Read Original Release

Big Cherry claims about health benefits leave a sour taste in our mouths

New emerging research suggests Montmorency tart cherries may help enhance gut health

Our Review Summary

This tiny, industry-sponsored study of how the polyphenols found in Montmorency tart cherries might impact gut bacteria adds to a growing list of similar industry-sponsored studies investigating a wide range of possible health benefits of this domestic cherry.

This study did not show that Montmorency tart cherries may enhance gut health, and this news release did not even explain that there’s no scientific consensus on what defines “good” bacteria, “bad” bacteria, or a “healthy” gut.

The combination of unjustified language and lack of supportive data is a major weakness of this news release. Yes, the industry sponsorship and limited sample size (9 human subjects) is acknowledged, but other key limitations (lack of control group; reliance on subjects completing diet questionnaires) are not, and the end result is a news release with an arguably promotional tone.


Why This Matters

The microbiome has become an important line of research into human health but this research is preliminary, at best. So what’s the harm in promoting preliminary research?

Check out this customer review of a Walmart tart cherry juice product:

It was recommenced that I try this because of an awful gout condition. I bought a few bottles and had them on hand for the next flare up. Well that happened yesterday and I took my cholchicine but drank the entire 32 oz bottle and this morning I am basically pain free!

We’re hoping this person wasn’t diabetic. We share this because it shows that plenty of people (there were similar comments related to a host of touted health benefits) will act on unproven nutritional studies that are funded by the companies selling the product, and are brought to the public’s attention (as in this case) by public relation firms whose primary motivation is promotional, not educational.


Does the news release adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The cost of Montmorency tart cherry juice is not mentioned.

Walmart sells a quart of concentrate for about $16.

Does the news release adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The lead author of the study is quoted as saying:

Our results suggest that the unique polyphenol mixture in tart cherries may help positively shape the gut microbiome, which could potentially have far-reaching health implications.

What are the “far-reaching health implications”? They’re not specified. Nor are any specific benefits described. The release says the researchers analyzed study participants’ stool samples but offers readers no glimpse into the findings or what was measured.

Does the news release adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Harms are not mentioned.

Several tart cherry juices on the market contain substantial amounts of sugar. This is germane since — among the host of diseases cherry juice is claimed to be good for — there are claims that tart cherry juice is actually “good for diabetes.”

Although the amounts used in this study were modest, it’s worth noting that some readers might think “more is better” and drink enough to substantially elevate their blood sugar.

Further, most physicians do not recommend juice as a source of nutrition, but rather the whole fruit.

Does the news release seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The research is poorly described and it’s unclear from the release what the primary findings were. We’re told the study had 2 arms:

  1. A human trial of 9 healthy adults drinking 8 ounces of concentrate for 5 days.
  2. A laboratory experiment set up “to mimic the conditions within the human digestive system … to study how polyphenols (in the juice) are broken down and absorbed.”

The release also tells us that in the human trial, “the microbiome was positively altered (primarily measured by the increase in good bacteria).” Which bacteria are “good” and why they’re “good” is not explained. And data are not provided.

It’s suggested human subjects that ate a more Western diet (“low in fruit, vegetables, and fiber”) … “potentially had a lower ability to metabolize polyphenols” … while those who ate a more plant-based diet (“with a higher intake of carbohydrates and fiber”) responded with an increase in Bacteroides and Bifidobacterium ( 2 types of bacteria).

We were glad to see the news release mention that further and larger studies are needed, but it should have mentioned two other key limitations: this study had no control group and it relied on diet questionnaires completed by the subjects. Therefore, it’s quite possible the observed results can be attributed to many factors other than the chemical characteristics of the tart cherries.

The significance of this is not explained; rather, we’re offered this conclusion without context or explanation:

The results help build the foundation for future research and suggest Montmorency tart cherries can play a role in positively shaping the microbiome and maintaining gut health.

Does the news release commit disease-mongering?

Not Applicable

The release doesn’t engage in disease-mongering. It also doesn’t provide any context for the type or extent of the problem the intervention (cherry consumption) is intended to help.

Does the news release identify funding sources & disclose conflicts of interest?


It’s mentioned that The Cherry Marketing Institute “provided financial support for the study.”

