Talk:Plumpy'nut

Calories

500 kilocalorie ? Someone should check their facts, 500 kilocalories is roughly 500 thousand calories. I did some Googling and have read that the proper nutritional value is 500 calories. 156.34.198.112 07:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The calorie used in nutrition is the kilocalorie or Calorie. The source the article quotes is the scientific calorie not the nutritional Calorie. Clear as mud yes? Lumos3 08:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Use Joule, FFS ... --Kristian 00:53, 8 October 2010 (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) 14:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Allergy concerns?

Are there any allergy concerns about the use of peanuts to treat malnutrition, owning to the commonality of this particular allergy? skeptical scientist (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Having seen personally or looked at the data of thousands of children, not one developed any allergy. This may be due to their weakened malnourished state not being willing/able to mount a reaction. 131.215.220.165 (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Peanut alleriges are rare except in areas that have high consumption of roasted peanuts. 98.64.244.32 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC) [usemasper]

Why not at least link to it? (Wikipedia killed my son! would be a great headline.) Hcobb (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's appropriate to include a link. Most know that peanut allergies exist, and those who would be receiving this product are unlikely to have Internet access. Fleetham (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Spammy blurb on therapeutic food page

Currently the info there reads like a poorly-written advert for Plumpy'nut: as I've noted on that page's discussion page, it could really do with a rewrite before some well-meaning editor just deletes the whole lot ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Does not seem like an advert to me

I've read the article through and it doesn't seem like an advert at all. It discusses the benefits of the product and the recipe involved. It is actually authorized by the WHO and is a product which does help to save lives.

What parts do you consider an advertisement?

A Guardian article reinforces the product's utility: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/11/food-climate-change-famine-plumpy-nut

Timothykinney 02:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree. As someone who sees a lot of these kids on a near-daily basis, a product such as this is a great help to the malnourished and hungry kids of the world. How do you say "it helps make kids gain weight and get good nutrition" without saying "it helps make kids gain weight and get good nutrition"?

121.96.200.30 (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a consumer-oriented product, so there should be no danger of it appearing as an advertisement. - anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.234.197.227 (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the article describes the taste and the headers "How it works" and "Success stories" sound like advertisement. There should be more different words such as "Mechanism of action" and "Effectiveness" like you can see in articles about medication. But it shouldn't be deleted! I'm a philanthropist and I want people to come to this page, or any other, when they google Plumpy'nut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.63.21.66 (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"What parts do you consider an advertisement?" 2009 question, reply is dated 20 July 2014

84.228.107.215 (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)advertorial (the certifier is the promoter and measurer of efficacy-look for independent confirmation?)

Indented the 2014 reply by anon IP to a 2009 question, to distinguish the date difference of the contributions. Repeated the 2009 question here, and moved the anon's good faith contribution to retain the time order of the contributions. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Please keep your contributions in date order

Application - MSF entry deleted

Entry: "Médecins Sans Frontières (also known as Doctors without Borders) has been dispensing 14 packets (one week's worth) of Plumpy'nut in 22 centers in Niger since May 2005, but only to those children who are dramatically underweight and sufficiently well to benefit from outpatient care."

Has been deleted from the 'application' section as the information was inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MSFAccessCampaign (talk • contribs) 10:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not an ad?

An IP recently removed a "hat tag" saying that this article was written like an ad saying that it was "no longer needed." Not much has changed since that hat tag was added, but does anyone care that the hat tag was removed? Fleetham (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

move out a non RUTF to Citadel spread

Citadel spread is not an RUTF. Moving it to its own page. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The source I gave states the following:

We have become aware of a letter that you sent to Compact, another well established producer of food products for humanitarian use, on October 29, 2009 and circulated widely, which appears to contradict this policy. The letter refers to your patent in Kenya and threatens Compact with legal action if they fail to stop the supply of RUTF to Kenya. In addition, you have demanded that they cease to store products in Denmark and Kenya for onward transmission to other countries in Africa. These demands amount to an attempt to block the supply of RUTF by reliance on your intellectual property rights.

I do not understand why you claim this fails verification. Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the meaning of this WP:Primary source. It was tough for me to sort out. Secondary sources are preferable, of course. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Do Editors want a fact-based article, or do they want to just continue to revert to this dishonest Nutriset sales pitch?

