In nutrition news, it seems as though there is always some fruit or vegetable that has the spotlight for potentially being able to correct all the ills known to man. Pomegranate products have become increasingly available and this article does a nice job of explaining some of the potentially health relevant properties of pomegranate, also explaining that there is not much scientific support for extravagant health claims made. The article then puts pomegranates into perspective; i.e. that they are a good source of antioxidants but that the greatest dietary benefit derives from eating a diet that contains a variety of colorful fruits and vegetables.
The article mentioned that researchers have been paid by a company that sells pomegranate products to do research into its beneficial properties. It referred to specific studies in which pomegranate was found to have beneficial effects on blood pressure and cholesterol, and on slowing the activity of remaining prostate cancer cells. But the article makes a lot of generally positive statements about anthocyanins and other polyphenols, which may or may not be the molecules responsible for health benefits of pomegranates. These positive statements about anti-oxidants bias the article towards a conclusion that these compounds are beneficial despite the apparently scant literature on human studies. Statements about “heart-protective” and “anti-cancer” effects should only be made in the context of supporting evidence.
While pointing out that one company that sells pomegranate products underwrites the costs of some studies done to explore the health benefits of these products, the story failed to inform the reader whether the two studies mentioned were funded by this company as well. The story also didn’t tell readers where the studies were published. While it could have been informative to include the perspectives of experts in the field of anti-oxidant, free radical, or polyphenolic compounds, this article is basically an op-ed piece.
There was no mention of the costs of pomegranates or pomegranate containing products or how these costs compare with other fruits and vegetables considered to be similarly rich in anti-oxidants and particularly polyphenolic compounds.
The article states that pomegranates produce cardiovascular benefits through decreased blood pressure (unquantified), decreased oxidation of LDL cholesterol (unquantified), improved coronary blood flow (unquantified), and reduced PSA (unquantified).
This article failed to mention any harms or ill-effects that might be associated with ingestion of pomegranate or pomegranate-containing products. There are several case reports of pomegranate allergies in the medical literature.
The article mentioned that researchers have been paid by a company that sells pomegranate products to do research into its beneficial properties. It referred to specific studies in which pomegranate was found to have beneficial effects on blood pressure and cholesterol, and on slowing the activity of remaining prostate cancer cells. But the article makes a lot of generally positive statements about anthocyanins and other polyphenols, which may or may not be the molecules responsible for health benefits of pomegranates. These positive statements about anti-oxidants bias the article towards a conclusion that these compounds are beneficial despite the apparently scant literature on human studies. Statements about “heart-protective” and “anti-cancer” effects should only be made in the context of supporting evidence.
This article did not contain obvious elements of disease-mongering.
While pointing out that one company that sells pomegranate products underwrites the costs of some studies done to explore the health benefits of these products, the story failed to inform the reader whether the two studies mentioned were funded by this company as well. The story also didn’t tell readers where the studies were published. While it could have been informative to include material from experts in the field of anti-oxidant, free radical, or polyphenolic compounds, this article is basically an op-ed piece.
The article was helpful to point out that the notion that the antioxidants in pomegranates, the anthocyanins, have properties that appear to protect against DNA damage (cancer-protective properties) and inflammation, comes from laboratory research using material in test tubes or animal models. There is no current FDA-approved health claim made for pomegranate beyond the recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption. Although the article discussed the potential for pomegranate to lower blood pressure, or oxidation of LDL cholesterol or growth of remaining prostate cancer cells after treatment, these results were presented as preliminary observations that await further study. There were no overt treatment claims made.
The article mentions that pomegranates are now ‘everywhere’. There has been an increased number of pomegranate-containing products available in grocery stores and other venues. However, the article mentions that there have been few good clinical studies with pomegranates and that the results from those few studies should be followed up with larger, better studies.
This article discusses the abundance of pomegranate products now available in the market in addition to the fruit in its uNPRocessed form. There were no claims made about the novelty, only that there are many products.
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. Then again, no sources are cited except a California company, so it’s not clear what sources were relied on.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.