Note to our followers: Due to a lack of sufficient funding, HealthNewsReview.org will cease daily publication of new content at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. If you wish to donate, your gift might help keep the site available to the public for a few more years, by defraying costs of web hosting and maintenance. All of our 6,000+ published articles contain lessons to help people improve their critical thinking about health care. Read more about our change in status. And here's how to make a donation.
Read Original Release

Potato industry PR: Fries and chips “best hope” for improving children’s diets

Rating

1 Star

Study shows children's best hope for the potassium and fiber missing in their diets is potatoes

Our Review Summary

potato headThis news release is about a study funded by and written by the potato industry. And not surprisingly given its provenance, the news release advocates vigorously for the inclusion of more potatoes in children’s diets. Interestingly, though, the study that’s the basis for the release does not deliver the same message. Instead, it says that a broad array of vegetables are not being eaten by children and therefore children’s diets are lacking in calcium, vitamin D, and other nutrients. Potatoes are a big focus of the study, of course, but here’s where the news release falls short, too: The study notes — and the news release ignores — that the potatoes being studied included french fries and potato chips. All potential health harm from these foods is completely ignored. (Such harm is ignored in the study, too.) The potential benefits are not clearly broken out in the study and seem to appear out of nowhere in the news release.

 

Why This Matters

Childhood intake of nutrients has been linked to later development of cancer and cardiovascular disease, as well as obesity and diabetes.  As the release states, childhood eating patterns carry over to adults. Encouraging kids to eat a wide variety of vegetables is therefore important. The argument that potatoes should be particularly encouraged has little foundation in science.

Criteria

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

Not Applicable

There is no mention of costs. We won’t penalize the release for not including this information since potatoes are a common and relatively inexpensive food. The release could have noted the average cost of a pound of potatoes to give parents a sense of how they might fit into a family grocery budget.

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

Not Satisfactory

The release says that potatoes are the “best hope” for delivering more fiber and potassium to kids. Based on what evidence? The study certainly doesn’t show this. Here’s what the study concludes:

“The results suggest that patterns of potassium, [dietary fiber], and vitamin D intake for young children should be studied further in order to develop strategies for increasing intakes of these crucial nutrients. The consumption of a variety of all vegetables, including [white potatoes], is important to increase potassium and [dietary fiber] intakes and should be encouraged.”

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

Not Satisfactory

The most troubling thing about this study and about the release is the inclusion of french fries and potato chips in the study as if they were equal in health value to other forms of potatoes. There is no discussion of the potential harms that come from foods high in sugar, salt, fat, and calories.

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

Not Satisfactory

The release skirts any explanation of how the study was conducted. The study itself appeared to be focused on overall dietary patterns, not potatoes per se. In addition, the study was published as a paid supplement to a journal article. In general, supplements are not peer-reviewed, and so it would be helpful to note specifically whether the papers in the supplement were peer reviewed or not. The release is somewhat cagey on this point, saying that the study was published “in a special supplement of the peer-reviewed journal Advances in Nutrition.”

Does the news release commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The release does not engage in disease mongering.

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

Not Satisfactory

The release notes:

The supplement is the outcome of a November 2014 USDA/ARS Children’s Nutrition Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine roundtable on vegetable consumption in children. The forum was supported by the Alliance for Potato Research and Education, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to expanding and translating scientific research into evidence-based policy and education initiatives that recognize the role of all forms of the potato–a nutritious vegetable–in promoting health for all age groups.

That’s good information as far as it goes, but the release does not acknowledge that the authors of the main study that is the basis for the release are both paid by the Alliance (one is an employee, the other a consultant), which is a membership group for potato growers.

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

Not Satisfactory

There are many comparisons in the study but the release mentions none of the many other dietary sources of potassium and fiber.

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

Not Applicable

We think it’s obvious that potatoes are widely available.

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

Not Satisfactory

By claiming that potatoes are the best hope for increasing potassium and fiber intake in kids, we think the release needed to prove the novelty of the research and this finding. But there’s nothing new here.

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

Not Satisfactory

The headline – and use of “best hope” — is unjustified, as far as we can tell.

Total Score: 1 of 8 Satisfactory

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.