I Have a QUESTION for ALL You XANGO Dealers [Archive]

Sciguy

12-17-2008, 10:58 PM

It disturbs me that everyone who tried to find a reuse for some bottle thought first about recycling the pieces (bottle, box, foam) after discarding them (not physically necessarily but after deciding that their original use was finished and they were no longer wanted). That is not the way to solve problems about excesses.

The way to reuse bottles is to refill them for their original purpose. I don't have a clue what Xango is but wouldn't it be perfect if the seller had a local place where you could take the empty bottle and refill it? You could wash it out first, or not, but you would know the history and you would not have to wash it with extreme caustic cleaners, creating chemical soups, because someone unknown might have put some poison into the bottle.

For the moment, the bottles could be shipped back in their original package to the seller who would refill them. If they were labeled with the customer's name, they could be shipped back to the same customer. They could set up email notifications like Netflix does. Why pretend that all bottles are new and have to be vigorously washed as though we had no idea what was in them. Is this some food product anyway?

Even better would be if there were a refilling station where you could take five hundred different kinds of empty bottles and fill any of them with original or equivalent contents. Then we could stop buying endless new packages when we really don't want the packages, just the contents. Does anyone out there want to invest in a refilling company?

Recycling approaches are so yesterday. When faced with a "waste" problem, let's think about how to redesign the product, the marketing, the delivery and the use modality so there is no waste, rather than racking our brains to find some cute use for discarded pieces.

Sciguy, the Zero Waster

On the first solution they could also ask Xango to start using "pulp" packaging (recycled stuff that is recyclable, I believe all made from recycled cardboard in the first place)

<style id="jajah">span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }</style>

justinbill

12-18-2008, 07:39 AM

sciguy,

First I think you probably need to know what xango is and why this thread is so funny.

https://www.corporatenarc.com/xangoscam.php

I think it becomes a scam when "dealers" say that it has cured this or that disease. My issues with the product are several:

it is an exotic fruit, now in high demand and injecting western cash into indigieonous cultures, and probably not in a good way(not to mention it has to get shipped thousands of miles).

Its really overpriced and expensive.

the way it is sold makes no one any money, because dealers only get $2 profit on a bottle... maybe if you buy into a special dealer rung on the pyramid its more.

if it swims like a fish, smells like a fish....
there are no true studies as to the long term benefits

Braggi

12-18-2008, 08:00 AM

sciguy,

First I think you probably need to know what xango is and why this thread is so funny.

https://www.corporatenarc.com/xangoscam.php

I think it becomes a scam when "dealers" say that it has cured this or that disease. My issues with the product are several:
...

Xango appears to be soda pop that costs $30 a bottle. What a deal! Haven't seen markups like that since ... bottled water! Anybody reading this still buying water that costs five times as much as gasoline?

... if it swims like a fish, smells like a fish....

There is a big difference here. Fish is well proven to be good for your health.

-Jeff

wildflower

12-18-2008, 09:10 AM

YES YES YES!!!!!!!

"Recycling approaches are so yesterday. When faced with a "waste" problem, let's think about how to redesign the product, the marketing, the delivery and the use modality so there is no waste, rather than racking our brains to find some cute use for discarded pieces."

It disturbs me that everyone who tried to find a reuse for some bottle thought first about recycling the pieces (bottle, box, foam) after discarding them (not physically necessarily but after deciding that their original use was finished and they were no longer wanted). That is not the way to solve problems about excesses.

The way to reuse bottles is to refill them for their original purpose. I don't have a clue what Xango is but wouldn't it be perfect if the seller had a local place where you could take the empty bottle and refill it? You could wash it out first, or not, but you would know the history and you would not have to wash it with extreme caustic cleaners, creating chemical soups, because someone unknown might have put some poison into the bottle.

For the moment, the bottles could be shipped back in their original package to the seller who would refill them. If they were labeled with the customer's name, they could be shipped back to the same customer. They could set up email notifications like Netflix does. Why pretend that all bottles are new and have to be vigorously washed as though we had no idea what was in them. Is this some food product anyway?

Even better would be if there were a refilling station where you could take five hundred different kinds of empty bottles and fill any of them with original or equivalent contents. Then we could stop buying endless new packages when we really don't want the packages, just the contents. Does anyone out there want to invest in a refilling company?

Recycling approaches are so yesterday. When faced with a "waste" problem, let's think about how to redesign the product, the marketing, the delivery and the use modality so there is no waste, rather than racking our brains to find some cute use for discarded pieces.

Sciguy, the Zero Waster

wildflower

12-18-2008, 09:11 AM

You have so correctly pointed out the FOOLISHNESS of this whole deal!!!!

sciguy,

First I think you probably need to know what xango is and why this thread is so funny.

https://www.corporatenarc.com/xangoscam.php

I think it becomes a scam when "dealers" say that it has cured this or that disease. My issues with the product are several:

it is an exotic fruit, now in high demand and injecting western cash into indigieonous cultures, and probably not in a good way(not to mention it has to get shipped thousands of miles).

