It seems that not a day goes by without the media reporting on some new health or nutrition study. Whether it’s television, radio, the daily newspaper, or a monthly magazine, new scientific studies on food, nutrition, and health make headlines. In general, having the availability of information on such an important topic is a good thing: the more we know about our health, the better choices we can make. On the other hand, with an the abundance of health and nutrition information swirling around us, much of it delivered in small bits and pieces, it can be difficult for most of us to decide which pieces of information are accurate and important for us and our particular health and nutrition situations.
News Bites Don’t Warrant Behavior Changes
During television or radio reports on new scientific studies, it may be difficult to evaluate what you’re hearing because the reports are so short and often fail to provide important facts and or place the information in an appropriate context. In most cases, it is usually best to obtain further information before you act. For example, if you saw a television report on the results of a new study that indicated that eating 25 apples a day helped prevent cancer, you would not immediately stock up on apples and start eating!
In addition, news bites such as those featured on the nightly news shows often do not provide enough information for an informed decision. In fact, you could ask many questions about a report like the one about eating apples mentioned above. What type of study was it? Was it conducted with humans or animals? How large was the study population, and how long did it the study last? Exactly how effective was the apple-eating regimen?
Equally important is that, except in rare cases, the results of a single study are not necessarily conclusive; frequently more studies are needed to confirm those results. Therefore, until you have more complete information—either by reading more about the subject, or from your physician or health professional, look before you leap into changing diet or lifestyle.
Tips for Evaluating Science
Written reports of new health and nutrition studies are easier to evaluate than television or radio reports because they usually present more information. Consider the following when reading about new studies in a newspaper or magazine article:
Study design
The way in which a study is organized and conducted can affect the results and relevance to our everyday lives.
A “preliminary” study offers just the first glimpse at what may someday become a health recommendation, whereas the results of a study that confirms the findings of many previous studies may themselves be considered recommendations of sorts.
Furthermore, studies that show associations or relationships do not necessarily indicate cause and effect (as in, “X is associated with a decreased risk for Y”). Controlled studies, which test the effects of a specific treatment on a condition, are the only type of study that can show cause and effect. Often, the most relevant controlled experiments are clinical trials, which use human volunteer subjects. The “gold standard” of clinical trials is the double-blind, placebo-controlled study, in which the subjects are randomly assigned to either the experimental group or the control group.
Funding source
In today’s confrontational environment, research has sometimes been criticized or its findings may be dismissed entirely because industry or some other interested party has funded the research. To provide sources of funding information to the public, most scientific journals require that this information be referenced at the end of the paper. Funding information is important but should not be the sole criterion for the evaluation of a scientific study.
Good scientific research is costly. This is because it is complicated, frequently time-consuming, and involves numerous people (researchers, statisticians, etc.) who are paid for their time and expertise. This is why governments, universities, industry groups, or individual companies fund most nutrition and health research. Whether funding comes from government, industry, health organizations, individuals or any other source, what is important is to view the merits of the study using the yardstick of scientific standards.
Take the example of a food ingredient. The federal government requires that companies that want to market new food ingredients must demonstrate the safety and efficacy of their products through scientific research using guidance principles established over the years jointly by government officials, academicians and industry scientists. Thus, the company must fund studies before the government will even consider the new ingredient. If industry did not fund the research, it would not be done at all and many new products would never reach the marketplace.
| Whether funding comes from government, industry, health organizations, individuals or any other source, what is important is to view the merits of the study using the yardstick of scientific standards. |
The other side of the funding “coin” is the researchers themselves. Researchers have worked long and hard to obtain their academic and professional credentials and standings. As members of the broader community, they would neither risk the health of their family and friends nor would they risk losing their credibility by publishing flawed data or biased conclusions. Moreover, academic institutions where much research is carried out have policies in place that ensure that conflicts of interest do not play a role in the science.
Finally, funding sources for studies are always disclosed in reputable journals in which the studies are published, and media reports usually include this information as well.
What is the bottom line? The funding source should be just one of many factors that you consider when evaluating a scientific study—not the sole consideration. The results of a good scientific study—a study that is well designed and properly conducted—will stand on their own merit, regardless of who funded the research.
Context
Context pertains to the peripheral but relevant information needed to put a study’s results into perspective and make the information useful in real life. In a word, it’s the details. Because of the abbreviated nature of television and radio news reports, contextual information is rarely included in coverage of new health and nutrition studies. In the print media, context is frequently presented at the end of the article, so that only the most persistent readers will get all of the information they need to fully evaluate the credibility of the study.
Examples of context in stories and articles on nutrition and health might include the following: the amount of a food consumed or specifics about the dosage of a supplement taken, the frequency of its consumption, details about the study population (gender, age, etc.), and information about risk- benefit trade- offs as well as information on whether the study confirmed or contradicted previous studies.
When the topic of a new scientific study seems to pertain to your life or those of your family members, it’s a good idea to try to gather as much information about it as possible. The old adage, “if it sounds too good (or bad) to be true, it probably is,” applies to nutrition and food safety as well as anything else. Getting the opinions of your physician, a dietitian, or other health professional, and then taking a common- sense approach to evaluating all the information, will help you make an informed decision about whether the results of a study should influence your behavior.
