Joy Victory is deputy managing editor of HealthNewsReview.org. She tweets at @thejoyvictory.
Blocking the amino acid asparagine in genetically modified mice was linked to slowed breast cancer metastasis, according to a research letter published in the journal Nature.
It’s an interesting premise, and one that’s likely worth further study, but as several of our alert Twitter followers pointed out to us, some journalists went overboard on this one:
@HealthNewsRevu scare article @guardian extrapolates mouse asparaginase study to asparagus give cancer! https://t.co/YhH2ViaKGd
— Pietro Ghezzi (@PietroGhezzi) February 8, 2018
Some resulting news coverage bordered on scare-mongering, primarily by making it sound like the findings apply to people. By our latest count, the story has appeared in The Guardian, the BBC, HuffPost UK, Medical News Today, The Boston Globe, among others.
Bottom line on this one? In what was almost the bottom line at the end of The Guardian’s story was a quote from a UK breast cancer charity executive: “On current evidence, we don’t recommend patients totally exclude any specific food group from their diet without speaking to their doctors.”
What you need to know:
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
@HealthNewsRevu "There’s no harm in trying to make a buck, per se. But there is harm in promoting things that are not backed up by evidence, and in converting normal states of health into sickness" https://t.co/aeUTK4CVAs
Men’s Health Month: "Some of it was thinly-veiled, profit-driven fear-mongering," says @garyschwitzer: https://t.co/MOWdxlenvz
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
John Galbraith Simmons
February 12, 2018 at 7:31 amThis article in The Guardian would be worth something if it fit the story about asparagus into the larger popular narrative about diet and cancer, as counterpoint to the notion that specific foods or supplements can help prevent cancer.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like