This is a story about a new low calorie soft drink surrounded by marketing claims that it is a "calorie-burner". The story could have been more assertive with the company experts instead of allowing them to make basically unsubstantiated health benefit claims about weight loss. The piece could have probed further into the claim that the benefit is "proven", when in fact the company has not published or even released the design and results of its study of this product. The lack of substantive comments by people in the nutrition field (with expertise in functional foods) also limits the usefulness of this piece for consumers. A more responsible means for handling this would been to give an unaffiliated expert in the field of weight loss time to provide some context for the claims put forth by the company spokesperson. (The piece did contain two statements from experts in nutrition who did not appear to have ties to the Coca-Cola company, but the content contributed by these individuals was very brief and far more limiited than the company-produced information.) Although the conversation was carefully crafted not to make exaggerated claims about weight loss, the overall sense of the story would lead a viewer to think that the product would be more helpful in terms of weight loss than there is any reason (data) to support.
The story mentioned that this product was to be used in combination with physical activity and a balanced, very moderate diet to 'invigorate' one's metabolism. This story failed to mention that the same lifestyle interventions without the inclusion of Enviga would elicit the same health benefits. This piece also failed to point out that weight re-gain would be likely when consumption of this bevereage ceased. In addition, the story did not discuss other approaches to weight loss.
Overall, the Today Show provided a great commercial opportunity for the new Coke product.
This story presented the cost ($1.29/can) of this product.
Even if the reported benefit of increasing caloric expenditure by 60-100 calories per day were to be something maintained consistently over time when this beverage were consumed along with a prudent diet and physical activity – there are absolutely no data supporting that consumption of this beverage or the components in this beverage results in weight loss or inhibits weight gain. It is equally plausible that people drinking this beverage in the setting of the real world might actually gain weight because they might choose to munch on snacks while consuming Enviga, thereby increasing their total daily caloric intake.
There was no mention of potential harms other than some possible concerns about caffeine consumption; even if there is nothing known about harms from this product, that could have been clearly stated.
There was a lot of pseudo-science tossed about in this story. At this point in time, there are no published studies demonstrating this beverage or the components this beverage contain actually have any effect on weight. Just because there are a small number of studies that found that energy expenditure by non-obese individuals in a very controlled setting differed in a 24 hr. period of time does not mean that that effect will be maintained over a period of time, nor that the body's homeostatic mechanisms for caloric intake regulation will be affected. Just saying that they have science that documents something does not mean that their interpretation is valid. Simply referencing a "study" carried out by the Coca-Cola company is not sufficient.
The story did not disease monger about obesity and the health risks associated with obesity.
This story carried interview material with a company spokesperson and did contain two statements from experts in nutrition who did not appear to have ties to the Coca-Cola company. It should be noted the content contributed by these individuals was very brief and far more limiited than the company-produced information. These expert statements were far too brief to provide a balanced view. A more balanced discussion would have greatly improved the value of this story beyond marketing for Enviga.
The story mentioned that this product was to be used in combination with physical activity and a balanced, very moderate diet to 'invigorate' one's metabolism. This story failed to mention that the same lifestyle interventions without the inclusion of Enviga would elicit the same health benefits. This piece also failed to point out that weight re-gain would be likely when consumption of this bevereage ceased. In addition, the story did not discuss other approaches to weight loss.
This story reported that the product will be available in New York, Philadelphia and New Jersey next month and then nationwide the beginning of the next year.
This story reported on a new product made by Coca-Cola.
This story did not rely on text from a press release, though much of the information was presented by a company spokesperson.
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.