Its really overpriced and expensive.

the way it is sold makes no one any money, because dealers only get $2 profit on a bottle... maybe if you buy into a special dealer rung on the pyramid its more.

if it swims like a fish, smells like a fish....
there are no true studies as to the long term benefits

hales

12-18-2008, 11:10 PM

Sciguy, speaking of recycling approaches being "so yesterday".. are you old enough to remember the milk man? When I was a kid (in the 60s, I think..) there was a box on our porch where the milk man would put our bottled milk, and we would leave the empties to be refilled.. what is so yesterday about that? That is truly an "added value" when you get a (hopefully) nutritious product in a container that is not wasted, but re-used.. seems simple enough to me. Why re-invent the wheel, when there are simple solutions available.

We could start with simple proven approaches, and when a newer, better solution arises, go with those.. what do y'all think?

Some modern technologies do eclipse products and services. It looks like newspapers, magnetic cassettes, and video tapes are headed for extinction. But we are still using bottles for a lot of products. I'd like to see plastic bags, other plastic packaging, and conventional gasoline-powered car engines shuffle off into obscure history.

Scott.

It disturbs me that everyone who tried to find a reuse for some bottle thought first about recycling the pieces (bottle, box, foam) after discarding them (not physically necessarily but after deciding that their original use was finished and they were no longer wanted). That is not the way to solve problems about excesses.

The way to reuse bottles is to refill them for their original purpose. I don't have a clue what Xango is but wouldn't it be perfect if the seller had a local place where you could take the empty bottle and refill it? You could wash it out first, or not, but you would know the history and you would not have to wash it with extreme caustic cleaners, creating chemical soups, because someone unknown might have put some poison into the bottle.

For the moment, the bottles could be shipped back in their original package to the seller who would refill them. If they were labeled with the customer's name, they could be shipped back to the same customer. They could set up email notifications like Netflix does. Why pretend that all bottles are new and have to be vigorously washed as though we had no idea what was in them. Is this some food product anyway?

Even better would be if there were a refilling station where you could take five hundred different kinds of empty bottles and fill any of them with original or equivalent contents. Then we could stop buying endless new packages when we really don't want the packages, just the contents. Does anyone out there want to invest in a refilling company?

Recycling approaches are so yesterday. When faced with a "waste" problem, let's think about how to redesign the product, the marketing, the delivery and the use modality so there is no waste, rather than racking our brains to find some cute use for discarded pieces.

Sciguy, the Zero Waster

Veeja

12-19-2008, 02:08 PM

I believe, that now a days. The FDA won't let you use recycled bottles. I have a friend who is an herbalist. She says she has to use new bottles only. Even if you wash your bottles. You never know who has handle them,and if they have been contaminated. I'm all for a fill up station. But could you imagine what that would look like. There are so many things these days to choose from. I for one think that we have to many choices. I'm all for choice. I just think life can be overwhelming. We all want to live longer. Who can blame us. But, there are way to many people on this planet. I think thats why there are a lot more people getting cancer and other disease and dying very you. It's sad. I think the planet is just protecting herself. I know we cause a lot of things ourself. but, maybe the planet is in survival mode and is helping out with this.

Sciguy, speaking of recycling approaches being "so yesterday".. are you old enough to remember the milk man? When I was a kid (in the 60s, I think..) there was a box on our porch where the milk man would put our bottled milk, and we would leave the empties to be refilled.. what is so yesterday about that? That is truly an "added value" when you get a (hopefully) nutritious product in a container that is not wasted, but re-used.. seems simple enough to me. Why re-invent the wheel, when there are simple solutions available.

We could start with simple proven approaches, and when a newer, better solution arises, go with those.. what do y'all think?

Some modern technologies do eclipse products and services. It looks like newspapers, magnetic cassettes, and video tapes are headed for extinction. But we are still using bottles for a lot of products. I'd like to see plastic bags, other plastic packaging, and conventional gasoline-powered car engines shuffle off into obscure history.

Scott.

Sciguy

12-20-2008, 10:13 AM

Scott:

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but it seems to me that you are under the impression that milk bottle refilling is recycling.

Early in my career I also tried to use recycling as an umbrella term. It's a good word, but unfortunately it's been captured by recyclers and turned into a term meaning first create garbage by discard and most likely destruction and contamination, then scramble at the last minute, when all of the odds are against it, to capture a scrap of steel or aluminum or glass from smashed garbage. You might want to find out what the garbage company's recycling arms call a MRF (materials recovery facility). Yukk!!!

The fact is that milk bottle recycling (if anyone used bottles anymore) would be done this way: perfectly fine empty milk bottles would go down to the recycling center where they would be thrown into a dumpster breaking them all into glass pieces. All of the special features of the bottles would be gone and they would be converted to practically worthless "cullet". This orgy of destruction would be applauded as a success by politicians, recyclers and garbage companies. The broken glass would be hauled a thousand miles or so to a bottle manufacturer who would burn tons of natural gas to melt the glass and blow it into a bottle again, then hauled five hundred miles to a dairy to be filled with milk, put into new cardboard cartons and shipped another five hundred miles to your local supermarket where you would buy the bottle again. What a waste! Do you wonder why I call this recycling a wasteful, obsolete system?

So yesterday. And that's being generous.

On the other hand, refilling bottles again with milk, not ever breaking them, is much more conserving. Little transportation, no melting, just washing. That was an excellent system. Let's go back to it.

