Talk:ConsumerLab.com/Archive 1

Archive 1

Independence of this organization

I wonder how independent this outfit is. There's no indication of what their income source is, and they seem to be trying to dissuade people from buying generic drugs (like bupropion). --Paul Abrahams (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As is evident from their website, their revenue is simply the annual subscription fee they charge members. If they dissuade people from buying certain generic drugs, my uninformed guess is that it could be because a significant variety of generic versions of those specific drugs were found by them to contain less-than-advertised amounts or impurity-ridden amounts of the drug. As far as I know, they do not have any vested interests in any pharmaceutical companies. As for bupropion, they do provide an explanation for their recommendations, which you are probably already aware of. --AB (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

CL subject of FTC complaint

− The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate deceptive business practices by ConsumerLab.com. The CRN complaint states that ConsumerLab.com-which represents itself as a consumer watchdog testing dietary supplements-is in reality a for-profit company that solicits money from the makers of products it plans to have tested. Those that pay have positive results highlighted and negative results quashed; those that don't pay have negative results highlighted and positive results obscured.

− − ConsumerLab.com promotes itself as "a leading provider of consumer information and independent evaluations of products that affect health and nutrition." Contrary to the image it projects of an actual testing facility, ConsumerLab.com essentially is a three-person operation, and its business address is a UPS drop box in White Plains, N.Y. It farms out product testing, but does not make public the identity of the laboratories it uses.

− − Here is how it works: ConsumerLab.com approaches dietary supplement makers requesting that they enroll in its "voluntary" testing program-for a fee. Those that pay are guaranteed that products failing the subsequent testing will not be identified publicly. Companies that do not pay risk having their products tested anyway and, if they fail, being publicized on ConsumerLab.com's Web site and in the media.

− − Meeting ConsumerLab.com's standards is no guarantee that a manufacturer will be treated fairly. Only products from companies that pay up and pass are mentioned on the free portion of ConsumerLab.com's Web site. Products that pass but are made by companies that don't pay are listed only on the private portion of the site.

− − These products are absent from the public site, giving the impression to non-subscribers that they must have failed because they aren't listed. And even the 20,000 Web subscribers, who pay $24 a year for "full access" to product tests, aren't told that ConsumerLab.com has agreed to suppress failing results for companies that paid up.

− − In contrast to CL, CRN [www.crnusa.org] is a Washington, D.C.-based trade association representing dietary supplement industry ingredient suppliers and manufacturers. CRN members adhere to a strong code of ethics, comply with dosage limits and manufacture dietary supplements to high quality standards under good manufacturing practices. [2]

− Stockhom1947 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

− −

The reference link that you had provided was not an official news link. Also, the FTC complaint was dismissed. Nonetheless, I think it is okay to include the info in a Criticisms section, as long as one or more news links are provided as references. --AB (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing Information- What does ConsumerLabs.com actually do?

I think it is important that the page make note of the following about ConsumerLab.com: 1) ConsumerLabs.com is a for-profit business and has nothing to do with Consumers Union, the non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports. 2) The company charges fees to manufacturers that affects the placement of products on the website. 3) The company is not a laboratory and does not perform laboratory tests. The company does not reveal who performs the tests. 4) The ConsumerLabs.com website lists a mailing address, 333 Mamaroneck Avenue White Plains, NY 10605, at which there is no building owned or rented in that name.

This need not be from a criticism standpoint- there just needs to be a specific description of business practices. 71.61.185.9 (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Advert Warning

Removed since information is factual, accurate and useful, and not intended for promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absander (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if information in an article is factual, accurate, useful, and not intended for promotion, it can still appear to be promotional and need to be improved. It's important to consider balance as well. If ConsumerLab.com has tested presumably hundreds of types of supplements over the past ten years, it disrupts the balance of the article to include a bunch of details about three or four types of recently-tested supplements. Instead, this could be appropriately covered by brief statements about the most notable results of ConsumerLab.com's testing, referenced to reliable third-party sources discussing those results. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Advert Warning:Hi Dreamyshade, not sure how the main information about the company sounds promotional. I've noticed many companies have a wiki page with similar information, not sure how this could be improved.If you have suggestions, please let me know. I agree a section about Notable findings would be more appropriate, and am working on that, plus adding third party references. --Absander (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)— Absander (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If this article doesn't get deleted (which it probably will not), it needs a rewrite based upon independent sources, and there should be strong focus on writing from sources that establish notability. The deletion discussion should give us many potential sources to work from. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

fixes

I significantly rewrote the article in neutral tone so that prose is not advancing anything in commercial advantage of ConsumerLab. So we've established the fact that Cooperman reported to hearing in person in 2006 before the House of Reps, and a copy of his letter that he wrote to senate made available as public record proves he wrote the letter. Glassman's review counts as one credible reliable source covering the company in significant depth. The rest of contents are derived from company's self published sources. We need additional secondary sources to validate notability that makes this company noteworthy. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally feel I've scrubbed out COI/NPOV issues, so I've removed those two tags that I inserted earlier. Please reinsert if one of you disagree with it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Changes

Thanks to Cantaloupe, Dreamyshade, Ronz and everyone for your imput/changes! I have put together a few "Notable Findings" as Dreamyshade suggested that I think would be more relevant, but would like your input first and don't want to post anything that would be considered inappropriate. I think I would post them here so you can see them?

