We only wish the column had added a brief note about concerns about harms from antioxidants and a bit more about why the evidence cited by manufacturers is so inconclusive.
“Fountain of youth…anti-aging…youthful skin” product claims demand scrutiny. They got it in this column. We wish this same approach would be applied more often to the broad range of health care products and claims.
The Healthy Skeptic column – as it usually does – included cost information.
The story states that “there’s still some hope that antioxidants can help the skin, but the resuits likely aren’t as dramatic as the companies suggest.”
It also raises some questions about the benefits suggested in a couple of studies.
The column implies the harm of consumers being misled by products without evidence to back them up.
But it could have also at least briefly addressed some of the published concerns about harms of antioxidants, such as:
The column goes half way to where we wish it would go – but we wish it would just add a line or two.
When it discusses one study of 36 adults, we wish it would emphasize how little conclusion can be drawn from such a tiny study.
When it discusses an unpublished, company-funded study, we wish it would more explicity delineate the red flags that should arise in readers’ minds.
No disease mongering of “youthful skin.” In fact, it shoots down many claims.
Two independent expert sources were cited.
The story could have discussed other research into approaches to protect healthy skin – even the basics of sun protection.
The availability of the skin supplements is made clear in the story.
No inappropriate claims of novelty are made. In fact, one source says “these products are over-hyped.”
It’s clear that the story involved independent reporting and vetting of claims.