The claim that "Nutriset has responded to the criticism" by Doctors Without Borders is clearly a lie. If you read the complaint by Doctors Without Borders, it is about the legal action Nutriset has taken regarding GC Rieber Compact, the makers of eeZeePaste Nut, and Nutriset legal actions to stop the distribution of eeZeePaste Nut made in Norway to Africa. If you read the source given for the so called "Nutriset has responded to the criticism", it is about Nutriset's plan to license their bogus patent on Citadel Spread recipe products to countries in Africa solely for products made in Africa. It in no way addresses the the complaint by Doctors Without Borders about Nutriset's legal actions to stop products made in Norway from shipping to Africa. Wikipedia should be renamed the 'Encyclopedia of Lies that Help Corporations Starve Children.' Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for the protocols by which wp editors are expected to behave. I understand that you already know to assume good faith. I personally want you to not burn out, but to continue here a long time. In a larger picture, neutrality is one pillar out of 5 . Please read the suggestions. They are concrete & practical, and I believe you will find them usable in your work here. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps my language is hyperbolic. However, if one reads the sources cited, I think they will agree the claim made in this article (that "Nutriset has responded to the criticism" by Doctors Without Borders with a meaningful solution) is not true. Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any issue with the 3% quote just with attributing that fact to Nutriset's exercising its patent. Why not include something like, "an increased number of RTUF producers would likely have a positive impact on the treatment of malnutrition as currently only three percent of sufferers are treated"? Fleetham (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I am happy with the way you have rephrased the last paragraph. Following your example, I tried to rephrase the second to the last paragraph. Every year, FOR PROFIT Nutriset's army of lawyers causes NOT FOR PROFIT ngos to spend millions of euros on lawyers defending against Nutriset legal actions. If Nutriset stopped taking legal actions, that money would be spent on RTUF and fewer would die. Claiming that "Nutriset has responded to the criticism" strikes me as dishonest.

Well, Nutriset does allow developing country NGOs to make paste-based RUTFs free of charge. Also, when adding to sentences with an existing citation, please don't just add new information... when this new information does not appear in the pre-existing citation, you'll get people looking to see if that info. is true and thinking it's not because they won't be able to find it in the cited source. A better way to go about it is to add a new citation to the end of the sentence. The sentence will then have two citations. Fleetham (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you reverted to the uncited claim that Nutriset only takes legal action against developed countries? Do you consider India developed? Are you unaware of Nutriset legal actions against Indian made RUTF? Or is there some other reason? Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy to see the statement about Nutriset protecting its patent only in developed countries removed if a source for your claim can be found. Also, please take a moment to read the Wikipedia policy at WP:NPOV. No matter how strongly you feel that Nutriset shouldn't have been granted a patent or that Nutriset shouldn't protect its patent, this Wikipedia article must conform to the NPOV stance. Basically, say what you want as long as it's well cited, and don't remove material that would seem to be in favor of Nutriset, such as the fact that no license fee is required to produce Plumpy'nut in many developing nations. Fleetham (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The Doctors without Borders letter refers to action Nutriset took against both Compact Norway and Compact India. What is the source for your claim that Nutriset is protecting its patent only in developed countries? Also, your claim that all patents violate the Sherman Antitrust Act seems unlikely. Only a very small set of patents have been challenged on this basis, Nutriset's being one. Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems that other entities have taken action against Nutriset. Did Nutriset initiate any legal action? Your edits make multiple mentions of "Nutriset's legal actions," but it would appear that these are in response to the "legal actions" of others. Do you dispute this? And since the only court case being referenced is in the US, that makes it appear that Nutriset is only protecting its patent in developed countries.... Again, do you have sources that state otherwise? Fleetham (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I don’t understand your question. “Protecting its patent” is the term Nutriset uses for the legal actions it took against, for example, Compact Norway and Compact India. I think the term “Protecting its patent” is really Nutriset weasel words for using legal maneuvers to profiteer off the starvation of African children. Even if you decide to use the Nutriset “protecting its patent” term, I still don’t think India qualifies as a developed country. I don’t see the claim that Nutriset will only take legal action against developed country on the Nutriset marketing page reference you added, or on any other source. The Nutriset marketing page reference you added only lists some African countries where Nutriset says it will not now take legal action. Do you know of any source that claims Nutriset will only take legal action against developed country, or is it your original research? Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced edits