Please take a look at these and let me know if this is more in line with the guidelines, if you think it is relevant, etc. If this is not the right place to make suggested changes, please let me know. Also, I wasn't sure if it is ok to put reference links here on the talk page, so I've listed the references and can provide you with the url if you'd like.

Thanks!--Absander (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

To demonstrate any of these are notable, we'd most likely need some independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I added bullet points to Absander's suggested text to make the references easier to read; some of them are suitable independent sources. References 7, 8, and 9 indicate that ConsumerLab.com's coconut water study is moderately notable - mentioned in a NYT blog post and cited in a suit. Searching for materials related to the suit, this WSJ article discusses ConsumerLab.com's study. Reference 11 indicates that ConsumerLab.com's caffeine drink study is moderately notable, mentioned in a CNN article. Looking this up, the study was also mentioned in a ConsumerReports article, a Forbes article, and a Today article. And reference 17 shows coverage of its red yeast rice study in a medical journal. Looking that up, it was also covered in a CNN article. Similar to the sources I found for notability, a lot of this coverage seems to have been encouraged by PR, but with the pretty decent amount of coverage overall, it makes sense to mention some of them briefly in the article. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Great work tracking that down! While no single source covers ConsumerLab.com in any detail, I think you've found enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH in that ConsumerLab.com's research is being used by multiple news organizations and ConsumerReports. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of those sources may be worthy of inclusion. Of all those, "mentioned in a blog post" in a sentence or two is not doing much. It is not the opinion of the paper, but that of the author, so that needs to be made very clear. It would not be appropriate all of them and certainly not proper to add link to each test Absander linked as this would be promotional. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to include the sources. Most likely, we'd need to do some careful summarizing and just state that their research is used. Without more sources, including at least one that actually gives significant coverage, anything further would be inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Verifiable and truthful are mandatory. However, just because these are met is not a pass to add WP:Advert and use references to showcase company accomplishments in favorable manner and adding excess details will run afoul with WP:NPOV issue. For example, advocates for vegetarianism can selectively pick and aggregate semi credible sources speaking favorably of it. Same applies when company's agent or its PR rep do the same to take control on what gets published on its page/client's page. Absander, I request that you disclose if you have a close tie or are hired to work on this article. Though not mandatory,our guidelines strongly encourage full disclosure. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Editors need not disclose such information, though they should review WP:COI. Pressuring editors to disclose such ties is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I reworded. I didn't say he's compelled to provide it.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Red Yeast Rice Supplements

Red yeast rice naturally contains a monacolin compound called lovastatin, which has been shown to reduce cholesterol production by inhibiting enzyme HMG-CoA reductase.[13] Lovastatin is the key ingredient in the prescription drug Mevacor®, a statin drug used to lower cholesterol levels in people with high cholesterol. While several clinical studies have found that red yeast rice taken daily for two to three months can lower total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and triglycerides in people with elevated cholesterol,[references 14, 15, 16] there are no standards for amounts of lovastatin and other monacolins in red yeast rice dietary supplements and, due to regulatory issues, these levels are generally not listed on supplements.

Tests by ConsumerLab.com in 2008 of ten red yeast rice products showed a 100-fold range in amounts of total lovastatins. This finding was subsequently published in The Archives of Internal Medicine in a paper co-authored by Dr. Cooperman and William Obermeyer, PhD.[reference 17]

• 14. Herber, David et al. Cholesterol-lowering effects of a proprietary Chinese red-yeast-rice dietary supplement . Am J Clin Nutr 1999 69:2; 231-236.
• 15. Zongliang Lu, MD et al. Effect of Xuezhikang, an Extract From Red Yeast Chinese Rice, on Coronary Events in a Chinese Population With Previous Myocardial Infarction. Amer J Cardio June 2008 101:12; 1689-1693.
• 16. Venero Carmelo V, MD. et al. Lipid-Lowering Efficacy of Red Yeast Rice in a Population Intolerant to Statins Amer J Cardio March 2010 105:5; 664-666.
• 17. Gordon, Ram Y, M.D., Cooperman Tod, M.D., Obermeyer, William, PhD., Becker, David J, M.D. Marked Variability of Monacolin Levels in Commercial Red Yeast Rice Products. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(19):1722-1727.

