Letters to the Magazine

The Food-News Media Frenzy

Readers remain confused by the seemingly contradictory health and diet information reported by the media, as explored in our March 13 cover story. One researcher explained the rush to report medical findings this way: "Scientific research lets the chips fall where they may," he said. "Yet pressures and expectations [come] from a diet-obsessed public starving for a quick fix and [a] media hungry for a quick sound bite." An instructor at Harvard's School of Public Health wrote, "Reporters fail to report each study as just one brick in the wall of evidence, that most science isn't breakthrough." Yet one reader said people have to use common sense. "For healthy eating," he wrote, "no special degree is necessary to practice these ancient thoughts: eat more local (possibly organic) produce [and] more whole foods." A doctor said: "Eat less and move more; common sense and moderation solve the problem most of the time."

What's Nutritious Now?

Thank you for partially deflating the media-hype bubbles that appear with each new major research finding related to health ("Food News Blues," March 13). The article discusses taking into account a study's research design and the inevitable confusion inherent in all studies. However, it fails to point out that for a finding to be considered reliable, it should be replicated. Given the right set of conditions--which includes bias produced by scientists' agendas--virtually any hypothesis can be supported in a single study. Ideally, researchers should not report findings that can influence the lives of millions of people before their findings have been replicated. However, the practical and political constraints of conducting large-scale health research and the length of prospective studies may preclude following such a conservative path. And the media are not likely to restrain themselves from reporting any finding that will intrigue their readers and viewers. Partial solutions to this dilemma are to present scientists' commentaries on the headline findings and to educate nonscientists so that they can ask critical questions as they evaluate today's health "prescription" before tomorrow's is published. "Food News Blues" was a step in that direction.

Michael D. Spiegler Dept. of Psychology, Providence CollegeProvidence, R.I.

NEWSWEEK correctly reported on the longstanding problem with the use of breaking-news headlines when nutrition findings are about to be published. Conflicting research results show us this is not a subject that can be boiled down into a list of good and bad foods. Your article, however, though accurately describing the problem, fails to offer a solution to readers on how to proceed. An attempt at clarification was made using coffee, red wine, milk, nuts, eggs, tuna and olive oil as examples of confusion, but what about other controversial foods? How does answering your question "Why all the mixed messages?" help readers move forward? For practical, timely and scientifically accurate information about food and nutrition, readers should have been advised to consult the food and nutrition experts, registered dietitians. Progressive medical practices have recognized the need for nutrition counseling in an effort to improve patient care. They accomplish this by hiring experts who can reliably interpret the diet hype created by the media.