This story focuses primarily on a May 11 paper published in the BMJ, which reported that eating more fruit (particularly during adolescence) was associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer for women.
A healthy diet and breast cancer risk reduction are worthy topics, but the story doesn’t touch on some important points — such as the fact that a previous study in Pediatrics by the same researchers, using the same cohort data, pointed to adolescent dietary fiber intake as a significant factor in reducing breast cancer risk. We also were confused by the data discussion: What does a 25% reduction actually mean? Without absolute numbers, we’re just not sure.
As we noted in our story reviews related to the earlier Pediatrics study, the CDC reports that breast cancer is the most common cancer in women in the United States — with more than 224,000 new cases reported in 2012 alone.
Research findings that identify new ways to reduce the incidence of breast cancer are newsworthy, particularly when the new health measures may also have significant ancillary health benefits — as is likely the case with consuming a diet high in fruits.
Cost was not discussed, and because this is about fruit, we’ll rate this N/A. However, it is worth pointing out that fresh fruit isn’t something that all consumers can take for granted, since it can be expensive and hard to find in areas known as “food deserts.”
The story tells readers that women “who reported eating nearly three servings of fruit a day on average [during adolescence] had a 25% lower risk of developing breast cancer than those who ate half a serving of fruit.” However, it’s not clear where that number comes from. And what does that mean in terms of absolute risk? I.e., how likely is someone who ate only half a serving of fruit as a teen to get cancer? The story doesn’t tell us — and that is key. If a story tells readers that eating “nearly three servings of fruit” as a teen means a “25% lower” risk, it needs to say 25% lower than what.
There are no significant risks with eating three servings of fruit per day during adolescence, so we’ll rate this not applicable.
The story offers a general overview of the study, which analyzed data from the Nurse’s Health Study, but didn’t make at least one key point clear: The adolescent diet data that the study results hinge on were self-reported years after the fact. As the BMJ paper itself notes, “adolescent diet might be misclassified because assessments were done when women were aged 33-52.” And as a related editorial in BMJ notes, “Much more evidence is needed before we can draw conclusions on the reported protective association between adolescent fruit intake and breast cancer risk.”
No independent sources were included in the article, nor does it tell readers who funded the study. In this case, the work was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association.
This one squeaks by, because it also addresses risk factors such as alcohol and red-meat consumption. However, it would have been better to place the work into a broader context of lifestyle factors that influence risk, such as exercise, maintaining a health weight and avoiding tobacco use.
Fruit has been around longer than humans have, so we’ll rate this not applicable.
The story does note that the study is “among the first” to look at adolescent diet and cancer risk, which is good. But it misses a key point: that this exact same group of researchers, using the same set of data, published a paper in March focused on adolescent diet and breast cancer risk. That paper focused specifically on the role of dietary fiber in reducing breast cancer risk. This story discusses dietary fiber, but does so without the context that would come from discussing (even briefly) the earlier paper.
This is a close one, since the story is very similar to a release from BMJ. However, the story does appear to include quotes from an interview with the lead author.
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.
You might also like