Talk:Hoodia

Novel food?

Is Hoodia a novel food? -- Toytoy

Considering that it's only been "discovered" recently by the industrialized world, I doubt that it was consumed in the West prior to 1997. So, my completely non-scientific answer is "yes." -- DocSigma 11:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC) it is also in Botswana, in the kalahari. The San bushmen in the Kalahari also boiled it up as it was thought to be able cure hemroids and other horrific diseases.

Legal to Import?

YES, Hoodia Gordonii is regulated by C.I.T.E.S treaties and may be exported from South Africa and imported to the United States by companies possessing a FDA Registraion number and a USDA Import License for C.I.T.E.S classification [IIW]. Unfortunatly you need documentation to prove what you are carrying is in fact diet pills, or you will be questioned under the impression of smuggling in marijuana.

How do you know if it is real hoodia?

The litmus test for determining what is real and what is fake is to submit a sealed product sample to a laboratory such as Alkemist Pharmaceuticals of Costa Mesa, CA. If the product is real hoodia gordonii it will be able to pass a HPLC, TLC and Microscopy test. Secondly, the manufacturer or retailer must be able to supply a copy of the C.I.T.E.S import license as without this document the Hoodia Gordonii will not be permitted for entry into the USA and will not make it thru US Customs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.122.208 (talk • contribs)

Cape Nature conservation in the Western Province of South africa is the issuing body that will certify the company as being able to sell geunine Hoodia Gordonii in the Western Cape. In order to get certified by Cape Nature, the company in South Africa has to be able to provide information to Cape Nature that the source of their Hoodia is coming from a registerd grower/seller of Hoodia Gordonii.

For the grower - Only once various on-site inspections and reviews of the physical property that contains the Hoodia, and enough Hoodia to ensure sustaniabilty, would the grower be issued a permit to grow/sell the hoodia.The growers license is valid for one year following its issuance and the sellers license for three years.Thus if the exporter in South Africa can produce their valid permit from Cape nature conservation detailing that they are legally registerd to sell Hoodia, you can be further assured of the genunine nature of the product.

Further it is only with the licenses that a CITIES permit will be issued.

However, the litmus test for determining what is real and what is fake is to submit a sealed product sample to a laboratory such as Alkemist Pharmaceuticals of Costa Mesa, CA. If the product is real hoodia gordonii it will be able to pass a HPLC, TLC and Microscopy test. Secondly, the manufacturer or retailer must be able to supply a copy of the C.I.T.E.S import license as without this document the Hoodia Gordonii will not be permitted for entry into the USA and will not make it thru US Customs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.5 (talk • contribs)

I just replaced the 2 January comment by 201.218.122.208, which was edited on 11 April by 198.54.202.5. Please do not edit or remove statements by other editors. I also encourage you to register a username for edits and comments. Jokestress 17:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Advertising

Sites that sell the product can't possibly be NPOV, as they have a pecuniary interest in promoting the product and showing it in a good light. Thus, removing links to such sites. --Ch'marr 18:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Along those lines, I have just removed two linked sites that were thinly-veiled ad sites and added some more reliable reports from clinicians and the media. Jokestress 18:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed ad copy

Someone involved with Desert Burn Industries inserted a lot of unsourced material, much of it being spam. However, some of it is useful to the article, so I am moving those statements here for now until they can be confirmed in published sources.

• The CBS 60 minutes Special aired on Nov 21, 2004.
• Hoodia Gordonii is a very rare botanical and in the wild takes 5-7 years to reach maturity but in controlled conditions can be grown to harvestable levels in as little as two years.
• A fragile plant many farmers are trying to grow Hoodia Gordonii in desert regions around the world only to find that the plant is susceptible to rot. Optimum soil conditions must be maintained for this plant to thrive.
• When harvested, the aerial parts known as "fingers" are cut off from the main trunk and then sliced into chips, washed and ultimately milled into powder.
• Hoodia Gordonii is tightly controlled and may be legally exported from South Africa provided a C.I.T.E.S certificate for IIW is issued.
• To import Hoodia Gordonii into the USA a company must be registered with the FDA and have a USDA Terrestrial Plant Import License.
• As search for Hoodia Gordonii products on the internet will yield a list of more than 20 products claiming to be authentic Hoodia Gordonii but official reports indicate that 90% of the Hoodia Gordonii sold on the market it not Hoodia Gordonii but "opuntia" or other fraudlent ingredients.

The rest was essentially a press release promoting the company and website. Jokestress 17:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Pfizer

By the was Jokestress just because Pfizer takes an action doesn't mean that action is backed by reason or science. Pfizer is trying to make a buck. Hoodia may or may not work but the fact that Pfizer abandoned developmnet is neither here nor there as to the efficacy of Hoodia. The Rath cite is basically uncheckable too. Go ahead defend the rationality of the drug corporations depsite all the evidence to the contrary. I ain't coming back here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.221.159 (talk • contribs)

If you want to cite a publication speculating on Pfizer's reasons for dropping hoodia, that is fine, but your own personal opinion is original research and a violation of Wikipedia policy. I linked up the Rath article which you claimed was "basically uncheckable." This article is edited frequently by people who promote or sell this product. They frequently do what you did, which is remove articles and verified statements with which they disagree. If you wish to make additions to the article, they must be verifiable and not original research. Jokestress 16:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the Seattle Times citation I attached Jokestress. The Seattle Times article has Pfizer stating that Hoodia was too expensive to synthesize. The Rath article is some guys opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.221.159 (talk • contribs)

That "some guy" is the head of a nationally-recognized school of pharmacy discussing a pharmaceutical company. That's a legitimate opinion to cite, certainly more credible than Lesley Stahl. I linked up the Morris article you cited. It got lost in your other violative edits. Jokestress 17:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Can it be grown at home?