However, it is not the best system. The milkman mixes everybody's bottles together so the dairy has no idea (in this paranoid society) if someone put pesticides or cyanide in their bottles. And many bottles are left dirty so they are full of mold. The dairy needs to indulge in extreme washing, just to be on the safe side, requiring harsh chemicals and the resulting "exhausted" chemical soup needing "disposal" (conventionally) and using up energy intensive chemicals. How much better it would be if each person retained ownership and responsibility for the bottles which, after all, they used and chose, took responsibility for washing them and then filling them again. They would know if there was any cyanide to wash out so would not waste time guarding against non-existent threats. They need a way to refill them. The dairy can still supply the milk, but now in bulk, for its customers to fill their bottles with at the super-filling station. This would be a full scale Zero Waste solution. The old milkman process was a partial, de-optimized Zero Waste solution.

Chain of responsibility! That's the key. At no time should any object be turned over to someone who has has no responsibility and no idea of its history (those are called garbagemen). But those can also be called recyclers. Discard much be eliminated. Discard means losing responsibility.

You're right. There are common sense ways to handle unwanted excess goods. Discarding them to travel to some dump or incinerator is insane. But don't get too nostalgic. Going back to universal repair is a great idea but many new ideas are required in the modern world.

If you want more, read my website at www.zerowasteinstitute.org (https://www.zerowasteinstitute.org).

Sciguy

Sciguy, speaking of recycling approaches being "so yesterday".. are you old enough to remember the milk man? When I was a kid (in the 60s, I think..) there was a box on our porch where the milk man would put our bottled milk, and we would leave the empties to be refilled.. what is so yesterday about that? That is truly an "added value" when you get a (hopefully) nutritious product in a container that is not wasted, but re-used.. seems simple enough to me. Why re-invent the wheel, when there are simple solutions available.

We could start with simple proven approaches, and when a newer, better solution arises, go with those.. what do y'all think?

Some modern technologies do eclipse products and services. It looks like newspapers, magnetic cassettes, and video tapes are headed for extinction. But we are still using bottles for a lot of products. I'd like to see plastic bags, other plastic packaging, and conventional gasoline-powered car engines shuffle off into obscure history.

Scott.

BreathOfFreshAir

12-20-2008, 11:46 AM

Your real question is worth merit. As a Xango distributor, and former director of a recycling program, I too find I have some difficulty with all the styro. - I do know Xango experimented with different kinds of packaging and to no avail too many people were getting broken bottles. Certainly it is worth forwarding this thread to the corporate team and reqesting they take another look at this issue.

Regarding the integrity of the juice. Whomever doubts it's efficacy is probably not open to natural forms of healing or aware that most of our synthetic medicines are made from plants. They may not be aware that lemons gained significant attention when the British sailors learned that those crew who had lemons on board didn't get scurvy, those without lemons gos scurvy (side note "ascorbic" acid means "without scurvy"). It is also worth note that Phizer tried to buy Xango, and that there are drug companies right now working on making a drug out of the mangosteen rind. Maybe they really get that there are folks like the ones doubting the integrity of the juice who would rather take a synthetic drug than a whole fruit juice. Who is at the helm when, for instance, you are sold a drug for some ailment like arthritis or lyme disease or high C-Reactive Protein made from mangosteen rind? (by the way,drugs by definition have side effects).

I wonder why there are 60 or so knock offs of Xango now? I wonder why the juice industry has flourished since Xango hit the market just over 5 years ago. Being the fastest growing company in the United States warrants some attention in the market place and some unhappy "competition".

Just a thought, networking companies don't thrive unless their product works.

Personally, I like having the option to share a whole fruit juice that I have seen do wonders for people I care about, and get a "thank you" from the company in the form of money. What if more companies did this? I find it to be highly humanistic. In fact statistically, this is the trend in business - check your AT&T marketing plan - last time I called them they asked me to "refer a friend" to a company - any other companies you do business with, do this? That is the same kind of marketing EXCEPT those companies (like AT&T) give incentive trips or a small one time check as a "thank you", or a little bit off your next phone bill. Network Marketing companies like Xango are on the rise - 1 in 8 people in the US buy products from them now and that number is increasing. Wouldn't you rather give your business to a friend or colleague and let her/him make a profit, than some corporation? You see,both traditional companies and networking companies spend money on marketing, it is just apportioned differently. In a networking company, ANYBODY can start a distributorship and then has the power to create a small or large income for themselves ~Seems to me that is a more balanced approach where people are not making money for some high paid execs. and no matter how hard they work, they still get the same (maybe a little more when getting a raise) money. They get paid in terms of their efforts.

I am not saying that Xango is perfect. They definitely need to address the styrofoam issue. I suggest that if you are that against the company or product, do a test yourself. Get some mangosteen juice at Costco, or Whole Foods and then buy some Xango. See which one gives you results. Remember to check the labels. In my experience, you get what you pay for.

