Yet another miracle food to add to the list. This story excites the reader at the prospect of eating dried plums to reduce the risk of colon cancer. In a study on rats, researchers from Texas A&M University found that a diet consisting of dried plums promotes beneficial bacteria in the colon and reduces the development of precancerous lesions. But does a reduction in such lesions (not actual cancers) in a rat mean that a human eating more plums would have less risk of developing cancer? The story eagerly suggests that “people who eat dried plums as part of a regular diet can reduce their risk for developing colon cancer.” But we think that statement is totally inappropriate based on this animal study. In fact, human readers would be “plum” crazy to change their diet based on this research.
According to the National Cancer Institute, colon cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, and approximately $13.8 billion is spent annually on providing colon cancer care. Colon cancer prevention is a top priority, but when risk factors include age, obesity, alcohol consumption, and physical inactivity, dried plums may not be the most appropriate intervention.
Although it was not explicitly mentioned in the article, most readers understand that dried plums are a low-cost intervention.
The headline of this story is misleading. The idea that dried plums “may reduce colon cancer risk” is simply not supported by the study. The study looked at levels of bacteria and the number of precancerous lesions in rats — the idea that this has a relationship to risk of actual colon cancer in humans is not tenable and an overstatement. Beyond that, the article doesn’t quantify in any way the effects of the plums on bacteria levels or, more importantly, on the number of precancerous lesions observed.
We don’t want to overstate the risks here, but it’s pretty well known that plums have high fiber content and accordingly can produce unpleasant effects on the digestive system. According to the website of the California Plum Board (also the funders of this study), healthy adults can incorporate 10-12 dried plums daily into their diet without significant changes in their bowel habits. The website also includes the caveat that everyone has different digestive reactions, and some people may want to start with smaller amounts. A nod to this concern would have earned the story a Satisfactory rating.
The lede says, “PEOPLE who eat dried plums as part of a regular diet can reduce their risk for developing colon cancer” (our emphasis added). But this study looked at RATS — not PEOPLE. The story waits too long to alert readers to the fact that this is an animal study. Findings based on animal studies should identify that fact early in the story so that readers — humans — can gauge the story’s importance to them, not to rats.
There is no exaggeration of colon cancer or the outcomes of the disease.
Not only does the article fail to bring in any outside testimonial, it also does not mention that the research was sponsored by the California Dried Plum Board.
The article makes no mention of any other prevention tactics for colon cancer, and how the consumption of dried plums compares. The American Cancer Society recommends changes in diet as one of the six ways to prevent colon cancer, but notes that eating more vegetables, fruits, and whole grains can contribute to better colon health. Dried plums seem to only be a small part of that strategy, and the reader should understand that an overall healthy diet could be effective as well. Following recommended colon cancer screening practices is also an effective method of reducing cancer risk.
It is assumed that dried plums are readily available at your local grocery store, so even though the story didn’t discuss availability, we won’t ding the story for this. We’ll rule it Not Applicable.
The story positions this research as a “discovery” that is applicable to people — an overstatement at best. It also does not accurately present the intervention in the context of similar research on the effects of a healthy diet.
The article does not employ any outside sources about the effects of diet on colon cancer, and its only quotes are pulled directly from this news release. Although the story appropriately acknowledges the fact that the news release is the source for these quotes, we don’t see any information in the story that didn’t also appear in the release. So we’re inclined to rule this Not Satisfactory.
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