Health researchers have had a long and torrid affair with the humble fish. The New York Times article ably sums up the result of their imposing efforts—mass confusion. The story recaps the mixed evidence suggesting that fish eating can cheat death–as well as conflicting evidence suggesting it can speed our trip to the grave. The story’s sources are appropriate and their conflicts mostly transparent. The article’s omissions are mostly minor. However, there is one important failure. The story expresses the most significant reported benefits of fish consumption as reductions in the relative risk of death, but does not translate this into reductions in absolute risk; unfortunately, the JAMA study making the health claim does the same. (Read more about absolute vs. relative risk.) This is particularly relevant, because readers might overestimate the absolute risk reduction attributable to fish consumption for both cardiovascular disease and death.
The article did not report information about the costs of fish (from 63 cents to $2.59 per week, according to the JAMA study), but readers can easily find these on their own if they don’t know them already.
The article expresses the most significant reported benefits of fish consumption—decreases in coronary death and total mortality—as reductions in relative risk. The article does not explain how this translates into reductions in absolute risk. (Read more about absolute vs. relative risk.) The story also doesn't explain what the risk of death is for those who do not consume fish—but neither does the JAMA study that makes the health claim. The story does quote one source who quips, “[The study] would indeed make eating fish the single most important decision you can make for your health.”
The story presents balanced information about potential harms of fish consumption, though it would have been stronger if it had included more detail about harms. For example, it might have noted the effects of mercury on fetal development.
The story explains briefly and accurately the quality of evidence to support the claims of cardioprotection (a mix of controlled trials and observational studies), and in so doing illustrates why it is so difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the health effects of fish consumption.
This article will disappoint fishmongers and disease mongers alike. It carefully mutes the hope and hype surrounding both the purported benefits of dietary fish consumption (reductions in coronary death and death from all causes) as well as the risks (contamination by mercury, PCBs, and dioxins).
The article cites an array of scientific experts, regulatory authorities, industry sources, and representatives of various advocacy groups. It also provides sufficient information to determine their potential conflicts of interest.
The article nicely summarizes the potential advantages and disadvantages of fish consumption. However, it does not compare the reported protective effect of fish either to other potentially cardioprotective foods or to established medical therapies (e.g. aspirin) for cardiovascular disease. Eating fish is only one piece of a healthy lifestyle for minimizing risk of cardiovascular disease and overall mortality.
There isn't any doubt about the availability of fish.
The idea that fish consumption is protective against death and disease is not new, and the article provides sufficient context for readers to accurately judge this.
Because the story relied on several different sources, it is appears safe to assume it did not rely 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/
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