After comparing the prose against the soure it has been identified that there is a factual error (10 vs 12 samples), and the summary is selective and editorial in nature. While the JAMA piece is exceptionally written, the statement above is obviously editorialized to relate to the consumer and make it seem the finding is more earth shattering than it really is. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Supplement Quality

In 2010, Cooperman testified before Dietary Supplements subcommittee of the Senate Special Committee on Aging regarding the quality of dietary supplements in the U.S., based on the findings of ConsumerLab.com product testing.3 Cooperman testified that ConsumerLab.com finds approximately one out of four dietary supplements to have a quality issue, the most common problems being lower amounts of an ingredient than claimed on the label, use of substandard ingredients, and heavy metal contamination.[reference 3]

• 3. Testimony of Tod Cooperman, MD, President, ConsumerLab.com to Senate Special Committee on Aging - Subcommittee on Dietary Supplements" (PDF). U.S. Senate. 26 May 2010. Retrieved 19 August 2011.

This is a self-published source. It was posted on their site in verbatim with no analysis by anyone else. Company employee's own piece of writing can't be used towards establishing notability for the said company, at least that's my interpretation of WP:SPS and WP:RS. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Coconut Water

As published in the New York Times, ConsumerLab.com testing in 2011 found two of three coconut water products, commonly promoted for hydration and electrolyte balance, contained less sodium and magnesium than claimed on the label.[references 6, 7]

This product review was cited in a class action lawsuit against Vita Coco, which agreed to change its labels and remove comparisons to sports drinks on its labels.[references 6, 8, 9]

• 6. ConsumerLab.com Review: Coconut Waters Review (2 August 2011)
• 7. New York Times (8 August 2012) Really? The Claim: For Better Hydration, Drink Coconut Water Accessed 15 December 2012.
• 8. Vitacostsettlement.com Stacey B. Fishbein et al. v. All Market Inc. d/b/a Vita Coco, Case No. 11-CIV-5580 (JPO)Vitacost Class Action Complaint
• 9. Vitacostsettlement.com Stacey B. Fishbein et al. v. All Market Inc. d/b/a Vita Coco, Case No. 11-CIV-5580 (JPO)Proposed Settlement

Energy Shots and Drinks

Dietary supplement labels are not required to disclose the amount of caffeine in a product. One energy shot product, which did not list the amount of caffeine on the label but compared the caffeine content to one cup of “a leading premium coffee,” was found by ConsumerLab.com testing to contain 207 mg of caffeine, or 15% more caffeine than found in an 8 oz. cup of premium coffee. [references 10, 11] Another energy drink was found to contain similar amounts of caffeine. Although caffeine has not yet been proven to be the cause of adverse event associated with these products, the FDA is currently investigating serious adverse events reports, including 17 deaths, reported in association with these two products.[references 11, 12]

• 10. ConsumerLab.com (23 September 2012) B Vitamin Supplements and Energy Drinks
• 11. Hudson, William. CNN. (16 November 2012) FDA investigates deaths preliminarily linked to energy shots
• 12. FDA (November 2012) Voluntary and Mandatory Reports on 5-Hour Energy, Monster Energy, and Rockstar

Bupropion

• Another proposed notable finding

In 2006, after noting dozens of consumer reports on their website of problems with the newly released Bupropion XL 300 mg, the generic version of Wellbutrin XL 300 mg, syndicated columnists Joe and Terry Graedon of The People’s Pharmacy asked ConsumerLab.com to compare this generic version with Wellbutrin. ConsumerLab.com tests found that while Wellbutrin XL, an extended-release antidepressant released 8% percent of its active ingredient within the first two hours of a dissolution test and 25% of its active ingredient within four hours, Buproprion released the active ingredient much more quickly, 34% within the first two hours and nearly 50% within four hours. The manufacturer of Buproprion stopped shipping the drug on September 27, 2012 after federal analysis confirmed the pill released its key ingredients faster than Wellbutrin XL 300 mg. On October 3, 2012, the FDA announced Buproprion XL 300 mg was not therapeutically equivalent to Wellbutrin XL 300 mg and would be withdrawn from the market.

References

Thanks, --Absander (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• ConsumerLab: https://www.consumerlab.com/news/Generic_Wellbutrin_XL_Pulled_from_Market/10_04_2012/
• Prevention: Are Generic Drugs Safe: http://www.prevention.com/health/healthy-living/find-out-how-use-generic-drugs-safely
• Wall Street Journal: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/health/19patient.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
• Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/healthcare/ci_21702473
• FDA Update: Budeprion XL 300 mg Not Therapeutically Equivalent to Wellbutrin XL 300 mg
• http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm322161.htm

