One of 3 stories we reviewed on this study (Reuters and HealthDay were the others), this one did raise some interesting thoughts about why the study failed to show a difference and reported on some of the other types of foods that are now commercially fortified with omega-3 fatty acids.
Health claims in food marketing require a great deal of scrutiny. This new data casts some doubt on some past marketing practices. We’ll see how and if that changes – and if consumer behavior and health care advice changes at all. As a quote in the Reuters story suggests, don’t hold your breath waiting for such change.
As the products used in the study are not commercially available, there was no mention of their presumptive costs.
(It might have been interesting to explore how fortified margarines compare in cost to those which are not.)
The story indicate that there did not appear to be any advantage from the use of the fortified margarines. However – the study actually found a suggestion of a statistical benefit in the sub-population of individuals who had had a prior heart attack and who also had diabetes.
This is a correction of our originally-posted score on this criterion. The story did, indeed, report that "there were no harmful side effects."
Adequate description of the study and of its possible limitations.
The story included quotes from sources not involved in the study.
The story mentioned the increasing number of foods on the shelves that are fortified with omega-3 fatty acids and perhaps the results of this study will make readers question whether such fortification is actually value added. While indicating that the people in the study were receiving optimal medical therapy, the story did not mention other possible means by which individuals who have had a heart attack can lower their chance of having another one. Even one line of such context would have been appreciated and helpful.
While indicating that Unilever makes an omega-3 fortified margarine, the story didn’t mention that the margarines used in the study were specifically formulated for the study and are not commercially available. However – there are commercially available margarines that are fortified with omega-3 fatty acids.
Although the story was not clear that the margarines used in the study were prepared exclusively for use in the study, it did indicate that similarly fortified products are commercially available.
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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