This story reports on a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that found little impact from the use of omega-3 supplemented margarine. The outcomes of the study were interpreted as suggesting that a population using optimal medical therapy does not benefit from increasing their omega-3 fatty acid levels beyond that which they get through a diet that includes fish. Although those using supplemented margarine were seen to have higher circulating levels of the nutrient, there did not appear to be much impact on their of cardiac events.
The key quote in the story was this:
"It will be viewed as a largely negative study and people who are enthusiasts for omega fatty acids will continue to be enthusiasts and people who are skeptics will continue to be skeptics," said Scott Wright of the Mayo Clinic in the United States, who was not involved in the research.
Not applicable; the product in question is not commercially available. But why didn’t the story give us some range for comparison by giving us the price of Unilever’s existing omega-3 margarine brands?
We’re going to be a bit tougher on this one. The story failed to mention the benefits reported in the results section of the paper demonstrating that for those who had diabetes in addition to having had a heart attack, there did appear to be some benefit in terms of reduced incidence of coronary artery disease, death from coronary heart disease and incidence of arrhythmia.
We always think harms should be addressed – even the absence of harms. Consumers need to be educated that no product making health claims is cost-free or harm-free. The story did not mention that there did not appear to be any differences among the various groups in terms of harms. But since there were no differences, we’ll simply rule this Not Applicable.
The story delivered a big picture overview of how the research was done – which is adequate.
It might have been interesting to report on several statistically significant findings in the results section of the paper that we were not mentioned in the abstract.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story included quotes from one of the authors of the study and a clinician who was not connected with the study.
The story reported that that salmon, herring and sardine are common sources of EPA-DHA, while ALA is found in some vegetables. So alternatives were mentioned. And it mentioned drugs like Lovaza. There wasn’t any real comparison, but there was the following important line of context about the new study:
The story indicated that the margarine used in the study was created for the researchers by Unilever, suggesting that they aren’t commercially available. But why not make that point explicitly?
Although the product being tested was indeed novel as the story indicated, the story was reported from the standpoint of possible impact the results of the study might have on dietary recommendations or the use of n-3 fatty acid supplements.
It’s clear the story didn’t rely solely or largely on a news release.
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