Controversy section

I added the sections using some of references Dreamshady provided in Afd discussion. The FTC letter itself is a routine correspondence, but I found some controversy over that, so it could be noteworthy. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There were further allegations in early 2008. The controversy perhaps needs to be set in the context of the food supplement industry getting upset at a watchdog appearing in their midst, and the watchdog having difficulty generating enough revenue without resorting to a somewhat compromised revenue model. However there appears to have been no further controversy for nearly five years. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm only looking at in context to see if said controversies develop general notability of this company over every other bland online publishers. While I was adding the materials I've already added, I came across additional credible sources, but they were pay-per-view, so I wasn't able to review them. I'm reluctant to use the source you cited above seeing that it is a SOURCE Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC's press release which projects whatever they want to say in their own way rather than a neutral middle party reporting it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a cleaner ref, but there seems to be no followup. Has there been any controversy about the accuracy of the lab reports themselves? --Epipelagic (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any difference. "Renaissance Health Publishing, LLC Warns the Public that ConsumerLab.com is Not Independent... Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release. " Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's what I meant by "cleaner". It clearly makes your point. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There are no actual lab reports that are made available as far as I know. Only contents authored by ConsumerLab.com based on undisclosed information/reports they source are made available as far as I'm aware. Consumer lab asserts conditions and accreditation on their about page, but, not the identity of it. This is a business page. Controversies regarding business practice has just as much weight, if not more than criticism of their products(i.e. accuracy). One of the controversies raised was about non-disclosure of lab information which means accreditation and traceability of test halts at assertion by consumerlab.com that "they're reliable". Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As WP:Criticism suggests, I believe it's best to "avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies". Can the information in the "Controversies" section be integrated into the "History" section? That would make more sense to me - the complaint was part of the history of the company. As it stands, the article goes into a lot of detail about that complaint while not going into much detail about the rest of the history of the company, not good for balance. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There is much too much detail about unsubstantiated complaints, and little attempt to balance with other aspects of the company. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with this edit, but keep in mind that WP:Criticism is not a policy, but its only an essay. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

On that note, I'm finding background info on personnel go on excessively. The biographical background on employees is about as long as criticism section and it is about them rather than the company Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Council For Responsible Nutrition's letter to the FTC is simply a correspondence,and the FTC declined to take the matter further. I think this section is given undue weight on the page. The CRN describes itself as " the leading trade association representing dietary supplement manufacturers and ingredient suppliers. CRN companies produce a large portion of the dietary supplements marketed in the United States and globally." It would not be surprising that the organization would take issue with any negative findings about the products it represents... positive vs. negative press. But again, nothing really came of this.--Absander (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

One way to improve the balance here would be to add a new paragraph on the actual history of the company. Why was it founded? Did anything interesting happen between 1999 and 2005 - growth, change of focus, new products, change of leadership, new partnerships, new legislation affecting their practices, new competitors? Has anything happened since 2006 other than the hearing in 2010? Dreamyshade (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight/Conflict of Interest surrounding this page

Please have a look at the revision history of this talk page to evaluate yourself. I have discovered some questionable deletion of talk comments by a user who did not originate the deleted talk comments. It has been restored in the past, but was redeleted by Sdk7 again.

I see selective censorship in talk comment as a potential PR astroturfing.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Excess emphasis on Cooper/Obermeyer biography

The section talking about them and what they've done in the past is longer than about the company itself and its about as long as controversy discussion on the company. I think this is excess coverage on their three personnel. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

From a quick skim, I'm not seeing any sources that are both secondary and independent. --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Canteloupe2 and Ronz. I am thinking that information in the personel section might be moved to the history section, if it seems like there is too much emphasis on biographical information. Most of the information about Dr. Cooperman is really company-history related anyway, like discussing supplement test findings with the senate. Dreamyshade suggested rounding out the history section with more company information, and I'm working on that. I think most of the information in the personel section would qualify as history.--Absander (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

History

"Dr. Cooperman had written a letter to the US senate in May 2010[4] and appeared in a hearing before the House of Representatives' Committee on Government Reform on the Regulation of Dietary Supplements in March 2006.[5]"

I think this sentence is misleading because the letter is simply something a speaker submits when testifying before the House, as a matter of record. While the letter itself is a good reference, this sentence emphasises that a letter was written, rather than the fact that he testified or the content of his testimony. Might be better phrased liked this:

"Dr. Cooperman appeared in a hearing before the House of Representatives' Committee on Government Reform on the Regulation of Dietary Supplements in March 2006, and discussed ConsumerLab.com's findings through independent testing of dietary ingredients." (Reference: http://aging.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=325285&&)

..."discussed...independent testing of dietary ingredients is how the Special Committee on Government Aging summarized his testimony.

As for the emphasis on Cooperman, I think in this instance the information is relevant company info because ConsumerLab findings were brought before and considered by the committee.

