The headline alone seems to imply a definitive causal relationship that this study can’t prove – a point made, but not until almost the end of the story. This could have been a story about much more than just the color of rice – even with a few lines. Instead, it focused on a lot of numbers that may not have helped consumer comprehension very much.
The topic matters because of concerns about obesity and increasing risk for type II diabetes. The information in this story adds to the evidence indicating a role for consuming low glycemic index foods in lowering risk of type II diabetes. The story could have made that point much more strongly, clearly and with context. Instead, the focus on rice alone may lead readers to miss the big picture.
We’ll rule this not applicable, because, while there was no discussion of how the cost of white rice and brown rice compare, most people probably have a sense of the price ballpark. However, we have seen Chinese restaurants that charge extra for brown rice.
The story presented the potential benefit only as relative not absolute risk of developing type II diabetes, which we find troubling. What does it mean when you say "reduce their risk of developing Type 2 diabetes by about 10 percent" or "almost 20 percent more likely to develop Type 2 diabetes"? 10 percent of what? 20 percent of what? What were the absolute numbers in this huge observational study?
The statement "Just replacing a third of a serving of white rice with brown rice each day could reduce one’s risk of type II diabetes by 16%" is just not helpful for consumer comprehension.
Not applicable. No harms discussed, but both of these food choices are safe and likely to be well tolerated.
Rather than give the story an unsatisfactory grade for both the "evidence" criterion and the "benefits" criterion, we’ll choose to focus on the good thing it did in discussing the limitations of the evidence, with these excerpts:
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering about Type II diabetes.
No independent sources were quoted to give perspective about the results of the study presented. Single source medical science stories are not a good idea – not even for (especially not for?) the New York Times.
Although the study came up with a suggestion derived from a statistical analysis about replacing some of one’s white rice with brown rice, there was no discussion of other methods (i.e. maintaining adult body weight within the normal range or engaging in aerobic exercise) for reducing one’s risk of type II diabetes. Even a short line could have been dedicated to this important context.
Both white rice and brown rice are widely available. That said – there are food oases where comprehensive grocery stores are not accessible and where brown rice would be more difficult, though not impossible to come by. There was no discussion of this in the story.
The story was clear to indicate that this is not the first data analysis that has suggested that brown rice is a healthier alternative to white rice.
Not applicable because we can’t be sure of the extent to which the story was influenced by a Harvard news release. We are sure that the story didn’t quote any independent sources – just the study author.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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