The story opens with a click-bait headline, a brief description of the main study finding, and then pulls its own punch by detailing the limitations of the observational study. We’re pleased to see the caveats high up before any readers head to the grocery to buy some red hot chili peppers. But we’d be happier to see such a story be put into more context, with some discussion of other dietary factors that affect death rates and some outside experts to comment on what this study really means for the American eaters of any kind of peppers.
How dietary factors may influence life — how long and vigorously one lives — is of great interest to readers of health news. And yet dietary research that focuses on singular ingredients (or individual nutrients) inevitably ends up being click-baity. Regardless of how well a study is reported, these stories contribute to the deification/demonization of specific foods. In turn, it fuels the idea of superfoods and fad diets while simultaneously distracting from bigger picture issues around healthy living.
Not applicable. The intervention was an easily available and inexpensive food.
The story says the benefit was a 13% lower risk of death, but relative risks can be misleading to the average reader as we point out in this primer on the topic.
The study itself says that study participants were followed for a median of 19 years and 21.6% of consumers of red hot chili peppers died during followup as compared to 33.6% of abstainers. But those numbers might also be misleading, because they don’t reflect adjustment for other factors (age, race, physical activity, etc) that may have affected the outcomes.
So in this case there likely isn’t a perfect way to express the size of the benefit observed by the researchers. Given imperfect options, however, we think it’s always a good idea to give the absolute rate of whatever outcomes are being discussed — e.g. something like “21.6% of chili consumers died during the study period compared with 33.6% of abstainers.” That’s intuitively more meaningful than saying, “consumption of hot red chili peppers was associated with a 13 percent lower risk of death.” 13% lower than what?
The story addresses potential harms from eating red hot chili peppers, by quoting an expert source warning about discomfort and worsening symptoms in people with digestive disorders such as stomach ulcers.
Despite the overoptimistic title, the story discusses limitations of the research clearly and early on. The study is described as observational and plainly says no cause and effect relationship can be established. It also mentions that there’s no good understanding of the mechanism by which red hot chili peppers might influence risk of death.
But with observational studies there are always caveats. The study also found an association between those who consumed more hot red chili peppers and gender, age, ethnicity, marriage status, smoking and alcohol consumption, certain diet preferences, lower HDL-cholesterol levels, and lowered income and education levels. The study might have focused on one of those variables instead of longevity.
The story doesn’t engage in disease mongering.
The story cites phrases from the paper itself, but otherwise the study authors are not quoted. The only true quote is pulled from a 2015 CBS News story about another study in which eating spicy food is linked to lower risk of death; the quote comes from that study’s author. No other sources were quoted, which could have given the story much needed context.
Of all the things people might do to live a longer, healthier, life, how does eating red hot chili peppers stack up? The reader of this story has no help evaluating how 13% decrease risk of death compares to other dietary factors, such as the fruit and vegetable recommendations included in USDA dietary guidelines.
Red hot chili pepper are widely available in American supermarkets.
The story doesn’t claim novelty but says the study “strengthens the growing body of evidence that spicy food may have protective health properties that can lead to a longer life.”
The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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