Thoughts?--Absander (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I reworded a bit. Rather than discussed, "issued statements" was used, because that's how its worded in the source. The prose needs grammatical tweak as it stands now though. Can someone take on that without altering the meaning of whats said? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cantaloupe2, thanks! I left your changes but worked on the grammar a bit, and added a reference from the senate committee that gives a brief summary of Cooperman's testimony. Only minor changes and I believe the meaning has been retained, but let me know what you think!--Absander (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate coverage of notable findings

Hi Absander, I noticed the work you put into your your recent additions, including citing multiple independent sources, but it's still not quite right for this article. I'll try to explain. Mini-narratives explaining the significance and context of each supplement test would be great for some articles, but it's excessive detail for an article focused on the company. A better approach here is to try to be as brief as possible, especially since ConsumerLab.com has probably a dozen tests that were noted by independent sources.

Here's a draft showing more appropriate depth of coverage, arranged chronologically. If each notable test is covered by approximately two sentences, we can provide fair coverage for many notable tests without unbalancing the article too badly. I'd like to note that I believe it's OK for the article to have more coverage of ConsumerLab.com's tests than coverage of criticism of the company, since its tests have been covered by greater numbers of more significant sources. In any case, I'd appreciate comments from other editors on whether this depth and style of coverage makes sense for this article, and if it does make sense, I'd appreciate help making sure that I didn't introduce inaccuracies in my summaries. Thanks!

=== Notable findings ===

In 2006, ConsumerLab.com tested the newly released Bupropion XL 300 mg, the generic version of Wellbutrin XL 300 mg (an extended-release antidepressant), after consumer reports of problems with this generic version. ConsumerLab.com tests found that Buproprion XL released the active ingredient much more quickly than Wellbutrin XL. The manufacturer of Buproprion XL stopped shipping the drug in September 2012 after federal analysis confirmed the pill released its key ingredients faster than Wellbutrin XL.

In 2008, ConsumerLab.com tested ten red yeast rice products. Red yeast rice contains a compound called lovastatin that is a key ingredient of the prescription drug Mevacor, used to lower cholesterol levels in people with high cholesterol. ConsumerLab.com's tests showed that the red yeast rice products had a hundred-fold range in amounts of total lovastatins, and these results were published in The Archives of Internal Medicine.

In 2011, ConsumerLab.com testing found that two of three coconut water products, commonly promoted for hydration and electrolyte balance, contained less sodium and magnesium than claimed on the label. This product review was cited in a class action lawsuit against Vita Coco, which agreed to change its labels and remove comparisons to sports drinks on its labels.

In 2012, ConsumerLab.com tested energy shot and energy drink products, which are not required to disclose the amount of caffeine in the product. The test results showed that one energy shot product, which compared the caffeine content to one cup of “a leading premium coffee,” contained 207 mg of caffeine, or 15% more caffeine than found in an 8 oz. cup of premium coffee.

References

Dreamyshade (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a misnomer to refer to it as "Consumerlab.com's tests" rather than publications. They don't test, they order tests and write stories around them without disclosing the source. Some media outlets describe as "Consumerlab.com tested" while a credible source (which is provided in lead) says it doesn't do its own test. There's a procedure to be followed on Wikipedia when sources don't agree. I recall reading it somewhere on WP pages. Another thing to do is to see if ConsumerLab.com can be located in accreditation directories. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A company's contracted work is often called the company's work - see work for hire. (For example, Apple Inc. includes statements like "Its best-known hardware products are the Mac line of computers, the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad" and "Apple introduced the sixth-generation iPhone", and it specifies elsewhere in the article that Foxconn actually manufactures those devices. Many technology companies contract out parts of their software development, but people still say that the company's software is "by" that company.) The "Products and services" section of this article makes ConsumerLab.com's contracting practices clear, so I believe we can refer to their testing with shorthand in later parts of the article. I'm up for saying something more precise though. "ConsumerLab.com's publications" is imprecise, since ConsumerLab.com not only published but also commissioned those tests. Since sources are willing to say "ConsumerLab.com tested", so I believe we can too, but I'm open to phrasing suggestions. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good example. I'm open for rewording, but what's clear to me is that ConsumerLab.com is acting as a reviewer more so than a tester. It picks and chooses products. It sends them to unnamed laboratories, which CL won't release, because it reportedly claimed that "members of industry have threatened several with loss of business." When there's a controversy surrounding the name and press statements as making inferences that it does its own testing and NAICS code on HighBeam(very credible source) shows CL as a publisher, I think "publications" or "report" is appropriate. "ConsumerLab.com Tested Approved" is part of their slogan, so it causes confusion to use "tested".

References

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

ConsumerLab.com is commissioning tests and taking responsibility for the accuracy of its published results. It's not just reviewing other people's results, it's choosing what to test, arranging the tests, presumably paying for the tests, and publishing the results. A magazine is a publisher of articles; ConsumerLab.com is something more complicated. A classification code doesn't seem to be very useful for deciding on this, since ConsumerLab.com also does other traditional publishing work, such as producing books. Its "publisher" code doesn't neatly cover its certification program either.

