This 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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
The release does not engage in disease mongering.
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.
There are many comparisons in the study but the release mentions none of the many other dietary sources of potassium and fiber.
We think it’s obvious that potatoes are widely available.
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.
The headline – and use of “best hope” — is unjustified, as far as we can tell.
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.