This story reports on the FDA’s recent rejection of a petition to allow sellers of green tea to make claims that the product can lower heart disese risk. Oddly, the story gave almost equal time to the supposition of benefit from green tea as it did to an explanation of the science behind the FDA’s decision. This story had the opportunity to help educate consumers about how to assess unsubstantiated claims made about products.
Although there have been a number of benefits suggested from consumption of green tea, informed consumers should be aware of the differece between these and health claims supported by scientific evidence.
The story also could have presented evidence on the potential harms of green tea and on alternative evidence-based ways to reduce heart disease risk.
Although it was mentioned that the largest maker of green tea had profits last year of $14 million, there was no estimate for the cost of green tea for the consumer.
This was a report on the lack of evidence to support the contention that green tea consumption provided benefit in terms of heart disease risk.
This report revealed that the assumed benefit of green tea for reducing heart disease was not supported by the scientific evidence. It did not, however, discuss the potential adverse effects of green tea, particularly caffeine, on patients with known cardiovascular disease.
This story mentioned that the FDA reviewed the results from 105 studies in order to reach its conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to support the health claim that green tea reduces the risk of heart disease. It ended with mention of the plans by the company marketing green tea to conduct future studies to try and prove the health benefits.
This story presents the conflict between what people believe to be true – bits of scientific evidence that drift into public consciousness (i.e. Green tea has antioxidants, therefore it is good for you) – and demonstsration of clinicial benefit.
This story contained interviews with several people on the street to support the contention that consumption of green tea is common place; as well as a quote from a marketing manager from what is reported to be the largest maker of green tea. For perspective on why the FDA was petitioned for this health claim, quotes from scientists working in the area of heart disease risk or the biochemistry of antioxidants might have been useful.
There was no mention of lifestyle changes or drugs that have been demonstrated to decrease heart disease risk.
This story mentions that millions of Americans drink beverages containing green tea.
There was no claim made of novelty associated with consumption of green tea. Just the opposite. Though green tea is recently popular in the United States, mention was made of its consumption in Asia for thousands of years.
This piece does not appear to rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
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