This article reported on the the FDA’s rejection of a petition to allow sellers of green tea to legally claim that it reduces the risk of heart disease. Although green tea has become more popular during the last decade, there is insufficient evidence to support the contention that green tea is beneficial in terms of heart disease risk. The article reported this in an unsensational fashion and also educated the reader about health claims.
While reporting on the lack of evidence to support the contention that green tea provides cardiovascular benefit, this article missed the opportunity to mention evidence-based ways to reduce cardiovascular risk. It also did not inform the reader on potential harms of green tea consumption for some people (especially those with heart problems for whom caffeine consumption may be limited).
The story said that spokespersons for the world’s largest green tea company and for the consulting group that filed the petition with the FDA did not respond to messages left for them. But there were no comments from individuals conducting research investigating whether green tea affects heart disease risk.
The article did not contain any reference to the cost of green tea.
The article reported that the FDA found no evidence of heart disease benefit associated with consumption of green tea.
This article reports that consumption of green tea is not an effective means for reducing risk of heart disease. However, it failed to mention potential harms of consuming green tea. It can be harmful for people with heart problems for whom consumption of caffeine is restricted.
The article mentioned that the FDA reportedly reviewed 105 articles and other publications in order to assess the validity for making a health claim for green tea with respect to heart disease. The article also mentioned the FDA’s previous rejection of the health claim that green tea reduces cancer risk.
This article reported on the FDA’s rejection of the petition to allow the health claim that green tea affected the risk of heart disease.
The story said that spokespersons for the world’s largest green tea company and for the consulting group that filed the petition with the FDA did not respond to messages left for them. But there were no comments from individuals conducting research investigating whether green tea affects heart disease risk.
There was no mention of lifestyle or dietary approaches or drugs for decreasing heart disease risk.
The article explained that green tea is made from unfermented tea leaves and mentioned that its popularity had grown over the last decade.
Consumption of green tea was not touted as being new or novel. The history of green tea consumption is centuries old.
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
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