Just a side note, because Xango is bottled by Wild Flavors, which is renowned in the world market as a premier bottler (bottling for Capri Sun,Sobe, Arizona Ice Tea) they bought about 80% of the world's mangosteen groves - this means that any competition could not, by any stretch, include as much percentage of the rind in their juices as XanGo does. And, Wild asked Xango to be an exclusive partner - meaning they would never bottle for another company that wanted mangosteen in their juice. You must be an educated consumer on this one because there are all kinds of ways the label seems to say they have a lot of the rind - I suggest you read closely and question the other brands - as you are questioning Xango. My question is why are you so against a form of business that empowers the average person by making a high quality product.

wildflower

12-20-2008, 12:54 PM

Thank you for your thoughtful response!
I believe you are the first Xango dealer to respond!
However my original question still stands...
Where is all the styrofoam going?
Is it going illegally into the landfill/into the earth?
As a dealer, the least you could do after you talk to the
Company (pass the responsibility for the wasteful packaging back to them), is to be responsible for your "downstream" and find out what is happening to the styro! (Those fancy one-time use bottles are a HUGE waste also..AND the cardboard recycling industry has a glut on and waste cardboard recyclers are not buying.)
Then invent and implement a solution for you and all your buyers!
Be a model for other Xango dealers.
best
wildflower

Hot Compost

12-20-2008, 01:35 PM

"what's Xango ?"

https://api.ning.com/files/p-xGG1dXQ9ic3HHjJwV67wO3l6pazRzQXfqGYadWpvU_/xango_juice.jpg

oh God, now I know.

https://www.xango.com/opportunity/network-marketing

Braggi

12-20-2008, 01:53 PM

Thank you for your thoughtful response!
I believe you are the first Xango dealer to respond!
However my original question still stands...
Where is all the styrofoam going?
Is it going illegally into the landfill/into the earth? ...

Actually, it's perfectly legal to send styrofoam to the landfill as far as I know.

Sadly, there is no reasonable recycling effort I know of except this: clean styrofoam, both "peanuts" and formed pieces, are accepted at UPS Stores where they are reused. So do save up your styrofoam, keep it clean and dry and take it to the UPS Store. They will recycle cardboard for you too.

-Jeff

hales

12-20-2008, 04:27 PM

Jeff.. thanks for that information! I knew they'd take peanuts, but I didn't know you could recycle formed styro, there!

Scott.

Actually, it's perfectly legal to send styrofoam to the landfill as far as I know.

Sadly, there is no reasonable recycling effort I know of except this: clean styrofoam, both "peanuts" and formed pieces, are accepted at UPS Stores where they are reused. So do save up your styrofoam, keep it clean and dry and take it to the UPS Store. They will recycle cardboard for you too.

-Jeff

hales

12-20-2008, 04:45 PM

Thanks, Sciguy, for shedding some light on some complex issues.. I'm not nostalgic, but I think you are correct that a combination of old-school common sense and progressive new ideas is needed to reduce waste, reuse resources, and to solve problems and clean up messes from the past and present.

I'm curious about an MRF facility. I hope to visit one, someday.. would you consider organizing a field trip? I'm sure in favor of more awareness and knowledge on this subject. I once got a card for someone who worked for the local garbage company and if I remember correctly, she was more than willing to give a tour of the recycling facility. (you must admit, recycling is still much better than out and out waste.. ? )

I think it's cool that some of my new friends in Sebastopol use a bottle for their daily needs, doing as you suggest.. filling, cleaning, and refilling it with their drinking water, etc.. no fancy new aluminum bottles or expensive and/or toxic-leaching plastic ones.. ) I guess we need to start simple and start at home, as awareness has to increase, before things will improve..

Scott.

Scott:

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but it seems to me that you are under the impression that milk bottle refilling is recycling.

Early in my career I also tried to use recycling as an umbrella term. It's a good word, but unfortunately it's been captured by recyclers and turned into a term meaning first create garbage by discard and most likely destruction and contamination, then scramble at the last minute, when all of the odds are against it, to capture a scrap of steel or aluminum or glass from smashed garbage. You might want to find out what the garbage company's recycling arms call a MRF (materials recovery facility). Yukk!!!

The fact is that milk bottle recycling (if anyone used bottles anymore) would be done this way: perfectly fine empty milk bottles would go down to the recycling center where they would be thrown into a dumpster breaking them all into glass pieces. All of the special features of the bottles would be gone and they would be converted to practically worthless "cullet". This orgy of destruction would be applauded as a success by politicians, recyclers and garbage companies. The broken glass would be hauled a thousand miles or so to a bottle manufacturer who would burn tons of natural gas to melt the glass and blow it into a bottle again, then hauled five hundred miles to a dairy to be filled with milk, put into new cardboard cartons and shipped another five hundred miles to your local supermarket where you would buy the bottle again. What a waste! Do you wonder why I call this recycling a wasteful, obsolete system?

So yesterday. And that's being generous.

On the other hand, refilling bottles again with milk, not ever breaking them, is much more conserving. Little transportation, no melting, just washing. That was an excellent system. Let's go back to it.

However, it is not the best system. The milkman mixes everybody's bottles together so the dairy has no idea (in this paranoid society) if someone put pesticides or cyanide in their bottles. And many bottles are left dirty so they are full of mold. The dairy needs to indulge in extreme washing, just to be on the safe side, requiring harsh chemicals and the resulting "exhausted" chemical soup needing "disposal" (conventionally) and using up energy intensive chemicals. How much better it would be if each person retained ownership and responsibility for the bottles which, after all, they used and chose, took responsibility for washing them and then filling them again. They would know if there was any cyanide to wash out so would not waste time guarding against non-existent threats. They need a way to refill them. The dairy can still supply the milk, but now in bulk, for its customers to fill their bottles with at the super-filling station. This would be a full scale Zero Waste solution. The old milkman process was a partial, de-optimized Zero Waste solution.

