NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Special candy fights cavities

Rating

1 Star

Special candy fights cavities

Our Review Summary

This was a 3-minute ad – not a piece of journalism.  So much good can be done with 3 minutes of network TV time.

But this story failed to:

  • discuss costs
  • discuss evidence – of harms or benefits
  • present any independent expert’s opinion

It even featured the two co-anchors sucking lollipops at the very end.  Wow.

Dr. Shi and colleagues have done some interesting work in the area of preventive dentistry targeting the underlying pathophysiology (bacterial colonization and acid production). The work in the area of preventive dentistry – and not a focus on this lollipop product – would have been a more valuable use of the 3 minutes. 

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story didn’t mention costs.   But the ABC website linked to the proprietary "Dr. John’s Lollipops" website where costs were listed:

• 20-Lollipop Pack (one dose) $10.00

• 2.5 lb. Bulk Bag (Approx. 125 Pieces) $50.00

As a comparison, a tube of toothpaste with fluoride costs about $2.  Fluoride toothpaste has been shown to reduce dental caries in children. 

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

Not Satisfactory

The story failed to discuss any EVIDENCE for benefit.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story said the product "doesn’t need FDA approval because it’s all-natural and its active ingredient is licorice, which the FDA says is completely safe."  That’s a tremendous leap of faith with no evidence to back it up.  Further, contrary to the story, licorice (its main ingredient is glycyrrhizic acid) is in fact pharmacologically active.  In addition to its ability to alter the effects of drugs (digoxin is one example), licorice can induce a hypermineralocorticoid-like effect in humans.     

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The story was completely devoid of any evidence about how well these lollipops work – if at all. Yet it said the approach could "revolutionize" oral health and that it "could be a cure for cavities."  All we got was anecdotal evidence in a petri dish. 

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The story didn’t exaggerate tooth decay but it also didn’t give very much or good context.  It said $85 m was spent on oral health last year and that 79 percent of kids still have a cavity by age 17.  (No source given for either statement.) 

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

Only the one researcher/inventor was interviewed. No dentist was interviewed.  The anchor even asked the reporter at the end if the American Dental Associaiton had "weighed in on all this."  The answer was no.  But it’s not clear if that meant that ABC even asked the ADA. 

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

Obviously there are many options for prevention and treatment of tooth decay.  None was mentioned in the story.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

There was lots of talk about "calls coming in" – from "around the globe," even from pet food makers.  But there was no explicit mention on the air of availability.  The story gleefuly proclaimed that the product "doesn’t need FDA approval" – as if that’s always a good thing.  Meantime, the ABC website linked to the proprietary "Dr. John’s Lollipops" website, where some extravagant claims were made. 

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The story did all it could to establish the novelty of the product – saying it would revolutionize oral health care and might be a cure for cavities.  Yet, without evidence, we can’t be sure if there’s anything novel here beyond a new lollipop. 

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Applicable

We can’t be sure if the story relied soley or largely on a news release. We do know that only the one researcher/inventor was interviewed.

Total Score: 1 of 9 Satisfactory

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.