I can't find "ConsumerLab.com Tested" as part of their slogan - I think it's "ConsumerLab.com Approved" - do you have a link? In any case, I could try to rearrange my draft so that each statement says "ConsumerLab.com testing found", but that's a pretty subtle difference. Or I could say "ConsumerLab.com commissioned tests of", which is a little clunky, but if you think it's OK, it's probably good enough for now. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Some additional sources I found

Talk:Fish oil#ConsumerLab.com is about whether ConsumerLab.com can be used as a reliable source for articles (I believe it can be), but in the process of digging up material for that discussion, I found some sources that may be useful for building this article:

News and magazine articles citing ConsumerLab.com in their reports on fish oil supplements: a mention in the NYT, coverage in USA Today, coverage in Men's Health, a mention in Prevention, coverage in Women's Health, and a mention in Reader's Digest.

This medical journal article cites ConsumerLab.com as a source for "The quality of many valerian and melatonin products purchased in the United States has been shown to be suspect in meeting label claims." [www.academicjournals.org/JMPR/PDF/pdf2008/July/Palu%20et%20al.pdf This medical journal article] cites ConsumerLab.com as one of three sources for whether noni juice contains substances banned for athletes. This book lists ConsumerLab.com, NSF International, and US Pharmacopoeia as "Organizations Providing Independent Certification for Dietary Supplements"; we may want to mention the other two as competitor organizations.

Results from searching the New York Times: coverage of multivitamin testing, brief recommendation for ConsumerLab.com, article from 2000 that mentions saw palmetto and gingko biloba tests (also possibly useful for working on the history section), article from 2002 that may be useful for history section and also mentions NSF International and US Pharmacopoeia (and lists "calcium, coenzyme Q10, creatine, echinacea, ginkgo biloba, ginseng, glucosamine, chondroitin, iron, MSM, multivitamins, omega-3 fatty acids, SAMe, saw palmetto, St. John's wort, valerian, isoflavones like soy and red clover, and C, E and B vitamins" as some of the supplements ConsumerLab.com had tested), coverage of garlic tablet testing, an article about one of ConsumerLab.com's books, coverage of health bar testing, coverage of arthritis remedy testing, coverage of valerian supplement testing, and coverage of cholesterol-related supplement testing.

Dreamyshade (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think they can be for some cases, but to cite failed/passed CLs test is about as arbitrary as "it passed connoisseur's approval" when it involves quantitative tests where there are no generally accepted standards in place. It could possibly perhaps maybe be more acceptable for qualitative tests, "Consumerlab describes lab report returned for sample it submitted was found to contain (xyz)" for example. If it comes to containing 225mg when the label claims 275mg, its inappropriate to say pass/fail lacking currently accepted range of tolerance. It's a common knowledge in science that everything has error and nothing is perfect. Pass/fail is typically relative. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If a medical journal article or the NYT summarizes ConsumerLab.com's results and says that a product had inadequate amounts of some compound, that seems to be good enough of a source for Wikipedia to say that the product had inadequate amounts of the compound. I can't find any reason to believe that ConsumerLab.com is incompetent and would call something "inadequate" if test results showed insignificant differences. I agree that it's best to use specific details of test results when we can, but these are reliable sources. (Note that I've also discussed this with you before: Talk:Fish oil#ConsumerLab.com includes me saying "I'm not sure which pass/fail judgments you're discussing, but they don't sound as useful or relevant as the test results. Looking at these contested edits for example, they use the test results, not the pass/fail judgments.") And in my proposed draft for "notable findings" (above), I include specific details about test results. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Editorialized prose, misleading as heck

