HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Metabolism-boosting Coke?
October 12, 2006
Coca-Cola claims that its new drink called Enviga boosts metabolism, burns calories, and promotes better health. The drink combines caffeine with a green tea extract called epigallocatechin -- or "EGCG".
Our Review Summary
This is a story about a new low calorie soft drink surrounded by marketing claims that it is a "calorie-burner". The story could have been more assertive with the company experts instead of allowing them to make basically unsubstantiated health benefit claims about weight loss. The piece could have probed further into the claim that the benefit is "proven", when in fact the company has not published or even released the design and results of its study of this product. The lack of substantive comments by people in the nutrition field (with expertise in functional foods) also limits the usefulness of this piece for consumers. A more responsible means for handling this would been to give an unaffiliated expert in the field of weight loss time to provide some context for the claims put forth by the company spokesperson. (The piece did contain two statements from experts in nutrition who did not appear to have ties to the Coca-Cola company, but the content contributed by these individuals was very brief and far more limiited than the company-produced information.) Although the conversation was carefully crafted not to make exaggerated claims about weight loss, the overall sense of the story would lead a viewer to think that the product would be more helpful in terms of weight loss than there is any reason (data) to support.
The story mentioned that this product was to be used in combination with physical activity and a balanced, very moderate diet to 'invigorate' one's metabolism. This story failed to mention that the same lifestyle interventions without the inclusion of Enviga would elicit the same health benefits. This piece also failed to point out that weight re-gain would be likely when consumption of this bevereage ceased. In addition, the story did not discuss other approaches to weight loss.
Overall, the Today Show provided a great commercial opportunity for the new Coke product.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
This story reported that the product will be available in New York, Philadelphia and New Jersey next month and then nationwide the beginning of the next year.
This story presented the cost ($1.29/can) of this product.
The story did not disease monger about obesity and the health risks associated with obesity.
There was a lot of pseudo-science tossed about in this story. At this point in time, there are no published studies demonstrating this beverage or the components this beverage contain actually have any effect on weight. Just because there are a small number of studies that found that energy expenditure by non-obese individuals in a very controlled setting differed in a 24 hr. period of time does not mean that that effect will be maintained over a period of time, nor that the body's homeostatic mechanisms for caloric intake regulation will be affected. Just saying that they have science that documents something does not mean that their interpretation is valid. Simply referencing a "study" carried out by the Coca-Cola company is not sufficient.
There was no mention of potential harms other than some possible concerns about caffeine consumption; even if there is nothing known about harms from this product, that could have been clearly stated.
This story reported on a new product made by Coca-Cola.
Even if the reported benefit of increasing caloric expenditure by 60-100 calories per day were to be something maintained consistently over time when this beverage were consumed along with a prudent diet and physical activity - there are absolutely no data supporting that consumption of this beverage or the components in this beverage results in weight loss or inhibits weight gain. It is equally plausible that people drinking this beverage in the setting of the real world might actually gain weight because they might choose to munch on snacks while consuming Enviga, thereby increasing their total daily caloric intake.
This story did not rely on text from a press release, though much of the information was presented by a company spokesperson.
This story carried interview material with a company spokesperson and did contain two statements from experts in nutrition who did not appear to have ties to the Coca-Cola company. It should be noted the content contributed by these individuals was very brief and far more limiited than the company-produced information. These expert statements were far too brief to provide a balanced view. A more balanced discussion would have greatly improved the value of this story beyond marketing for Enviga.
The story mentioned that this product was to be used in combination with physical activity and a balanced, very moderate diet to 'invigorate' one's metabolism. This story failed to mention that the same lifestyle interventions without the inclusion of Enviga would elicit the same health benefits. This piece also failed to point out that weight re-gain would be likely when consumption of this bevereage ceased. In addition, the story did not discuss other approaches to weight loss.
Total Score: 5 of 10 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.