Using piglets to test hypotheses related to infant brain development and the consumption of prebiotics seems to be important research, but at this point, it is hard to tell how relevant this research is to humans. A better discussion of the benefits and harms found in the study, as well as the human relevance of the overall research would have greatly improved this release. Nothing in the release relates to breast milk — it only compared formulas. Any discussion of formula versus breast milk in infant development needs to refer to the overall context of what we know about the topic already and this release skipped those details.
It could be important if nutrition research, focused on giving prebiotic formula to piglets, were demonstrated to be applicable to humans. While formula-fed piglets might have shown higher scores on a “novel object recognition” test, it is far too early to imply that these results would be replicated in humans. The likely value of this research is in better understanding of the relationships between gut and neurological function. That’s important basic science, but not ready for clinical application. Reports of animal research sponsored by a major manufacturer of the product being researched needs to be treated with a high level of scrutiny and possibly skepticism.
There is no discussion of the associated costs of both formula and prebiotic-enhanced formula which could be considerable considering the amount and length of time an infant would consume it.
The description of benefits lacks any mention that trials in piglets may have little bearing on how human infants would respond to the prebiotic formula.
All we learn is that two-day old piglets given a cow’s milk-based infant formula supplemented with polydextrose (PDX) and galactooligosaccharide (GOS) were tested at 25 days old with learning, memory, and stress tests. There is no evidence to suggest that the same result would be found in human infants.
There are known disadvantages of formula over breast milk so harms should be included in any discussion of changing infant nutrition patterns.
The strength of the research, its validity and relevance to humans were mostly missing from this research. If piglets fed PDX and GOS spent more time playing with new objects than pigs who didn’t receive prebiotic supplements it is premature to declare this any sort of real medical advance.
There is no obvious disease-mongering here.
The release notes that the research was funded by Mead Johnson Nutrition, the manufacturer of a prebiotic infant formula.
There was a clear need to discuss the alternative to infant formula which is, of course, breast milk of the mother mammal. It is curious to know if the control piglets were able to suckle with their mother, and thus gain other socio-emotional benefits of that bonding (plus probably other important developmental constituents of breast milk) denied to the formula-fed pigs.
This published study (but not the release) mentions that infant formula supplemented with prebiotics are currently available.
The release hints that the novelty of the research is that the formula testing involved piglets instead of the traditional rodents used in such studies. “Piglets are widely considered a more informative model for human infants than mice and rats; their digestive systems, behavioral responses, and brain development are remarkably similar to human infants,” the release claimed.
There is no mention in the title or first paragraph that this was piglet research (which could be misleading for those who only read the title and the first paragraph) yet the language used was largely appropriate.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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