Who wrote the prose on its finding on red yeast rice? 1.) It was factually incorrect. The sample size was 12 as reported in journal, not 10 as shown in prose. It was poorly summarized and I thought it was editorialized to go for eyebrow raising effect by leveraging the range of outlier min and max values based on its small sample size of one sample per product to say "hundred fold". While this is true... suppose harmful doses starts at 500mg. There's a very practical difference between imply stating "products we tested had 100 fold difference in contents of potentially dangerous substance x" and reporting "it has been found that products that we reviewed ranged from 0.1mg and 10mg". Obviously former would be used to amplify the perceived magnitude of issue. Is this a prose that was borrowed from Absander's edits, or from editorialized version reported on ConsumerLab.com's page? I have culled the claim to more accurately reflect what is actually in the journal. Grammar tweak is most likely needed.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That's Absander's prose, condensed by me into the draft I proposed above. I'm a little confused by what happened here - I posted a draft for comments so that editors could come to consensus on it before putting it in the main article space, you commented on it, I made changes based on your comments, and I posted the result to the main article space. It turned out you had a lot of additional corrections and concerns, and I disagree with some of your edits so far. The section as it stands now has a number of new problems - grammar, level of detail, warning tags, etc. It actually looks like the best idea would be to move the whole section back to the talk page and discuss it more thoroughly - does that sound like a good idea? Dreamyshade (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't too keen on having "notable findings" move to article space. I already noted that grammar tweak is needed, however that can be done rather uncontroversially. My edits are more focused around contents and the conveying whats in the source precisely and sometimes I lean on other editors to correct the phrasing. Although you don't like it, do you now see the heavily slanted editorializing in his prose? Did you review the cited reference before adding on there? When it comes to questionable topic like this, I try to audit every source when I can for fluffing, fabrication, factual errors, etc. Anyhow, I'm strongly opposed to recycling any of Absander's prose which are clearly written for WP:PROMO. Notable findings should not be searched to go around as a way to weasel promo piece back into article. As I addressed above, there's clear need to evaluate the finding and entirely rewrite the prose, not use WP:SPS press release and write around whats in secondary source, not piece together sources to go around promo piece. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed your attention to detail, so I invited you (and other editors) to work on the section with me, and your comment on it was about a wording issue, so I hope you can see how I was confused. I believe that some of your recent edits are helpful, but I also believe some of them removed useful material that had reasonable referencing; the results are more precise, but also more confusing and less useful. I believe we can find a middle ground here, balanced material that is precisely phrased and sourced. I'd also like to encourage you to post drafts on the talk page if you aren't certain of the grammar; other editors are happy to copyedit, you can double-check the copyedit to make sure the meaning is preserved, and then the result can be posted. This way we can try to maintain better quality in mainspace. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Appropriateness of use of ConsumerLab.com as a direct source

A discussion is in progress at RS/Noticeboard-Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's an updated link, since the section was renamed: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#ConsumerLab.com as references for materials of nutritional supplement interest. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Contributing factor of Wellbutrin to notable finding for CL

References cited are well after the 2007 date. It's unclear as to if ConsumerLab had much role in getting the ball rolling in "uncovering" this, or that it simply confirmed "oh yeah, its sour" after people have already called sour grapes and FDA was already on the case. FDA has two articles concerning rate of release on generic Wellbutrin. FDA mentions patient/physician complaints, but did does not credit ConsumerLab.com in having anything to do with the investigation. Did CL just probe into already ongoing investigation, or did they find something notable? That, I'm not clear. I'm getting the impression that it would've went on as it did even if CL stayed out of it and it does not appear as though CL had any vital role in this case.

FDA sources: FDAs Review on Bupropion XL follow-up on it

Prose pulled asized for culling:

In 2006, ConsumerLab.com study on then new Bupropion XL 300 mg, a generic version of Wellbutrin XL 300 mg (an extended-release antidepressant), after consumer reports of problems with this generic version. It reported that Buproprion XL released the active ingredient much more quickly than Wellbutrin XL. The manufacturer of Buproprion XL stopped shipping the drug in September 2012 after federal analysis confirmed the pill released its key ingredients faster than Wellbutrin XL.

References

-Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Concern About Editing and Deletions

...Following deletion of additions with this comment:"Self-serving PR edits to show case what the company wants shown. Adding "notable findings" by self-proclaimed notable by company's PR editor who was warned before is sketchy."

I am concerned that the most recent contributions to this page have been undone, and the editor's comments are false. The findings reported were not "self-proclaimed." ConsumerLab.com testing methods are available to the public, and as the website states, negative findings are always re-confirmed in a second laboratory. These findings were also published by reputable third party sources such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, in keeping with the previous recommendations by the editors on this page. I think the deletions of these recent additions are overzealous, considering the fact that this is information that many people would be interested in knowing, and, again, are reported by reputable sources. While I fully understand the need to guard against promotion, can you please explain to me how keeping information from the public, which is reported by reputable third parties is in the public's best interest? Absander (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Absander

"in the public's interest?" oh please. It's pretty obvious that you're working on this article for CL.com. The articles are on reputable source, but the addition of cherry picked contents that you want to see it posted creates undue bias towards favorable publicity. What I recommend is that you edit through a neutral party through edit requests. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Cantelope2 your response seems out of line with the Wikipedia guideline for editors on [[3]]civility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility and I am getting concerned that you do not seem impartial in your editing of this page. I am not sure what you mean by "addition of cherry picked contents that you want to see it posted creates bias towards favorable publicity."

I have followed the previous recommendations to only include findings that have reliable outside references. This in no way is "cherry picking," rather, it is exactly what I was told to due in terms of only adding content with reputable third party sources, just as the other Notable Findings, which were discussed, edited and reviewed by multiple editors.

I also think that these findings would be of interest to people who read Wikipedia or are reading about ConsumerLab.com. The fact that ConsumerLab.com tested and confirmed that some supplements do not contain the amount of ingredients as listed on the label, and the fact that ConsumerLab.com tested and confirmed that tea leaves were contained lead, is relevant company information and something that people reading about the company would want to know. This information also seems to be in line with the kind of information provided about other companies on Wikipedia.