Chain of responsibility! That's the key. At no time should any object be turned over to someone who has has no responsibility and no idea of its history (those are called garbagemen). But those can also be called recyclers. Discard much be eliminated. Discard means losing responsibility.

You're right. There are common sense ways to handle unwanted excess goods. Discarding them to travel to some dump or incinerator is insane. But don't get too nostalgic. Going back to universal repair is a great idea but many new ideas are required in the modern world.

If you want more, read my website at www.zerowasteinstitute.org (https://www.zerowasteinstitute.org).

Sciguy

Ann Ominous

12-20-2008, 11:18 PM

Sciguy has some concrete concepts.
These reduce and reuse ideas are great and perhaps belong on a futurism thread that could break off from the very pointed XanGo critique that inspired it.

Scott:

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but it seems to me that you are under the impression that milk bottle refilling is recycling.

Early in my career I also tried to use recycling as an umbrella term. It's a good word, but unfortunately it's been captured by recyclers and turned into a term meaning first create garbage by discard and most likely destruction and contamination, then scramble at the last minute, when all of the odds are against it, to capture a scrap of steel or aluminum or glass from smashed garbage. You might want to find out what the garbage company's recycling arms call a MRF (materials recovery facility). Yukk!!!

The fact is that milk bottle recycling (if anyone used bottles anymore) would be done this way: perfectly fine empty milk bottles would go down to the recycling center where they would be thrown into a dumpster breaking them all into glass pieces. All of the special features of the bottles would be gone and they would be converted to practically worthless "cullet". This orgy of destruction would be applauded as a success by politicians, recyclers and garbage companies. The broken glass would be hauled a thousand miles or so to a bottle manufacturer who would burn tons of natural gas to melt the glass and blow it into a bottle again, then hauled five hundred miles to a dairy to be filled with milk, put into new cardboard cartons and shipped another five hundred miles to your local supermarket where you would buy the bottle again. What a waste! Do you wonder why I call this recycling a wasteful, obsolete system?

So yesterday. And that's being generous.

On the other hand, refilling bottles again with milk, not ever breaking them, is much more conserving. Little transportation, no melting, just washing. That was an excellent system. Let's go back to it.

However, it is not the best system. The milkman mixes everybody's bottles together so the dairy has no idea (in this paranoid society) if someone put pesticides or cyanide in their bottles. And many bottles are left dirty so they are full of mold. The dairy needs to indulge in extreme washing, just to be on the safe side, requiring harsh chemicals and the resulting "exhausted" chemical soup needing "disposal" (conventionally) and using up energy intensive chemicals. How much better it would be if each person retained ownership and responsibility for the bottles which, after all, they used and chose, took responsibility for washing them and then filling them again. They would know if there was any cyanide to wash out so would not waste time guarding against non-existent threats. They need a way to refill them. The dairy can still supply the milk, but now in bulk, for its customers to fill their bottles with at the super-filling station. This would be a full scale Zero Waste solution. The old milkman process was a partial, de-optimized Zero Waste solution.

Chain of responsibility! That's the key. At no time should any object be turned over to someone who has has no responsibility and no idea of its history (those are called garbagemen). But those can also be called recyclers. Discard much be eliminated. Discard means losing responsibility.

You're right. There are common sense ways to handle unwanted excess goods. Discarding them to travel to some dump or incinerator is insane. But don't get too nostalgic. Going back to universal repair is a great idea but many new ideas are required in the modern world.

If you want more, read my website at www.zerowasteinstitute.org (https://www.zerowasteinstitute.org).

Sciguy

BreathOfFreshAir

12-21-2008, 10:44 AM

Your real question is worth merit. As a Xango distributor, and former director of a recycling program, I too find I have some difficulty with all the styro. - I do know Xango experimented with different kinds of packaging and to no avail too many people were getting broken bottles. Certainly it is worth forwarding this thread to the corporate team and requesting they take another look at this issue.

Regarding the integrity of the juice. Whomever doubts it's efficacy is probably not open to natural forms of healing or aware that most of our synthetic medicines are made from plants. They may not be aware that lemons gained significant attention when the British sailors learned that those crew who had lemons on board didn't get scurvy, those without lemons gos scurvy (side note "ascorbic" acid means "without scurvy"). It is also worth note that Phizer tried to buy Xango, and that there are drug companies right now working on making a drug out of the mangosteen rind. Maybe they really get that there are folks like the ones doubting the integrity of the juice who would rather take a synthetic drug than a whole fruit juice. Who is at the helm when, for instance, you are sold a drug for some ailment like arthritis or lyme disease or high C-Reactive Protein made from mangosteen rind? (by the way,drugs by definition have side effects).

I wonder why there are 60 or so knock offs of Xango now? I wonder why the juice industry has flourished since Xango hit the market just over 5 years ago. Being the fastest growing company in the United States warrants some attention in the market place and some unhappy "competition".

Just a thought, networking companies don't thrive unless their product works.

