Dr. Nestle’s point, that you two seemed to miss, is that there is no study showing it is any better than any other juice (it’s only better than the control – same trick that pharmaceutical companies use when their patent is about to run out on a drug – they tweak it and get a new patent – but it’s no better than older less expensive drugs.)

A proper research study would have included not only the control but other juices as well. If it showed it was better than other juices, then perhaps they could justify the high price tag…

First, JAFC is a peer reviewed journal published by the American Chemical Society. This is the real deal. This is a real scientific journal, not Newsweek, Time or People magazine. This is not where people publish propaganda or lies. (Though it occasionally does happen – see the Cold Fusion debacle in the 80’s)

Second, you mention it worked better than potato flakes, which contain no anti-oxidants. Do you even have a clue what a placebo is and why it must be used in these types of studies? When you are administering test compounds to a human subject, and that subject knows what they are testing, their mind can do all sorts of little tricks on them which can affect the outcome of the study. To counteract this phenomenon, some people are given placebos (in this case, potato flakes) which will also provide a baseline to see if there really is any physiological affect when using the real test compound.

Based on the scientific data presented in the JAFC article, the juice does show significant anti-oxidant behavior in the human body. Is it better than other juices from other fruits? I have no idea. That is a study I would love to see. I’ve just started researching this topic, so it may be out there somewhere.

So Marion Nestle, instead of spewing your slanted propaganda, why don’t you just tell the truth, as in “Yes, this juice is scientifically shown to have anti-oxidant properties. However, I have not seen a study which compares it to other fruits and vegetables, so it’s health benefits when compared to other foods is unknown at this time.” or something like that. Feel free to say that it is sold in an overpriced MLM scheme, but don’t slant the facts….and that is what this journal presents, is facts. If you are not qualified to interpret a “formidable” study, find someone who is to interpret it for you, or don’t write about it at all.

I have found a couple of ‘holes’ in the info that Monavie presents… and some in Xango as well. Rather minor so far.

My gripe with this guy, Marion Nestle is that he comes across like a self-righteous, pompous “deliverer-of-the-deeper-truth”.

Here’s my beef with the author here. He poo-poos the study while acknowledging it’s results… but he states, ‘Well, of course they got this result! It was sponsored by Monavie.”

Monavie didn’t do the study in their labs. They went to an independent, nationally recognized and respected lab. So, two problems with this guy, then. HOW do you do a truly independent study then?! What else could this company have done to prove the veracity of their claims?

And, it is rather insulting to the lab itself.

So, MR. Deliverer-of-the-deeper-truth, how do you suggest a company like Monavie conduct a study to come up with independent facts to verify their claims?

Sorry… just as disgusted with this guy as he is trying to make his readers disgusted with MLMs and Monavie.

I like the taste, but the hype surrounding açaì makes me suspicious.