Does anyone know: Can Hoodia be grown at home in a planter? Where would I get authentic seedlings? Is personal hoodia plant growing regulated by some government agency? Anybody know? Sevensix 24.240.32.169 15:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No it can't. It takes 6 years to grow to a suitable height to harvest, and it requires desert-like conditions or it will rot. Definately not something you could grow in a pot in your home or garden. Sorry. Carl Kenner 14:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced statement

I removed the following for containing unverified statements that are essentially spam:

Hoodia has become the subject of aggressive Spam e-mail campaigns by online pharmaceutical companies, joining the ranks of other famous spam-marketed supplements and pills such as Viagra and Cialis. Many of these companies sell knock-offs or altered versions of the product http://www.spamdailynews.com/publish/Beware_Hoodia_Gordonii_diet_pill_spam_scam.asp. Much controversy exists as to who is selling authentic Hoodia and who is marketing fake or adulterated material. The litmus test for authenticating a product to be Hoodia gordonii or not is to demand a copy of the C.I.T.E.S certificate and ask for a copy of a HPLC/HPTLC/MICRO-MACRO w/P57 Test.

Currently only two labs are able to authenticate Hoodia gordonii in a sealed product sample and those are: Alkemists Pharmaceuticals and Chromadex Labs.

This needs to be in a reliable, verified source in order to be included. This also contains a linkspam reference, which I nowikid.

Anyone wishing to include statements such as the ones above need to supply a source that meets WP:V and is not a violation of WP:NOR. Unsourced statements such as these will be removed. Jokestress 07:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I should have clarified that the spamdailynews.com site is not an acceptable source. It is a spamblog. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more on why this is not acceptable. Jokestress 19:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

60 Minutes

Should we be giving any credence to this single example of anecdotal evidence? It is laughably unscientific. Just zis Guy you know? 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

More unsourced statements

Removed from article pending citation:

The sun, the environment and the climate of the Kalahari play a vital role in producing a high-quality Hoodia plant. Some companies use a cheaper Chinese substitute rather than the original grown in South Africa. Currently the only location in Africa where Hoodia gordonii is being allowed to be exported is the Western Cape. The Northern Cape is still shut down as of April 2006. Authentic Hoodia gordonii costs $300/kg USD on the open market as of April 2006.

Jokestress 17:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoodia: Asclepiadaceae or Apocynaceae?

There's a mistake in the first paragraph. Asclepiadaceae (milkweeds) and Apocynaceae (dogbanes) have long been known to be fairly closely related. Molecular evidence has shown that, in fact, the Asclepiadaceae is simply one subclade (subfamily) in the Apocynaceae, and in the current plant phylogeny (APG2), the two families are merged under the Apocynaceae. Ref: http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/orders/gentianalesweb.htm#Apocynaceae

LABotanist 17 July 2006

Bad reference

Reference #12 is no longer available. I tried to find another link that would work but was unable:

^ a b c Engelhaupt, Erika (July 9, 2006). But do Hoodia diet pills actually work? Diet miracle from an African plant is a spam special. The Philadelphia Inquirer

The reference is not bad, just the link to an online copy of it. I have commented out the weblink because I've been unable to find a substitute. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Glucose levels

I have removed the following content per WP:RS because it is based on an non-authoratative, ad-heavy reference (weightlosstrainer.net):

"Hoodia is currently used and marketed as a supplement that induces suppression of appetite. Usually while eating the glucose levels in your blood rises and after reaching a certain level it signals the brain that the stomach is now full so stop eating. Hoodia simply replicates the effect of rising glucose in the body signaling the brain that there is no need to eat as the stomach is full. The desire to eat is virtually killed by Hoodia. Research shows that the chemical composition of Hoodia is atleast 10000 times stronger compared to the glucose which signals the brain to stop eating."

If a peer-reviewed journal publication supporting this claim can be found, this paragraph can be added back in. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Health Canada

The text that references Reference #15 appears to be old. Hoodia can be purchased at Costco in Canada, which would seem to indicate either that Health Canada has authorized it for sale, or its sale in Canada as a supplement is not regulated by Health Canada.

JeffMDavidson 19:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hoodia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203100154/http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.shtml to http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hoodia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140430032944/http://www.csw.ucla.edu/publications/newsletters/2010-2011/article-pdfs/Apr11_Foster.pdf to http://www.csw.ucla.edu/publications/newsletters/2010-2011/article-pdfs/Apr11_Foster.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)