Personally, I like having the option to share a whole fruit juice that I have seen do wonders for people I care about, and get a "thank you" from the company in the form of money. What if more companies did this? I find it to be highly humanistic. In fact statistically, this is the trend in business - check your AT&T marketing plan - last time I called them they asked me to "refer a friend" to a company - any other companies you do business with, do this? That is the same kind of marketing EXCEPT those companies (like AT&T) give incentive trips or a small one time check as a "thank you", or a little bit off your next phone bill. Network Marketing companies like Xango are on the rise - 1 in 8 people in the US buy products from them now and that number is increasing. Wouldn't you rather give your business to a friend or colleague and let her/him make a profit, than some corporation? You see,both traditional companies and networking companies spend money on marketing, it is just apportioned differently. In a networking company, ANYBODY can start a distributorship and then has the power to create a small or large income for themselves ~Seems to me that is a more balanced approach where people are not making money for some high paid execs. and no matter how hard they work, they still get the same (maybe a little more when getting a raise) money. They get paid in terms of their efforts.

I am not saying that Xango is perfect. They definitely need to address the styrofoam issue. I suggest that if you are that against the company or product, do a test yourself. Get some mangosteen juice at Costco, or Whole Foods and then buy some Xango. See which one gives you results. Remember to check the labels. In my experience, you get what you pay for.

Just a side note, because Xango is bottled by Wild Flavors, which is renowned in the world market as a premier bottler (bottling for Capri Sun,Sobe, Arizona Ice Tea) they bought about 80% of the world's mangosteen groves - this means that any competition could not, by any stretch, include as much percentage of the rind in their juices as XanGo does. And, Wild asked Xango to be an exclusive partner - meaning they would never bottle for another company that wanted mangosteen in their juice. You must be an educated consumer on this one because there are all kinds of ways the label seems to say they have a lot of the rind - I suggest you read closely and question the other brands - as you are questioning Xango. My question is why are you so against a form of business that empowers the average person by making a high quality product.

BreathOfFreshAir

12-21-2008, 10:49 AM

Hi Wildflower,

Here's what I will do, as I thoroughly agree it is mind boggling when thinking of all this waste. I will, as mentioned earlier, pass this on to the corporate offices and request a response/inquiry into alternatives. In the meantime, I do know that some people do give it to wine makers (they actually can use it). I think it should be banned then there would be no issue - meanwhile, you have re-inspired me to deal with it. Thanks for your consciousness. Please ignore my last reply, I sent the same email twice.

Warmly,
BreathOfFreshAir

Dynamique

12-22-2008, 10:58 AM

Strauss Family Creamery, a local dairy, is doing exactly this process. You pay a deposit on the bottle when you buy at a local grocery store and get a refund when you return it. It would be nice if the kamboucha companies would adopt the same process.

Maybe a "CSA" type model could be applied to a local dairy that would be willing to bring back the milkman (updated to a milkperson, of course) and subscribers would own their own bottles. A bar code could be used to keep track of the bottles during the cleaning and refilling process. However, that would not prevent someone from introducing something toxic into the bottle and therefore the system. To check that, each bottle would need to be tested as it came in. That's not practical, so one would need to rely on the integrity of the subscribers and a cleaning process that would remove/neutralize a reasonable array of substances. Whatever the Strauss people are doing would probably pass regulations and common sense.

This is another one of those "no easy and/or low-impact answer" situations!

... Scott: On the other hand, refilling bottles again with milk, not ever breaking them, is much more conserving. Little transportation, no melting, just washing. That was an excellent system. Let's go back to it. ...

Sciguy

wildflower

12-22-2008, 07:20 PM

This is the response I DREAMED of!
Thank you.
let me know what happens...it may take some persistence.
xox
wf

Hi Wildflower,

Here's what I will do, as I thoroughly agree it is mind boggling when thinking of all this waste. I will, as mentioned earlier, pass this on to the corporate offices and request a response/inquiry into alternatives. In the meantime, I do know that some people do give it to wine makers (they actually can use it). I think it should be banned then there would be no issue - meanwhile, you have re-inspired me to deal with it. Thanks for your consciousness. Please ignore my last reply, I sent the same email twice.

Warmly,
BreathOfFreshAir

Ratfink

12-22-2008, 07:28 PM

Since every 4 bottles comes in beautiful bottles with beautiful reusable lids and styrofoam forms that fill a nice cardboard box.....What happens to all the packaging...especially the STYROFOAM?
It's not recyclable, can't go into landfill...so where is it ALL going?????
The closest place that accepts it is in Richmond as far as I know.
Are your buyers dumping it in the landfill?
So...the more successful you are selling your product, the more toxic & depleted our precious planet really becomes!
Very Naughty!
wildflower

We burn it in our fireplaces.

Vet-To-Pet

12-23-2008, 11:43 PM

WHY is this topic still on the main digest page? I've seen others moved much sooner with the same amount of postings. Favoritism...?
Nah, couldn't be!
(wink, wink) Paula/Vet-To-Pet

This is the response I DREAMED of!
Thank you.
let me know what happens...it may take some persistence.
xox
wf

danejasper

12-24-2008, 09:46 AM

Regarding the integrity of the juice. Whomever doubts it's efficacy is probably not open to natural forms of healing or aware that most of our synthetic medicines are made from plants.

Wow, you drank the kool-aid, didn't you? They tell you all this stuff at a meeting/pep rally?

-Dane

Braggi

12-24-2008, 10:26 AM

Sciguy, I do appreciate your zero waste efforts. I live far away from trash pickup services so I'm intimately aware of refuse and recycling streams.

