Read Original Story

Eating watermelon could lower your blood pressure


2 Star

Eating watermelon could lower your blood pressure

Our Review Summary

This story may have graded much lower, but we think we were generous with a couple of our scores.

It is difficult to understand why a news organization would devote time and space to such a preliminary story about a controversial "condition" or "diagnosis" without even mentioning the controversies. In effect, the paper turned over part of its pages this day to a university news release.  That used to be called advertising. Except that the university got it for free.

But controversy over "pre-hypertension" aside, this story didn’t evaluate evidence, didn’t tell readers about how difficult it is to draw any conclusions from a study in just 9 people, didn’t have independent sources, and didn’t disclose that the watermelon research was funded by the National Watermelon Promotional Board.


Why This Matters

Rather than reporting on such preliminary research, journalists may want to consider asking tougher, broader questions about the supposed diagnosis of pre-hypertension, which critics such as public health professor Curt Furberg of Wake Forest University says is "not a condition” but rather "a way of increasing markets for pharmaceutical companies.” Or, in this case perhaps, watermelon producers.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

Not applicable.  The cost of watermelon is not in question.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story only reported that "researchers found that eating six grams of watermelon extract a day for six weeks lowered blood pressure in all nine middle-aged subjects with prehypertension."  It didn’t say by how much.  Was it a difference of159/99 down to, say, 120/80?  Exactly how much of a difference in both systolic and diastolic pressures did it make? 

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


We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt for at least mentioning that the researchers "reported no adverse effects." Even if there had been any, though, there’s a good chance they may not have shown up in just 9 people.

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

Not Satisfactory

There is no discussion of the limitations of drawing any conclusions from a study of just 9 people. The story mentions "pilot" and "preliminary" but doesn’t tell the reader anything about the limitations therein.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

The story states that "Approximately 60 percent of U.S. adults are prehypertensive or hypertensive."  No source is cited for that estimate.

More importantly, there is no discussion of concerns about the labeling of "prehypertension" as a disease. It’s not difficult to find criticism – even from other journalists such as Ray Moynihan, in a recent issue of the journal BMJ. Excerpt: 

  • “It’s not a condition,” says Curt Furberg, professor of public health at Wake-Forest University. “It’s a way of increasing markets for pharmaceutical companies.”

It also allowed one of the researchers to say "Cardiovascular disease [CVD] continues to be the leading cause of death in the United States. Generally, Americans have been more concerned about their blood cholesterol levels and dietary cholesterol intakes than their overall cardiovascular health risk factors leading to CVD, such as obesity and vascular dysfunction characterized by arterial stiffening and thickness –– issues that functional foods such as watermelon can help to mitigate."

But this story didn’t investigate any evidence about arterial stiffening and thickness.  And it was not about all cardiovascular disease.  It was about 9 people with "pre-hypertension." 

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

Not Satisfactory

There were no independent sources in the story.

The story also failed to disclose that the researchers are supported by grants from the National Watermelon Promotional Board. 

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

There was no discussion of any other methods that might be used or have been researched to lower levels of so-called "pre-hypertension."

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

Not Applicable

Not applicable.  The availability of watermelon is not in question.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


We’ll again give the story the benefit of the doubt for explaining that there had been some prior research: "While watermelon or watermelon extract is the best natural source for L-citrulline, it is also available in the synthetic form in pills, which Figueroa used in a previous study of younger, male subjects."  But it didn’t tell readers whether any of these findings had been confirmed by any other independent research team(s).

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

Not Satisfactory

Entire portions of the story appear to be lifted directly from a Florida State news release.

Total Score: 2 of 8 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.