product sales.


 * I think the tables and article served the purpose of helping to define superfruits on "best-in-class" science available without the hype and fabrications so prevalent in the consumer market.


 * Fyi, regarding recent research -- was curious so I did a quick Pubmed review of research over 2008-9 on blueberry (about 90 studies), wolfberry (~40), noni (~30) and mangosteen (~30). By contrast, there are about 1000 reports on grape over that time.


 * Have seen your other posts on similar topics so welcome your work here, rigor apparently long overdue since this article really hasn't had much editing input since its inception. Wish I was more qualified to contribute since it needs the scientific perspective. But I would caution going too far on the clinical data as you said -- Only data from human clinical trials should be included in such an assessment. Such clinical data exists for fruits like blueberries, cranberries, etc. since, according to clinicaltrials.gov and FDA approvals, no fruit is advanced far enough in human studies to begin assigning specific health benefits that would truly earn a fruit "super" status. --Zefr (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Then there was this posted today about acai


 * "what we're guzzling by the gallon is masterful marketing. Rather than being a "global wonderberry," acai might better be described as an overhyped jungle juice that's no better for your health than the average orange. Instead of the happy tale of the little berry that could, the acai phenomenon is really just the latest example of how time and time again we turn off our brains and open our wallets when we're presented with a bottle of exotic "superfruit" juice that's been packaged as some kind of shortcut to immortality."


 * "Consider the very concept of the superfruit. Seven years ago, no such thing existed. Then came the stunning success of POM Wonderful, and the revelation that enormous profits could be squeezed from exotic fruits such as mangosteen, goji berries, and noni berries.


 * Voila. The superfruit — a name that calls heroic feats to mind — was born. The media ate it up. Scientists balked. ("I hate the word 'superfruit,' " says Blumberg. "It suggests that there are somehow meek, mild-mannered fruits that you shouldn't bother to eat.") The term entered the lexicon as a new category of natural, healthy food. Of course, marketers knew the deal: "Superfruits are the product of a strategy, not something you find growing on a tree,"''--Zefr (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the problems with the table and the article in general. The article was long overdue for a rewrite to WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"its a silly marketing term" is all the text this age needs everything else should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.144.187 (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Trimming
I've tried to be bold and scythed away some of the most obviously unencyclopaedic sections. The sections dealing with the development of the concept within the food industry are relatively reasonable. Still can't quite tell how much the list of criteria related to market success is original research. Pseudomonas(talk) 16:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Superfood?
I propose merging this article with Superfood. Superfruits are essentially a subset of superfoods in general, and there's substantial duplication of content, since it's basically the same marketing strategy, whether it's applied to Quinoa or Pomegranates. Neither article is particularly overloaded with indispensable content, so I don't see that we'll end up with an over-sized or bloated article if we combine the two. Discussion will be centralized at Talk:Superfood. 0x0077BE ( talk ·  contrib ) 20:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support makes sense. Alexbrn talk 13:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge completed; open for editing at Superfood. --Zefr (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)