@Bernardwoodpecker: Please take care when adding information to sentences that already have a citation. You've introduced material to the page that is not supported by the citations. When you add something new to a sentence that already has a citation, please be sure to check if that information is already present in that citation. If it's not, the sentence will need two citations—one for the pre-existing information and another for your new additions. Thanks. Fleetham (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Bernardwoodpecker: For example, take the following quotes:

• "Invalidation of the Nutriset US patent may have a positive impact on populations affected by famine, as significant production capabilities exist in the US." Sourced with this article.

• The article neither makes mention of "significant [US] production capabilities" nor suggests that such capabilities are the reason invalidation of Nutriset's patent would benefit affected populations.

• "However, critics argue (given Africa's limited production capabilities) that Nutriset's response is unlikely to significantly improve the problem of "only 3 percent of the estimated 20 million children suffering from severe acute malnutrition each year" receive RUTF treatment." Sourced with this article.

• This sentence cites a January 2010 source but discusses an event—the fact that Nutriset allows NGOs to make Plumpy'nut in Africa free of charge—that occurred in October of 2010. (See this Nutriset press release.) Furthermore, the source does not bring up the ability of Africans to produce Plumpy'nut at all—let alone mention that these abilities are limited.

There may be other instances as well... please note that I'm not suggesting that your contributions are untrue but simply alerting you to the fact that they are miscited. Fleetham (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not in citation given

I found the online version of citation 11, Isanaka et.al (2009) JAMA and found only references to Plumpy'nut, with no statement about Citadel spread. How does this back up the text it footnotes, without WP:SYNTH? It is possible in hindsight to make statements which were not known at the time of a discovery. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article can also be found here. Searching for "citadel spread" yields no results. I've removed that ref from the page. Fleetham (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The citation does identify RUTF as often made of "pastes ... made of peanuts, oil, sugar, and milk powder.", which is what Citadel spreads are. While additional citation would be valuable, I think this citation is relevant and should not be removed. Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User Bernardwoodpecker continues to revert considerate revisions by a majority of editors both on Plumpy'nut and Citadel spread pages. I suggest s/he is in violation of WP:3RR and should take a one week hiatus while these pages undergo further revision. --Zefr (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Under History

This statement is misleading and weakly cited: "The recipe for Plumpy'nut is similar to Citadel spread, which existed more than twenty years before Plumpy'nut was formulated." It is supported only by a primary reference not easily accessed for the proof by most users. The second reference provided, Isanaka et al., is available as a full article[1] and does not reference Citadel spread or use of another RUTF. In fact, the study employed Plumpy'nut as the RUTF.

As a hiker's energy food, Citadel spread would not have specific micronutrients intentionally included in its design. I note the Wikipedia article on Citadel spread claims the original formula from 1971 is the most common RUTF, citing the Isanaka reference. This is also an incorrect citation. Looking at the history of RUTF objectively, one must conclude that a peanut butter base to which micronutrients are selectively added is the most effective product to date, such as in this 2003 clinical study[2] showing that Plumpy'nut produced more favorable results than F100, previously the WHO micronutrient-fortified choice for RUTF. It's possible that F100 was originally based on something like Citadel spread, but the F100 article credits the Plumpy'nut formulation, first produced in 1997, as a more nutritious product among these three due to its enhanced micronutrient density.

There are numerous similar clinical reports showing efficacy with Plumpy'nut, leading to a conclusion that RUTF formulation like Plumpy'nut is a breakthrough 1997 formulation with sustained clinical use over at least the last decade. --Zefr (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:SYNTH, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I don't think the JAMA article should be used to reference the idea that citadel spread is similar to Plumpy'nut. Fleetham (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This issue of prior art to Plumpy'nut has been widely debated in the journals. Even though many editors here strongly believe Plumpy'nut is a breakthrough and that this article should stay a Plumpy'nut advertisement with no negative issues ever raise, a NPOV would dictate we show both sides of the issue. I think the "recipe for Plumpy'nut is similar to Citadel spread" is a NPOV way of doing this, it does not claim the prior art is one way or the other, it just points out the similarity and lets the reader know both sides of the issue. I am open to other ways of phrasing. I think continuing to delete anything not taken for a Plumpy'nut advertisement web page in not a NPOV. Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A neutral point of view is achieved through providing all viewpoints that appear in reliable sources. Simply adding something that "balances" an article you personally feel is biased is not WP:NPOV. Fleetham (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about saying

Recipes for pastes made of peanuts, oil, sugar and milk powder existed at least twenty years before Plumpy'nut was formulated.

? - Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Semantic ambiguity

A recently added source is quoted on the page as follows: "Mr Lescanne confirms that shareholders receive 18% of the company’s annual profits" (which were €4.4m in 2009)." So, are the annual profits 4.4 million euros or is 18% of the profits 4.4 million euros? I'm leaning towards the latter because I vaguely remember reading somewhere that Nutriset's revenues were around 100 million euros, but can we get another source so we're sure? Fleetham (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Good question, the source is somewhat ambiguous but English grammar would indicate the latter. http://www.nutriset.fr/assets/Rapports-annuels/livret-plumpyfield-eng.pdf indicates over 125M revenue in 2011, indicating the latter. Nutriset keeps profit numbers pretty close to the vest and is allowed to as a private for-profit company. Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

/* Patent issues */ per BLP

Simple searches for Lescanne reveal that he has disclaimed his profits. So at least part of the text I commented out is off the mark. WP:BLP is our guide here. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I found many sources stating Nutriset was a for-profit company, and one's where Lescanne claimed his profits were reasonable, but none where he disclaimed all profits. Can you give me a URL? Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You may be thinking of André Briend, the actual formulator of Plumpy'nut, who did disclaim all profits. Lescanne was the funder, who required his name co-author the patents as a condition of funding - Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Nutriset cannot defend patent in India as it has none

@Bernardwoodpecker: You recently added India to the sentence, "Nutriset holds patents in many countries... which they have defended to prevent non-licensees in the United States, Norway, and India from producing or distributing similar products." I believe this is in error, as this article states, "Nutriset patents are not registered in India." Fleetham (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Nutriset used patents in Africa to stop the distribution of RUTF made in India. See MSF letter Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I thought the intro paragraph was cleaner when no countries were listed. I added India for completeness after you added "United States and Norway" Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Linking to "Citadel Spread"

@Bernardwoodpecker: Please don't introduce interwiki links to citadel spread. You created that page five days ago and seem quite intent on introducing a link to it here along with much anti-Nutriset content. While I don't have any problem with you adding cited content that it critical of Nutriset, please don't introduce links to that page into sentences cited with sources that make no mention of "citadel spread." I'm not sure if citadel spread constitutes an Wikipedia:Attack page, but it's not a generic term for a peanut butter based spread. It's the name of a recipe featured in the book Appalachian Hiker: Adventure of a Lifetime. Fleetham (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not create the Citadel spread article, it was created by Ancheta Wis. I think Citadel spread is a name for pastes made of peanuts, oil, sugar and milk powder. If you do not think the page has a NPOV, I would like your help in editing it. Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You're correct, Ancheta did create the page. Apologies. As for "citadel spread," it may not originate with Appalachian Hiker: Adventure of a Lifetime, but it is a trail snack that was apparently popular c. 1970 in the US if forum posts like this one are anything to go by. I'm not sure if anything created with peanut butter, sugar, and powered milk should be considered a "citadel spread" or if the term is better restricted to where it originated as a word for a specific type of snack associated with hiking and camping. I think the main issue I have is that your edits appear to be very anti-Nutriset. For example, you edit summary for this edit reads, "Undid revision 606580231 by Nutriset's paid corporate Wikipedia editor/saboteur." On this page, you've established a pattern of "citing" information with sources that in no way support your statements. And your edits to the citadel spread article have incorporated quite a few sources that don't mention the term "citadel spread" at all... again, I see no source that makes me think this is a blanket term for any peanut butter based spread. Fleetham (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm learning. It is more NPOV than when I started. In my defense, I think the information I am citing does support what I put in edits, though sometimes not completely. Some information I think is pretty obvious, and I haven't found sources for all of that, but I am not intentionally lying about anything. As for calling Ancheta a "Nutriset's paid corporate Wikipedia editor/saboteur", I regret that, he has been very helpful. I was trying to continue the playful sarcasm he use when he claimed my idol Ed Garvey "died of congestive heart failure" on my talk page, but I guess I missed the mark. Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This comment above regarding Bernardwoodpecker's comments and personal feelings related to Ed Garvey and Citadel spread, and zealous use of reverting to maintain single-minded presentation of own concepts about the two RUTF articles, expose a personal mission and violations of WP:COI, WP:EXTERNALREL and WP:NPOV. It is time for involvement of an Administrator whom I am requesting now.--Zefr (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe the article is better now with the dozen or so sources I have added, and reflects a NPOV. I admit Fleetham and Ancheta Wis have helped me come up a learning curve on NPOV. I continue to think the edits by Zefr fail to reflect a NPOV. - Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think as long as everyone can respect consensus and there's less reverting an admin is probably unnecessary. Really, the NPOV issue seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of Bernardwoodpecker. NPOV isn't writing an article that is neutral or well balanced but rather writing an article that includes all viewpoints that appear in reliable sources. The COI and external relationship stuff is a bit of a stretch I think... Fleetham (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