It’s not clear if any of the researchers involved have financial ties to the institute.

Does the news release compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

What’s not made clear to readers is that dozens (perhaps hundreds) of foods and beverages are rich sources of polyphenols.

Does the news release establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


We can presume that tart cherry juice is widely available, and the news release does mention that Montmorency cherries are a common domestic variety “available year-round in dried, frozen, canned, and juice forms.”

Does the news release establish the true novelty of the approach?


The news release mentions the study is “a first-of-its-kind trial” of humans combined with a parallel laboratory study.

It’s mentioned in the published study that, to the authors’ knowledge, this is the “first microbiota/metabolome investigation of the impact and fate of tart cherries and their polyphenols in the human colon.”

Does the news release include unjustifiable, sensational language, including in the quotes of researchers?

Not Satisfactory

The use of repeated phrases such as: “enhance gut health … gut-friendly foods … good bacteria … shaping the microbiome” perpetuates and reinforces the erroneous notion that scientists have definitively determined which bacteria are good vs bad, and that we can dictate the “health” of our microbiome by our food choices. To date, there is no research that can unequivocally support these notions.

This study does not support such cause-and-effect language or the over-reaching news release headline.

Total Score: 3 of 9 Satisfactory

Comments (2)

Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Juliette McAvoy

August 16, 2018 at 4:28 pm

I have a few comments regarding the review:
– I don’t know why the first question “Does the news release adequately discuss the cost of intervention?” is a relevant factor. Show me any evidence of pharmaceutical companies reporting the retail costs of their drugs in their press releases.
– The comment “Further, most physicians do not recommend juice as a source of nutrition, but rather the whole fruit” is inaccurate and shows that the reviews have no knowledge of Montmorency Tart Cherries. Tart Cherries are extremely perishable and exclusively eaten in some sort of processed form (juice/concentrate, frozen, canned, dried). Numerous reputable studies (excluding the one in review) show some astounding health benefits from eating the Montmorency variety of cherry, far above and beyond the typical health/nutrients provided by eating any fruits or vegetables. In fact, the main function or market for the Montmorency juice/concentrate is selling it as a nutraceutical or functional food, something that is taken daily like a vitamin and not just sporadically eaten or used with while cooking dinner. The reason that concentrate is the form most commonly used is because of the efficiency of space and storage. Typically it takes 70 or more lbs of fruit to make one gallon of concentrate. If a consumer were able to get their hands on fresh, tart cherries (which is grown in only a few select areas in the United States and has a season length of one month) I doubt they would be excited about eating nearly a pound of fruit a day in order to get the recommended dose to see the benefits. I would also like to comment that remarks like this undermine the healthfulness of fruits and vegetables that are not fresh.. eating canned green beans is still a healthy option and for many, more attainable than fresh (lower cost) – not to mention the increased carbon footprint of the fresh food supply chain. Physicians (and reviewers alike) should understand that the emphasis on “FRESH or NOTHING” is detrimental and instead push for consumer understanding of NATURAL & HEALTHY INGREDIENTS instead.


    Kevin Lomangino

    August 17, 2018 at 8:46 am

    Hi Juliette,

    Thanks for your comment. I think your enthusiasm for Montmorency cherries is at odds with the evidence as pointed out by our reviewers. Some specific replies:

    – We agree that cost information is almost never included in news releases from pharmaceutical companies or any organization promoting a product or intervention. We think that information should be included, which is why we call attention to it in our reviews.

    – Contrary to what you’ve written, this study does not show any “astounding health benefits” from eating cherries. Increasing levels of certain bacteria in 9 people is not a “health benefit.”

    – Perhaps we should’ve specified that most “knowledgeable, evidence-based physicians” do not recommend juice as a source of nutrition and instead advocate the consumption of whole foods. Juices and powders don’t contain fiber and many other nutrients which may be responsible for the health benefits associated with fruits and vegetables. If tart cherries aren’t available in whole form most times of the year, consumers should probably substitute other fruits and vegetables which ARE available (or eat frozen or canned cherries). There is no magic component in tart cherries that make them superior to other fruits or vegetables, despite attempts to make it sound like this is the case with studies of 9 people.

    Best regards,

    Kevin Lomangino
    Managing Editor