Suggested Additions

The following additions were deleted from the page as discussed above. The history shows this comment at the time of deletion: "Self-serving PR edits to show case what the company wants shown. Adding "notable findings" by self-proclaimed notable by company's PR editor who was warned before is sketchy."

As I feel these additions comply with policy and recommendations of previous editors (using reputable outside sources, etc.) I would really appreciate some editor feedback or have them added in if you are ok with them. If changes are needed, please comment. Thanks.

Also, in the future, I will post proposed additions here for review first.

Personnel Dr. Cooperman has been an invited speaker at the National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements Dietary Supplement Research Practicum in 2011, 2012, and 2013, participating on the “Meet the Watch Dogs” panel.[ http://odspracticum.od.nih.gov/speakers.aspx/ NIH The Mary Frances Picciano Dietary Supplement Research Practicum Speaker Information]

Products and Services ConsumerLab.com purchases all products to be tested, performing initial disintegration testing in-house and other testing in independent laboratories. ConsumerLab.com About Us

"accredited" [4] Waldofo (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Notable Findings The same year, ConsumerLab.com tests found that two out of 10 turmeric and curcumin supplements selected for testing had fewer active compounds than expected from the label Wall Street Journal Flavor in Curry Favored by Some for Joint Pain and two of 12 probiotic supplements it selected for testing had fewer viable probiotic organisms than expected from the label. Wall Street Journal Probiotics' Benefits May Be More Than a Gut Feeling In 2013, ConsumerLab.com tests found that while the leaves of several brewable green teas contained more than 1.25 mcg of lead per serving, the liquid portion of the brewed teas did not contain significant levels, suggesting that tea bags and other types of filters may help prevent the lead in tea leaves from reaching the tea liquid. New York Times Well Blog What’s In Your Green Tea? Absander (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Absander

Concerns I raised here not answered adequately

Ok, for the recent addition; WSJ article read "A report by ConsumerLab.com, last updated in February, found two out of 10 curcumin products tested had fewer active compounds, called curcuminoids, than promised on the label." In the scope of due weight, what makes this noteworthy? It was a news blog about the product finding, but not so much about CL. Another concern with this is what I have raised before. When something is reported qualitatively, it makes it easier for the source to dramatize something but not leave it available for the audience to interpret.

Page or two above last year, I raised concerns that summarized version by CL and the journal version don't even agree on sample size. I also objected to the style or reporting such as "hundred-fold increase"; which may or may not be misleading. Such obfuscated phrasing don't convey if that means if it went from 1/10,000 the harmful amounts to 1/10 the harmful dose... or if it went from 1/10 the harmful amount to 10 times the harmful amount.

Another thing that's disturbing is that the user Absander went away for a while and dropped all of them in at once without any discussion. So; per convention, as I find his additional questionable, I reverted back to the stable version. We can discuss it from there Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to Concerns

Thank you for being more specific. Regarding your concern about the WSJ article on curcumin, I find this to be relevant for the following reasons: 1)The finding was reported by a reputable, third-party source 2)You say it refers to "a product finding, but not so much about CL," however, this is what CL does, its tests products. Giving examples of the kinds of products ConsumerLab tests, what tests are conducted, and findings that were relevant enough to be published in a respected, national newspaper seems quite pertinent to a page about ConsumerLab.com. 3) I don't know that this was reported qualitatively, since the findings were quantified in terms of how many products contained fewer active compounds (2 out of 10). Since the article did not detail what the amount of curcuminoids was, it would not be possible to comment on these numbers.

I am not sure which addition you are referring to in which you objected to the use of "hundred-fold," however, I am guessing it may again be a case of adding the information as it was reported.

When you say you find the additions questionable: I am not sure how the timing of the additions is relevant, however, I do see that posting additions for discussion is an important part of the process. And so, I have posted them again here for discussion, and will do so with any future additions.Absander (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Absander

1.) right.

2.) Not really. It looks like CL just ran lab work. It's like someone's blood work. The lab's name is not all that significant.

3.) We ordered a case each of colored pencils in ten colors with 1,000 to the case. Now for attention getting press tailored report, it isn't technically a lie to say that "supplier shorted us on red and green" if the order was for 1,000/cs, and counting it twice yielded 998 on these two. However, that "shorted" qualitative statement is just as correct to convey a case that's missing half the contents. Failing to disclose quantity is a way of creating a perception of more significance than it really is. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Keeping results secret unless paid...

This needs a reliable source. Putting here for now: "ConsumerLab publishes its test results, unless the manufacturer pays a fee to keep the results private." Jytdog (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Good call. I've been looking for verification, but haven't found any. The original reference is certainly not reliable. --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Healthwyze.org

Evaluating The Evaluators from Consumer Lab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tampasailor (talk • contribs) 19:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That article raises some interesting points, but it doesn't appear to meets Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)