The article makes assumptions, a method regarded by the scientific community as "LAZY"
The article is a collection of tid bits from many other sources, There is no actual testing being done by the authors.
The bias undertones to the language of this paper state it's true intention.
Granted some regulation as to juices purity and ingredients may be necessary, but this is already done by the market, people know bad juice when they use it.
The worst part is that people will see " German Cancer Research Center" and believe this is credible, such as the blogger who posted it.
The damage is done, when these articles are posted using sub-standard research techniques and outdated studies, people will only read the headline and go "see, told ya so" and light up a stinky for dramatic effect.
We need a massive PR campaign from leading vendors in the market and CASAA, a psa if you will, stating the facts of their recent study.
I am glad to see the comments to that article posting.