patent controversy has drawn attention to the profits ...[citation needed]

I would have thought the earlier Dr. Patricia Wolff statement that for Nutriset “poverty is a business”, combined with the article I found discussing greed and the fact the three sole shareholders receive 18% of the company’s annual profits (which were €4.4m in 2009) would be sufficient. No? - Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No, because those support the idea that someone once said of Nutriset that "poverty is a business" and that 18% of profits go to shareholders. If you want to say, "the patent controversy has drawn attention to profits" you need a source that says, "the patent controversy has drawn attention to profits." Fleetham (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Invalidation of the Nutriset patent may have a positive impact on populations affected by famine

I noticed "Invalidation or compulsory licensing of the Nutriset patent may have a positive impact on populations affected by famine" was changed to "Invalidation of the Nutriset patent may have a positive impact on populations affected by famine". I wondered why compulsory licensing does not deserve equal consideration. It is discussed in the source cited at the end of the paragraph - Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the source is at the end of the paragraph not at the end of the sentence. If you want to write one sentence with facts from two sources, you should use WP:CITEBUNDLE because that way there's less reference clutter and what reference goes with which fact is specified. Fleetham (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What if both references appeared after the two sentences, like this...

Invalidation or compulsory licensing of the Nutriset patent may have a positive impact on populations affected by famine, and studies by humanitarian organizations support the idea that having a single, dominant supplier in Nutriset is undesirable. Critics of Nutriset argue the US patent is “obvious in light of prior recipes” and “that the patent has essentially conferred monopoly power on Nutriset and thus violated the Sherman Act”, and note the similarity in humanitarian need to current pharmaceutical compulsory licensing agreements in place under the WTO TRIPS Agreement.

? - Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No, follow WP:CITEBUNDLE. Fleetham (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

References

An appeal moved to talk page

" How to get the Plumpynut,for a young girl of 11years,she looks 5 years,she gets admitted in hospital for severe malnutrition ,the only treatment she for at list four days which brings back to like",she travels 350 miles with my support to get the plumpy nut,sheis only treated in hospital ,she can not be given at list a supply for at list 1 or 2 week to continue at home,they can not because the plumpy nut is begin donated ,I am desperate to get or buy the Plumpy nut for this young girl,she is a orphan ,I have been supporting this young girl for the past fours years. Your help will be much appreciated at list if I could get the supply for this girl. " Moved to talk page. But there is a misunderstanding here.

Plumpynut is not recommended for continual use. Only for famine conditions. There is another kind of formulation which could be used as supplemental food. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I found a citation for avoiding Plumpy'nut in non-famine situations: When children who are not severely malnourished are instead given Plumpy'nut, "You can see the result. They are all puffy." —Chantal Gegout, a WHO nutritionist ( BMJ 2010; 341 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6796 (Published 26 November 2010) ) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;341:c6796 --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plumpy'nut. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140505193540/http://www.vita.it/ultimenotizie/plumpy-nut-goes-to-court.html to http://www.vita.it/ultimenotizie/plumpy-nut-goes-to-court.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)