... The fact is that milk bottle recycling (if anyone used bottles anymore) would be done this way: perfectly fine empty milk bottles would go down to the recycling center where they would be thrown into a dumpster breaking them all into glass pieces. All of the special features of the bottles would be gone and they would be converted to practically worthless "cullet". This orgy of destruction would be applauded as a success by politicians, recyclers and garbage companies. The broken glass would be hauled a thousand miles or so to a bottle manufacturer who would burn tons of natural gas to melt the glass and blow it into a bottle again, then hauled five hundred miles to a dairy to be filled with milk, put into new cardboard cartons and shipped another five hundred miles to your local supermarket where you would buy the bottle again. What a waste! Do you wonder why I call this recycling a wasteful, obsolete system?
...

Clipped from another site: "The cost savings of recycling is in the use of energy. When glass is made from scratch, high temperatures are needed to melt and combine all the ingredients. Since cullet melts at a lower temperature, the more of it you add to a batch of raw materials, the less energy you will need to melt it.

Recycling glass is not only cost-efficient; it benefits the environment in several ways. Glass produced from recycled glass instead of raw materials reduces related air pollution by 20% and related water pollution by 50%."

You know, that really makes recycling glass worthwhile. Not as good as not buying it in the first place, but way better than making it landfill.

... On the other hand, refilling bottles again with milk, not ever breaking them, is much more conserving. Little transportation, no melting, just washing. That was an excellent system. Let's go back to it.

However, it is not the best system. The milkman mixes everybody's bottles together so the dairy has no idea (in this paranoid society) if someone put pesticides or cyanide in their bottles. And many bottles are left dirty so they are full of mold. The dairy needs to indulge in extreme washing, just to be on the safe side, requiring harsh chemicals and the resulting "exhausted" chemical soup needing "disposal" (conventionally) and using up energy intensive chemicals. How much better it would be if each person retained ownership and responsibility for the bottles which, after all, they used and chose, took responsibility for washing them and then filling them again. They would know if there was any cyanide to wash out so would not waste time guarding against non-existent threats. They need a way to refill them. The dairy can still supply the milk, but now in bulk, for its customers to fill their bottles with at the super-filling station. This would be a full scale Zero Waste solution. The old milkman process was a partial, de-optimized Zero Waste solution. ...

Actually, harsh chemicals are not necessary. If you look over a high pressure bottle washing machine it's the hot water under high pressure that really cleans. Mild detergents can be added to dissolve oily residue, but they can be cleaned out of the wash water and the water reused. Even car washes recycle all their wash water these days.

I'm not arguing that reuse shouldn't be followed but that both recycling and current technology reuse systems are better than you're making them out to be.

Sadly, reuse isn't cost effective in the current throw-away merchandising system we have. A Sonoma County based wine bottle reuse company closed down a few years ago because it cost more to collect and clean the bottles than to buy new. Carbon taxes could be applied here to support future reuse efforts.

Keep up the good work.

-Jeff

Zeno Swijtink

12-24-2008, 10:26 AM

If you wish to avoid lactic acidosis don't overindulge in this fruit juice.

Wong L. P., and P.J. Klemmer
Severe lactic acidosis associated with juice of the mangosteen fruit Garcinia mangostana.
Am J Kidney Dis. 2008 May;51(5):829-33.

Braggi

12-24-2008, 10:36 AM

... Just a thought, networking companies don't thrive unless their product works.
...

Wow, what a statement. Earth to Breath: take a look at the "supplements" industry. Billions of dollars a year down the toilet (most of it literally) because most of it doesn't work. Echinacea alone brings in billions a year, and yet, science has shown it does nothing to improve immune responses in study after study. Yet, people keep buying it.

Suggesting US consumers buy only those products that "work" flies in the face of reality. Most of us have no idea what we're buying most of the time. Take a peek in other folks' shopping carts next time you're in the store. There's not a lot of analysis going on.

-Jeff

ChristineL

12-25-2008, 04:05 AM

Sterilization does not require lots of chemicals, etc. It requires water at a high enough temperature. Glass lends itself to it very well. I don't know anyone who got sick from milk delivered by the milk man when I was a kid.

Scott:

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but it seems to me that you are under the impression that milk bottle refilling is recycling.

Early in my career I also tried to use recycling as an umbrella term. It's a good word, but unfortunately it's been captured by recyclers and turned into a term meaning first create garbage by discard and most likely destruction and contamination, then scramble at the last minute, when all of the odds are against it, to capture a scrap of steel or aluminum or glass from smashed garbage. You might want to find out what the garbage company's recycling arms call a MRF (materials recovery facility). Yukk!!!

The fact is that milk bottle recycling (if anyone used bottles anymore) would be done this way: perfectly fine empty milk bottles would go down to the recycling center where they would be thrown into a dumpster breaking them all into glass pieces. All of the special features of the bottles would be gone and they would be converted to practically worthless "cullet". This orgy of destruction would be applauded as a success by politicians, recyclers and garbage companies. The broken glass would be hauled a thousand miles or so to a bottle manufacturer who would burn tons of natural gas to melt the glass and blow it into a bottle again, then hauled five hundred miles to a dairy to be filled with milk, put into new cardboard cartons and shipped another five hundred miles to your local supermarket where you would buy the bottle again. What a waste! Do you wonder why I call this recycling a wasteful, obsolete system?

So yesterday. And that's being generous.

On the other hand, refilling bottles again with milk, not ever breaking them, is much more conserving. Little transportation, no melting, just washing. That was an excellent system. Let's go back to it.

