Heart attack relief? The truth about omega-3 fatty acids
Reviewed By
Rating
Heart attack relief? The truth about omega-3 fatty acids
Our Review Summary
This TV piece did a reasonable job explaining the new wave of omega-3 fatty acid fortified foods. It is a shame that the sections on benefits and harms were not more descriptive. To its credit, the story turned to world renowned experts for this story (Dr. Walter Willett from Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Alice Lichtenstein from Tufts University Friedman School of Nutrition Science Policy).The two scientists cited could have easily provided additional details to guide the consumer in this regard.
While it was amusing to ponder whether orange juice supplemented with omega-3 fatty acid from fish would taste fishy, the story failed to deliver content that might help the viewer understand the magnitude of the benefits one might realistically gain from increasing dietary omega-3 fatty acid or the level of harm that has been associated with this nutrient. In addition, the story did not include information about costs.
It would have been better to provide people with more context to help them understand what they might gain from omega-3 fatty acids and to know that there are real risks associated with consumption of these – whether from fish or from fortified foods – so that consumers could make educated choices at the grocery store.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
The story did not mention the mention whether the costs for omega-3 fortified foods were typically higher than, equal to, or less than traditional products. It also would have been helpful to have provided an estimate of the costs for a "therapeutic dose."
Not Satisfactory
Though there was passing mention of health benefits associated with consumption omega-3 fatty acids from marine sources, there were no estimates of the magnitude of benefit that might be obtained. There was also no indication about the nature of the studies demonstrating these potential benefits.
Satisfactory
The story did mention preliminary results demonstrating an association between increased risk of prostate cancer and macular degeneration with increased consumption of alpha-linolenic acid from plants which the body can convert to omega-3 fatty acids. There were no estimates for the magnitude of the increased risk, nor any details about the studies from which the association was derived.
The story ends with a recommendation to get omega-3 fatty acids from fish, but no discussion of the known potential harms from those sources. But since most of the story was on fortified foods, we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
Not Satisfactory
The piece included bullet points indicating that omega-3 fatty acids reduce heart attacks and relieve arthritis pain. At the end of the story, there was mention of preliminary research suggesting that plant-derived omega-3 fatty acids may increase the risk of prostate cancer and macular degeneration. But for these benefits or harms, the story failed to explain the magnitude of the effect. There was very little in this story about the quality of the evidence.
Satisfactory
No overt disease mongering.
Satisfactory
The story turned to world renowned experts for this story (Dr. Walter Willett from Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Alice Lichtenstein from Tufts University Friedman School of Nutrition Science Policy). It also gave an industry spokesman some airtime.
Not Satisfactory
Although the story did make clear that one might obtain omega-3 fatty acids from fish or plant sources, there was no clear indication as to whether the health benefits that might be gained could be obtained through other treatment options.
Satisfactory
It's clear from the story that omega-3 fortified foods are readily available.
Satisfactory
As the story states, there is, indeed a new wave of omega-3 fatty acid fortified foods.
Satisfactory
Does not appear to rely solely or largely on a press release.
Total Score: 6 of 10 Satisfactory
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