This news release from the National Processed Raspberry Council (NPRC) summarized findings from eight recent studies on the potential health benefits of raspberries. Based on presentations from the 2017 Experimental Biology conference in Chicago, the release described studies that looked at the effects of raspberries on blood sugar control, satiety, gut health, type 2 diabetes, and inflammation.
The studies were all summarized in only a paragraph, and all lacked important numbers that would quantify the benefits of the interventions. There were no mentions of relative risk, absolute risk, or other common measurements. However, the news release gets points for using a balanced tone, inserting some caveats about the research and disclosing a very obvious conflict of interest.
Raspberries are a common and easily accessible fruit. The trade group’s goal here appears to be aimed at garnering interest in processed raspberries for their health benefits. If this were proven true, raspberry consumption would be a convenient and nutritional way for people to keep common ailments in check.
But the research findings mentioned here should be taken with a grain of salt. They are a mix of human, in vitro (lab dish) and animal studies, many of them small pilot studies that don’t come close to proving cause and effect.
There may be less science here than seems to meet the eyes. All eight studies were published in a journal “supplement” in the April 2017 FASEB (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology) Journal. Medical journals often publish such supplements dedicated to a particular topic which are sponsored by a special interest group. Most supplements are not peer reviewed.
This release also highlights a pitfall of trying to cover unrelated studies in a single release. Explanation of the studies are capped at a few sentences and leave numerous unanswered questions about limitations.
The news release doesn’t refer to costs.
Despite the claim that these studies support future research of red raspberries and their potential to reduce “inflammation, obesity, and type 2 diabetes risk,” none of the study summaries include actual numbers putting the benefits in context. Some of the results were called “significant,” but without numbers putting the findings in context the word is meaningless.
The news release didn’t mention any harms from eating raspberries, but that may be because there are no documented harms. Unless you are allergic, it seems safe to eat raspberries in moderation like any other fruit or vegetable.
Still, out of eight studies it’s reasonable to think one of them examined potential harms or made a statement about the lack of harms. Even noting “there were no observed harms” would be helpful.
In the introduction and in the study summaries, the release did a good job of using conservative language and emphasizing that some of the trials were inconclusive or preliminary.
We especially applaud their frankness in this sentence of the release: “While this emerging research is promising, and contributes to the overall understanding of the health benefits of red raspberries, conclusions cannot be drawn at this time.”
The news release did well to distinguish between trials that were done in humans and in mice, and in once instance it pointed out that a study had only taken place over the course of three meals. Though they should have included numbers and data, their inclusion of the study limitations here were helpful.
The news release was transparent about the conflict of interest—it was released by the National Processed Raspberry Council (NPRC). On its website, the NPRC says its mission is to “promote the consumption of processed raspberries based on research results.”
The studies were all funded by the trade group, and that’s noted on the EurekAlert! sidebar, where the release is hosted.
The news release also included a blurb at the bottom acknowledging that the NPRC “represents the processed raspberry industry.”
Many news releases have conflicts of interest—at least the NPRC was honest about it.
The news release was focused on raspberries, and raspberries alone. It would have been useful to know if other related berries (maybe blackberries, elderberries or lingonberries) have been found to have similar benefits.
Availability generally isn’t an issue—raspberries are a common fruit known to most who shop at grocery stores. However, prices (and therefore access) can fluctuate widely depending on where you live.
This news release was a summary of new research presented at the 2017 Experimental Biology conference in Chicago. But just because the research was new, doesn’t mean the ideas are. Though the studies looked at five different health issues (blood sugar, satiety, gut health, type 2 diabetes, and inflammation), the release itself didn’t indicate whether these discoveries were new, or simply building on past research.
As previously mentioned, the news release did a good job of keeping sensational language in check. The release kept a cautious tone, and made note of caveats and limitations in each study.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
More for milk debates: "Switching to skim #milk may slow biological aging" https://upi.com/6975065t via @upi cc @garyschwitzer @joansalgeblake
"We can't say that this was caused by milk fat." As is often the case with nutrition studies: correlation ≠ causation.
#RelaxDammit
@HealthNewsRevu @mcjaklevic HealthNewsReview once again revealing hype that far outstrips reality. I suspect that one day, AI will meaningfully contribute to good patient care. Whether that's in 10 years or 100, I couldn't say. What is clear is that we ain't there yet.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
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