However, it is not the best system. The milkman mixes everybody's bottles together so the dairy has no idea (in this paranoid society) if someone put pesticides or cyanide in their bottles. And many bottles are left dirty so they are full of mold. The dairy needs to indulge in extreme washing, just to be on the safe side, requiring harsh chemicals and the resulting "exhausted" chemical soup needing "disposal" (conventionally) and using up energy intensive chemicals. How much better it would be if each person retained ownership and responsibility for the bottles which, after all, they used and chose, took responsibility for washing them and then filling them again. They would know if there was any cyanide to wash out so would not waste time guarding against non-existent threats. They need a way to refill them. The dairy can still supply the milk, but now in bulk, for its customers to fill their bottles with at the super-filling station. This would be a full scale Zero Waste solution. The old milkman process was a partial, de-optimized Zero Waste solution.

Chain of responsibility! That's the key. At no time should any object be turned over to someone who has has no responsibility and no idea of its history (those are called garbagemen). But those can also be called recyclers. Discard much be eliminated. Discard means losing responsibility.

You're right. There are common sense ways to handle unwanted excess goods. Discarding them to travel to some dump or incinerator is insane. But don't get too nostalgic. Going back to universal repair is a great idea but many new ideas are required in the modern world.

If you want more, read my website at Zero Waste Institute first frameset (https://www.zerowasteinstitute.org).

Sciguy

Sciguy

12-25-2008, 12:59 PM

Christine:
<p>
I'm not sure of the limitations of hot water. I'm sure it is fairly efficacious but is it sufficient? Legally? With soap and a brush? Here's one fact I do know.
<p>
In the 1970's, Dick Evans, a recycler out of Berkeley, started a company called Encore for the washing and reuse of wine bottles. I know what he used for the washing because I supplied him with the sodium hydroxide he used (a very strong alkalai). He collected wine bottles from all over the Bay Area, cleaned and sorted them, and sold them back to wineries. Residual wine should have a lot less likelihood of forming a proteinaceous moldy plug in the bottom of a bottle than would milk but he used pretty extreme washing nonetheless. I guess when you have no idea where a bottle came from, no matter what you think it contained, you have to act as though it was borrowed for use in a hospital for human remains. And Encore had to kiss up to the recyclers and garbage collectors for their bottles instead of standing on their own two feet and dealing with the actual reuse loop, involving wine drinkers and wineries. That is why I see no future in this kind of anonymous, irresponsible washing of bottles that came from just anywhere. I believe in maintaining the chain of responsibility so that people who make the choice to buy a bottle of wine obtain the commitment to see that same container thru to its next cycle of reuse, not discard. Why are we all so committed to the irresponsibility that the practice of discard has afforded us? People on Wacco seem prepared to move from the irresponsibility of imported foods from god knows where to growing their own locally. Why would anyone want, at the same time, to cleave to the irresponsibility of cheap discard? (I use discard technically, meaning losing responsibility, not meaning dumping). Arguing responsibility is a very uphill struggle.
<p<
I believe that Encore has long been out of business, due, I would say, to the contradictions of trying to impose responsibility on a social system that overvalues and rewards irresponsibility.

Sciguy

Sterilization does not require lots of chemicals, etc. It requires water at a high enough temperature. Glass lends itself to it very well. I don't know anyone who got sick from milk delivered by the milk man when I was a kid.

ChristineL

12-25-2008, 11:12 PM

Boiling/Steaming is sufficient, legally, for glass and metal items. In the days before disposable diapers/washing machines/etc., mothers boiled their babies' diapers to sanitize/sterilize them. In the days of glass baby bottles, mothers boiled them to sanitize/sterilize.

Christine:

I'm not sure of the limitations of hot water. I'm sure it is fairly efficacious but is it sufficient? Legally? With soap and a brush? Here's one fact I do know.

In the 1970's, Dick Evans, a recycler out of Berkeley, started a company called Encore for the washing and reuse of wine bottles. I know what he used for the washing because I supplied him with the sodium hydroxide he used (a very strong alkalai). He collected wine bottles from all over the Bay Area, cleaned and sorted them, and sold them back to wineries. Residual wine should have a lot less likelihood of forming a proteinaceous moldy plug in the bottom of a bottle than would milk but he used pretty extreme washing nonetheless. I guess when you have no idea where a bottle came from, no matter what you think it contained, you have to act as though it was borrowed for use in a hospital for human remains. And Encore had to kiss up to the recyclers and garbage collectors for their bottles instead of standing on their own two feet and dealing with the actual reuse loop, involving wine drinkers and wineries. That is why I see no future in this kind of anonymous, irresponsible washing of bottles that came from just anywhere. I believe in maintaining the chain of responsibility so that people who make the choice to buy a bottle of wine obtain the commitment to see that same container thru to its next cycle of reuse, not discard. Why are we all so committed to the irresponsibility that the practice of discard has afforded us? People on Wacco seem prepared to move from the irresponsibility of imported foods from god knows where to growing their own locally. Why would anyone want, at the same time, to cleave to the irresponsibility of cheap discard? (I use discard technically, meaning losing responsibility, not meaning dumping). Arguing responsibility is a very uphill struggle.

I believe that Encore has long been out of business, due, I would say, to the contradictions of trying to impose responsibility on a social system that overvalues and rewards irresponsibility.

Sciguy